God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")

[Taz]

Proof doesn't support that contention... yet.

The scientific atheism explanation of big bang is impossible with the non-existence of space and time. Furthermore, the cosmic expansion violates the laws of physics .

How do you explain it?

The BB was making space and time, so was probably not subject to its laws. Anyways, science can't see back that far back in time yet, it's all just theories.

 

[james bond]

But evolution is real regardless. Maybe god built it into his plan?

I doubt it was in God's plan, but I will give you that there are many believers who believe in God made evolution. There are less who believe in straight creation from the Bible. The difference between ding and I.

 

[Hollie]

But evolution is real regardless. Maybe god built it into his plan?

I doubt it was in God's plan, but I will give you that there are many believers who believe in God made evolution. There are less who believe in straight creation from the Bible. The difference between ding and I.

Warring hyper-religious types are fun to watch.

 

[ding]

Proof doesn't support that contention... yet.

The scientific atheism explanation of big bang is impossible with the non-existence of space and time. Furthermore, the cosmic expansion violates the laws of physics .

How do you explain it?

The BB was making space and time, so was probably not subject to its laws. Anyways, science can't see back that far back in time yet, it's all just theories.

Space and time were created from nothing according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics so no.

You keep repeating the same silly thing about we can’t see that far back in time like you actually understand what that means. You don’t.

 

[Taz]

Proof doesn't support that contention... yet.

The scientific atheism explanation of big bang is impossible with the non-existence of space and time. Furthermore, the cosmic expansion violates the laws of physics .

How do you explain it?

The BB was making space and time, so was probably not subject to its laws. Anyways, science can't see back that far back in time yet, it's all just theories.

Space and time were created from nothing according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics so no.

You keep repeating the same silly thing about we can’t see that far back in time like you actually understand what that means. You don’t.

You're just jealous of my superior insight. Now go make me a happy meal.

 

[james bond]

Proof doesn't support that contention... yet.

The scientific atheism explanation of big bang is impossible with the non-existence of space and time. Furthermore, the cosmic expansion violates the laws of physics .

How do you explain it?

The BB was making space and time, so was probably not subject to its laws. Anyways, science can't see back that far back in time yet, it's all just theories.

What evidence do you have of anything not subject to the laws of physics? OTOH, I have everything is subject to the laws of physics and that is demonstrable by the scientific method.

Second, you talk of BB like it was a supernatural person.

 

[james bond]

When did evilutionists create beneficial mutations? Cell mutations can be caused by errors in DNA replication. That would suggest the gods crested a poor design subject to error.

Your examples aren't really beneficial mutation changes, but changes that were already present in the living organism.

If one analyzes these claimed beneficial mutations, then it doesn't add information or some beneficial trait such as a fish growing legs and feet so it can walk on land. Mutations only execute changes that were already pre-existing. When we ask for this type of evidence, the atheist scientists need millions or billions of years to do it. However, it can't be done because one would have to add new information to the organism.

The examples are clearly beneficial mutations.

If one analyzes the beneficial mutations, they are beneficial to fitness for survival.

You make the mistake typical among the hyper-religious / science illiterate. A fish growing legs is not beneficial to a fish well adapted to its environment.

When this is presented to the hyper-religious / science illiterate, they typically rattle on with meaningless nonsense about fish growing legs or snakes talking to humans.

You could not explain in your own words how each of these examples were beneficial mutations. I had to read your link and found they were not actual beneficial mutations, but just you claiming they were.

Moreover, I found your mutations only execute changes that were already pre-existing in the cells. Your second claim did not actually execute something different from that which was present in the cell. For example, if a group a cells were to help a fish develop his side fins then a mutation would affect the fins. They may be larger than the previous version. The fin cells would produce variations of fins, but not produce a leg and feet there as the atheist evolutionists claim. I mean we know what these cells can do and they just solely execute what the fin cells are supposed to do. Even with long time, they won't become cells that will grow legs and feet. Why? They're not that type of cells. The cells do not contain the information for legs and feet. Had you read and understood your link so you could explain it to me, then you would have realized these mutations do not get additional information so the cells can become legs and feet.

Thus, I found that another of your claims was not true using your own link .

You could not explain how the beneficial mutations were not, in fact, beneficial mutations so you were left to make unfounded claims.

You made some unfounded claim about cells being preexisting yet that is simply another of your “... because I say”, claims. That is a standard tactic of the hyper-religious / non-scientific types.

News Feature: Genetic mutations you want

To cure disease, researchers are starting to scour the genomes of the abnormally healthy. In 2009, researchers at the Broad Institute in Boston, led by geneticist David Altshuler, started recruiting elderly, overweight individuals who, by all accounts, ought to have type 2 diabetes but didn’t...

www.pnas.org

Beneficial Mutation–Selection Balance and the Effect of Linkage on Positive Selection

When beneficial mutations are rare, they accumulate by a series of selective sweeps. But when they are common, many beneficial mutations will occur before any can fix, so there will be many different mutant lineages in the population concurrently. In ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Bacteria Show Capacity for Rapid, Beneficial Mutations

Researchers discovered that bacteria can evolve much more efficiently than once thought, which might help develop better ways to treat nasty infections.

news.utexas.edu

Soooo.... here we have additional data from leading science organizations and teaching / research universities refuting your unsourced, “... because I say so” claims. I would have thought you could offer some competing testing and research data from one of your ID’iot creation ministries. However, we both know that ID’iot creation ministries do no research.

Once again we’re left to to the hyper-religious denying science and deny the research data in attempts to protect their sacred cows.

Can you just briefly explain your links and how they support your argument of beneficial mutation? I'm not going to read again to find something you didn't realize or missed for which I use to win the argument.

 

[james bond]

Space and time were created from nothing according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics so no.

I think all the early quantum physicists like Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, and others said time and space were necessary for quantum mechanics. I think today, the quantum physicists assume that time and space always existed. This would allow for their singularity haha.

ETA: It would also allow for the laws of physics, too.

 

[ding]

Proof doesn't support that contention... yet.

The scientific atheism explanation of big bang is impossible with the non-existence of space and time. Furthermore, the cosmic expansion violates the laws of physics .

How do you explain it?

The BB was making space and time, so was probably not subject to its laws. Anyways, science can't see back that far back in time yet, it's all just theories.

Space and time were created from nothing according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics so no.

You keep repeating the same silly thing about we can’t see that far back in time like you actually understand what that means. You don’t.

You're just jealous of my superior insight. Now go make me a happy meal.

Taz, c'mon man. It's because you hate yourself that you do the stupid things that you do.

 

[ding]

Space and time were created from nothing according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics so no.

I think all the early quantum physicists like Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, and others said time and space were necessary for quantum mechanics. I think today, the quantum physicists assume that time and space always existed. This would allow for their singularity haha.

ETA: It would also allow for the laws of physics, too.

It's not possible for space and time to exist eternally without reaching thermal equilibrium. Which we do not see nor could we see because there would be no life in a universe which has reached thermal equilibrium. Space and time are created from the existence of energy and matter. Energy and matter is not and will never be unchanging. Energy and matter are constantly seeking equilibrium. Thermal equilibrium is that final state of energy and matter as time approaches infinity.

 

[Taz]

Proof doesn't support that contention... yet.

The scientific atheism explanation of big bang is impossible with the non-existence of space and time. Furthermore, the cosmic expansion violates the laws of physics .

How do you explain it?

The BB was making space and time, so was probably not subject to its laws. Anyways, science can't see back that far back in time yet, it's all just theories.

What evidence do you have of anything not subject to the laws of physics? OTOH, I have everything is subject to the laws of physics and that is demonstrable by the scientific method.

Second, you talk of BB like it was a supernatural person.

Whatever the BB was, science can only see back as far as around 400 million after the BB.

 

[Taz]

Proof doesn't support that contention... yet.

The scientific atheism explanation of big bang is impossible with the non-existence of space and time. Furthermore, the cosmic expansion violates the laws of physics .

How do you explain it?

The BB was making space and time, so was probably not subject to its laws. Anyways, science can't see back that far back in time yet, it's all just theories.

Space and time were created from nothing according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics so no.

You keep repeating the same silly thing about we can’t see that far back in time like you actually understand what that means. You don’t.

You're just jealous of my superior insight. Now go make me a happy meal.

Taz, c'mon man. It's because you hate yourself that you do the stupid things that you do.

So I'm a self-hating agnostic rugmuncher?

 

[ding]

Proof doesn't support that contention... yet.

The scientific atheism explanation of big bang is impossible with the non-existence of space and time. Furthermore, the cosmic expansion violates the laws of physics .

How do you explain it?

The BB was making space and time, so was probably not subject to its laws. Anyways, science can't see back that far back in time yet, it's all just theories.

Space and time were created from nothing according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics so no.

You keep repeating the same silly thing about we can’t see that far back in time like you actually understand what that means. You don’t.

You're just jealous of my superior insight. Now go make me a happy meal.

Taz, c'mon man. It's because you hate yourself that you do the stupid things that you do.

So I'm a self-hating agnostic rugmuncher?

You aren't agnostic.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Proof doesn't support that contention... yet.

The scientific atheism explanation of big bang is impossible with the non-existence of space and time. Furthermore, the cosmic expansion violates the laws of physics .

How do you explain it?

The BB was making space and time, so was probably not subject to its laws. Anyways, science can't see back that far back in time yet, it's all just theories.

What evidence do you have of anything not subject to the laws of physics? OTOH, I have everything is subject to the laws of physics and that is demonstrable by the scientific method.

Second, you talk of BB like it was a supernatural person.

The sun's corona, e.g.

 

[Hollie]

When did evilutionists create beneficial mutations? Cell mutations can be caused by errors in DNA replication. That would suggest the gods crested a poor design subject to error.

Your examples aren't really beneficial mutation changes, but changes that were already present in the living organism.

If one analyzes these claimed beneficial mutations, then it doesn't add information or some beneficial trait such as a fish growing legs and feet so it can walk on land. Mutations only execute changes that were already pre-existing. When we ask for this type of evidence, the atheist scientists need millions or billions of years to do it. However, it can't be done because one would have to add new information to the organism.

The examples are clearly beneficial mutations.

If one analyzes the beneficial mutations, they are beneficial to fitness for survival.

You make the mistake typical among the hyper-religious / science illiterate. A fish growing legs is not beneficial to a fish well adapted to its environment.

When this is presented to the hyper-religious / science illiterate, they typically rattle on with meaningless nonsense about fish growing legs or snakes talking to humans.

You could not explain in your own words how each of these examples were beneficial mutations. I had to read your link and found they were not actual beneficial mutations, but just you claiming they were.

Moreover, I found your mutations only execute changes that were already pre-existing in the cells. Your second claim did not actually execute something different from that which was present in the cell. For example, if a group a cells were to help a fish develop his side fins then a mutation would affect the fins. They may be larger than the previous version. The fin cells would produce variations of fins, but not produce a leg and feet there as the atheist evolutionists claim. I mean we know what these cells can do and they just solely execute what the fin cells are supposed to do. Even with long time, they won't become cells that will grow legs and feet. Why? They're not that type of cells. The cells do not contain the information for legs and feet. Had you read and understood your link so you could explain it to me, then you would have realized these mutations do not get additional information so the cells can become legs and feet.

Thus, I found that another of your claims was not true using your own link .

You could not explain how the beneficial mutations were not, in fact, beneficial mutations so you were left to make unfounded claims.

You made some unfounded claim about cells being preexisting yet that is simply another of your “... because I say”, claims. That is a standard tactic of the hyper-religious / non-scientific types.

News Feature: Genetic mutations you want

To cure disease, researchers are starting to scour the genomes of the abnormally healthy. In 2009, researchers at the Broad Institute in Boston, led by geneticist David Altshuler, started recruiting elderly, overweight individuals who, by all accounts, ought to have type 2 diabetes but didn’t...

www.pnas.org

Beneficial Mutation–Selection Balance and the Effect of Linkage on Positive Selection

When beneficial mutations are rare, they accumulate by a series of selective sweeps. But when they are common, many beneficial mutations will occur before any can fix, so there will be many different mutant lineages in the population concurrently. In ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Bacteria Show Capacity for Rapid, Beneficial Mutations

Researchers discovered that bacteria can evolve much more efficiently than once thought, which might help develop better ways to treat nasty infections.

news.utexas.edu

Soooo.... here we have additional data from leading science organizations and teaching / research universities refuting your unsourced, “... because I say so” claims. I would have thought you could offer some competing testing and research data from one of your ID’iot creation ministries. However, we both know that ID’iot creation ministries do no research.

Once again we’re left to to the hyper-religious denying science and deny the research data in attempts to protect their sacred cows.

Can you just briefly explain your links and how they support your argument of beneficial mutation? I'm not going to read again to find something you didn't realize or missed for which I use to win the argument.

I would suggest that read the links, especially the one that is directed to the high school student. That link explains beneficial mutations to those with a limited science vocabulary.

I’ve noticed a pattern of behavior where, when you are presented with the science data, you offer some variation of the “... because I say so” argument, utterly unsupported, and declare yourself the “winner”.

Can you offer some lab data prepared by one of your creation ministries which has performed testing and published works that refutes the existence of beneficial mutations?

For your use and information, here is a lengthy discussion that describes beneficial mutations.

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

www.talkorigins.org

Here are the references that were used in compiling the above document.
Futuyma, Douglas J. (1997). Evolutionary Biology. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates.

Ridley, Mark. (2003). Evolution. Boston: Blackwell Scientific.

Hartl, Daniel L. & Andrew G. Clark. (1997). Principles of Population Genetics. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates.

Crow, James F. & Motoo Kimura. (1970). Introduction to Population Genetics Theory. Edina, Minn.: Burgess Publishing Company.

Graur, Dan & Wen-Hsiung Li. (2000). Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates.

Lewontin, Richard C. (1974). The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.

Gillespie, John H. (1997). The Causes of Molecular Evolution. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

Golding, Brian, ed. (1994). Non-Neutral Evolution. Boston: Chapman and Hall.

Kimura, Motoo. (1983). The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Endler, John A. (1986). Natural Selection in the Wild. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press.

Eldredge, Niles. (1989). Macroevolutionary Dynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cowen, Richard. (2004). History of Life. Boston: Blackwell Scientific.

Dawkins, Richard. (1987). The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W.W. Norton.

Kitcher, Philip. (1982). Abusing Science. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Wilson, Edward O. (1992). The Diversity of Life. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Belknap.

Darwin, Charles. (1859). On the Origin of Species.

Darwin, Charles. (1871). The Descent of Man.

Haldane, J.B.S. (1932). The Causes of Evolution. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press (reprinted 1990).

Simpson, George G. (1944). Tempo and Mode in Evolution. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.

Mayr, Ernst E. (1982). The Growth of Biological Thought. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Belknap.

Provine, William B. (2001). The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

 

[Hollie]

Proof doesn't support that contention... yet.

The scientific atheism explanation of big bang is impossible with the non-existence of space and time. Furthermore, the cosmic expansion violates the laws of physics .

How do you explain it?

The BB was making space and time, so was probably not subject to its laws. Anyways, science can't see back that far back in time yet, it's all just theories.

What evidence do you have of anything not subject to the laws of physics? OTOH, I have everything is subject to the laws of physics and that is demonstrable by the scientific method.

Second, you talk of BB like it was a supernatural person.

Physics indicates that light from stars and galaxies is, you know, very far away. That light takes a bit more than, you know, 6,000 years to reach this planet.

Who needs to bother with physics when, you know, the gawds did it, by supernatural means.

 

[james bond]

Space and time were created from nothing according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics so no.

I think all the early quantum physicists like Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, and others said time and space were necessary for quantum mechanics. I think today, the quantum physicists assume that time and space always existed. This would allow for their singularity haha.

ETA: It would also allow for the laws of physics, too.

It's not possible for space and time to exist eternally without reaching thermal equilibrium. Which we do not see nor could we see because there would be no life in a universe which has reached thermal equilibrium. Space and time are created from the existence of energy and matter. Energy and matter is not and will never be unchanging. Energy and matter are constantly seeking equilibrium. Thermal equilibrium is that final state of energy and matter as time approaches infinity.

One has to always preclude something if there is not space and time. For example, if we are discussing big bang, then we have to assume it happened and things were in place for it to happen. You can't have one without the other. With time and space being eternal, everything was in equilibrium.

 

[Taz]

You aren't agnostic.

Well ok, you might as well get it ALL wrong,I'm a self-hating atheist rugmuncher. Feel better?

 

[ding]

You aren't agnostic.

Well ok, you might as well get it ALL wrong,I'm a self-hating atheist rugmuncher. Feel better?

I don't get satisfaction from your misery.

 

[ding]

Space and time were created from nothing according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics so no.

I think all the early quantum physicists like Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, and others said time and space were necessary for quantum mechanics. I think today, the quantum physicists assume that time and space always existed. This would allow for their singularity haha.

ETA: It would also allow for the laws of physics, too.

It's not possible for space and time to exist eternally without reaching thermal equilibrium. Which we do not see nor could we see because there would be no life in a universe which has reached thermal equilibrium. Space and time are created from the existence of energy and matter. Energy and matter is not and will never be unchanging. Energy and matter are constantly seeking equilibrium. Thermal equilibrium is that final state of energy and matter as time approaches infinity.

One has to always preclude something if there is not space and time. For example, if we are discussing big bang, then we have to assume it happened and things were in place for it to happen. You can't have one without the other. With time and space being eternal, everything was in equilibrium.

No. One must always preclude no thing is there. God is no thing.