This is clever idiocy, not a reference to grammar correction by you. Lower your pupils to 6 0'clock and you may notice it is a response to someone else, which indicates what is being responded to. Correct me in grammer and logic and your own risk.
Seed related to creation (whatever that is!) methodolgy. It is best defined by first acknowledging it and placing it in the preamble whenever you mention evolution. Selective refers to omission of what you don't like, and inclusion of what you like. Yes, now I will wait for you to ask me to define 'seed' - because its listing in genesis cannot be understood by those prefessing science - seed is far more complicated than retroviruses!
Anyways, to cut to the chase scene and escape the selective naivity display, a retraction is in order of those who cannot understand what a seed refers to (whatever that means!), why genesis refers to 'kind' and gives humans a correct category, those who decried about lobsters while ignoring where medicine comes from - and not least, those who deem my responsa off topic - in a thread that wants to discuss methodology of creation! Don't be shy - unless you want to disgrace science.
'SEED' (whatever that is!) has a verifiable impact of at least 99% of all transmissions in life forms. And we don't have to go millions of years to know this - its real science in your midst, but not addressed by evolutionists:
quote: 11 And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
This is best alluded to when one is asked to place groups of life forms in accordance of their unique attributes. Genesis places humans as one kind - 'seed after its kind' - because humans also happen to be the only life form which perform this feat of 'speech'. Its called Creation Methodology - not addressed by evolutionists.
'EVOLUTION' - the chronological graduation of life forms, grouped as 'KINDS' by their differential attributes - first recorded in genesis - yet not acknowledged by Evolutionists.
This is clever idiocy, not a reference to grammar correction by you.
"clever idiocy." i shall have to remember that one. no, i honestly cannot figure out what you are trying to say.
Lower your pupils to 6 0'clock and you may notice it is a response to someone else, which indicates what is being responded to.
quote:That's where you get evidence of the 'seed', representing transmissions of life forms - ignored by atheists; that 'kind' represents an evidential proof what separates humans from all other life forms - ignored by atheists. I call it selective atheism, and slight of hand science. I'm not fooled. This message is a reply to: Message 73 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2007 12:46 AM Replies to this message: Message 75 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2007 01:28 AM
you replied to my message.
Correct me in grammer and logic and your own risk.
i wasn't trying to correct you, i was trying to decipher you. your arguments are nonsensical.
Seed related to creation (whatever that is!) methodolgy.
It is best defined by first acknowledging it and placing it in the preamble whenever you mention evolution.
aknowledgement is not a definition. and neither is your argument. and... what? what exactly should we be discussing before we discuss evolution? please explain what it is, and how it relates to evolution. pretend i'm a child; start from the beginning. i'm not saying this to be mocking -- i just want to know what the heck you're talking about. you seem to be going off on something assuming we know what you mean. we don't. well, i don't, at least. please explain.
Selective refers to omission of what you don't like, and inclusion of what you like.
please explain what this concept is, and how atheism (or evolution, or whatever you're arguing against) excludes it.
Yes, now I will wait for you to ask me to define 'seed'
if you expect it, why not include it in your preamble? after all, one of the scientific method's first steps is to define the terms under discussion. this does not appear to suit creationism, which by your arguments seem to be more about red herrings and obfuscation than clarity.
because its listing in genesis cannot be understood by those prefessing science
you mean "professing?" and so far the only who has failed to demonstrate understanding of genesis is you. rather consistently, as a matter of fact -- you seem to opt for reading it like some sort of bizarre code instead of what's actually on the page.
but hey, i think we have worked out step 1 in the creationist method.
seed is far more complicated than retroviruses!
please point me to the book, chapter, and verse where this concept is discussed in its full complexity? failing that, perhaps you can point me to a published creationist paper that discusses the topic? or failing that, perhaps a religious apologetic, or jewish midrash? or failing that, anything at all about the matter?
Anyways, to cut to the chase scene and escape the selective naivity display, a retraction is in order of those who cannot understand what a seed refers to (whatever that means!),
no, perhaps an explanation is in order. either make an argument, or don't. if you're not willing to explain your terms, you can't simply plant your flag and declare victory. you haven't won anything, or convinced anyone. you've just made yourself to be your own hero in your own mind. perhaps this is the creationist method? confuse, distract, declare victory, and leave? hey, we've seen that a few times here, after all.
why genesis refers to 'kind' and gives humans a correct category,
please explain what you mean by "correct category" and how you feel the term "kind" is being used in the book of genesis.
those who decried about lobsters while ignoring where medicine comes from
medicine comes from science. perhaps this fact has been lost on you. it's a been a long time since "avoid eating lobsters" was considered medicine.
and not least, those who deem my responsa off topic
oh, you mean the religious moderator who told you stay on topic. yeah, i'm sure anastasia is out to get you.
in a thread that wants to discuss methodology of creation!
no, the methodology of creationism. how the belief itself functions.
Don't be shy - unless you want to disgrace science.
actual, questioning is a rather basic scientific approach. the way i see it, my posts are a decent demonstration of a scientific methodology -- questioning, and not presuming to know facts from the outset. yours are a decent demonstration of the creationist methodology -- having the truth from the beginning, but it's a secret, and you can't tell anyone, so the goal is to distract and obfuscate.
actually, you're the one that shouldn't be shy. you seem to be quite secretive about what you actually mean. why not explain your terms, and justify your arguments?
You seem to have a struggle with English (among other things). Rather than letting you continue to waste others time I'm going to give you 2 days to try to write what you have to say. Then take it to a friend or 3 to get help making it comprehensible.
Please do not respond. I would like to mention that you seem genuinely confused about the topic.
The 'creation method' is not what you think it is. I can only assume you did not read the entire OP. Maybe your comprehension is lacking, maybe you are simply not very familiar with the terms and techniques of science or the typical EvC lingo and subject matter. At the least, you do not halt when you are suspended, but jump back to the EXACT same subject as when you left.
I know when I was new, I did not know if I was off topic, because I received many responses before it was noticed.
In future, anyone who responds to you in a way that contributes to or prolongs the mistakes will be warned.
And there is something there that applies to this topic:
quote:... The actual date may be adjusted for extremely wet years which occurred in the past, as shown by the numerous dry lakes in the desert regions of eastern California and Nevada. Experiments show the trees can grow more than one ring in unusual seasons.  Some experiments have even suggested that many periods of time could have been characterized by the growth of one extra ring every one to four years, with evidence in controlled laboratory situations showing extra ring growth tied to short drought periods.  These varied conditions could allow a slightly more recent date which may even closely match Ussher's date of 2350 B.C.
Dead wood, both on the trees and on the ground, have provided a tree-ring record going back to proposed dates of around 6800 B.C. or earlier.  This causes a little bit more problem for the Ussher dating, but it is not insurmountable. The same argument for multiple ring growth in wet years could hold, and even the possible pre-flood greenhouse environment that may have existed on earth may have been a factor. Also, creation had to involve some superficial appearance of earth history. Trees were likely created with tree-rings already in place. Rocks would likely have yielded old dates by the faulty radio-isotope methods in use today. Even man and animals did not appear as infants. This is known as the "Appearance of Age Theory."
There is a LOT of erroneous information, misinformation and false implications in the article, however I want to focus on just one aspect of it.
Reference  is
quote: Aardsma, Dr. Gerald E., "Tree-Rings Dating and Multiple Growth Ring Per Year." Creation Research Society Quarterly, volume 29, March 1993, pp. 184-189.
And this is NOT available on-line to compare what it says to what is claimed here. The abstract, however says:
quote:There presently exist several long dendrochronologies, each comprised of about 10,000 individual growth-rings. These are examined for the possibility of multiple ring growth per year in their earliest portions due to unusual climatic conditions following the Flood. It is found that the tree-ring/radiocarbon data are contrary to the suggestion of multiple ring growth. Since it seems that the Flood must have occurred before the oldest rings of these series grew, the implication is that the Flood must have occurred more than 10,000 years ago.
(color for emPHAsis)
Rather the opposite of what is claimed in the above article eh?
So one "method" is to misrepresent what is said in other articles -- even when produced and published by the same organisation!
Reference  is
quote: Lammerts, Walter E., "Are the Bristlecone Pine Trees Really So Old?" Creation Research Society Quarterly, volume 20, September 1983, pp. 108-115.
And ALSO not available on-line. The Abstract for that document is:
quote:Various treatments were given to 8-month-old bristle-cone pine seedlings; and it was found that supplementing the winter day length with a 250-watt heat lamp in order to give a total of 16 hours of illumination proved most effective. The lamp was placed about three feet above the seedlings, and the temperature in the growth chamber was kept at about 70'F. Those which received a short (circa 21 days) drought stress period in August of the third growing season showed up having one more growth ring than the control seedlings, that is four growth rings instead of three. Also seedlings which received a two week drought stress period in August of the fourth growing season showed a similar extra growth ring. The bearing of this on the estimates of the age of the bristle-cone pine forest is discussed. Under the San Francisco type of both spring and fall rainfall with a relatively dry perod in the summer the young forests on the White Mountains would have grown an extra ring per year quite often. Accordingly it is believed that the presumed 7100 year age postulated for these trees by Ferguson would be reduced to about 5600 years, on the assumption that extra rings would be formed by stress during about 50% of the years between the end of the Flood and about 1200 A.D.
In other words they create artificial conditions in a lab -- one where they (and anyone could) create extra growth rings by simulating shorter seasons -- and then state that those conditions applied in reality by superimposing coastal San Fransico type weather to the top of the Sierra Nevadas without any - repeat any - evidence that this occurred or COULD have occurred.
So another "creationist method" is to make stuff up, fail to ground truth it against reality and then pretend that this is the truth. This isn't a different interpretation of evidence but intentional ignorance of it.
A third "creationist method" in evidence here is using references to material that is not available on-line to non-members so that the references cannot be investigated for similar (mis)behavior.
My impression is that there are two methods. Behe's is the easiest. His method is to say, "Gosh! This sure looks too complicated to have evolved through natural selection. It must have been designed!"
Dembski's method takes a little more work. First, you actually look up the research on the origins of some part or system. You note that all these proposals have serious problems, then you state that the only possible option left is that the atoms must have come together through random chance, calculate a probability, and say, "Omigod! Look how small that probability is! It must have been designed!"
I could be wrong; this is based on reading non-IDists descriptions of their works. But if I'm wrong, I have never seen an IDist give a clear explanation of what their method actually is. Any IDists who actually know what they're talking about -- not just parroting some semi-literate apologetics web page, but actually understand Dembski and/or Behe's arguments and methods -- please take the time to inform us. Don't worry about it being too complicated -- we're smart enough to ask questions if something is not clear or needs clarification.
Edited by Chiroptera, : typo - also removed gratuitous comment relating to a post in another thread
I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger
Any IDists who actually know what they're talking about -- not just parroting some semi-literate apologetics web page, but actually understand Dembski and/or Behe's arguments and methods -- please take the time to inform us.
It's called the design inference...
Why don't you listen to Dembski, Kenyon, Johnson, Wells, Myers and Behe themselves?
Tried to watch them all, but most seem to be no longer available. The one that is available (part 5/7) is about Kenyon's inability to understand how proteins originated without DNA. I am absolutely not a biochemist, I am an invertebrate zoologist (Dammit Jim!). This video (with beautiful graphics!) skips the entire RNA process (maybe on purpose?). And RNA can both replicate and make proteins in the absence of DNA. And RNA sequences can form spontaneously in clays. All of these facts are available and known to the people at the Discovery Institute, but they choose to ignore/deny them. Still think them reliable and honest?"I have seen so far because I have stood on the bloated corpses of my competitors" - Dr Burgess Bowder
This video (with beautiful graphics!) skips the entire RNA process (maybe on purpose?). And RNA can both replicate and make proteins in the absence of DNA. And RNA sequences can form spontaneously in clays. All of these facts are available and known to the people at the Discovery Institute, but they choose to ignore/deny them. Still think them reliable and honest?
Actually, it is clip 6 that covers the RNA stuff your talking about. I don't know why you would have problems with the other clips. You might just have to refresh the page.
And RNA does not spontaniously form in clays. It forms when minerals are exposed to nucleobases (assumed to be prexisting) and other catalyzing components.
Our studies had demonstrated that RNA monomers can bind efficiently to clays, but would the clays catalyze the formation of RNA oligomers? Initial success came with experiments that exposed Na-montmorillonite to a solution containing nucleotides and carbodiimide (RN=C=R; a so-called “condensing agent” that induces polymerization reactions).....
...An important aspect of this RNA oligomer formation is sequence selectivity—the preferential linkage of different nucleotides with bases A, C, G, or U. In experiments where we began with equal amounts of these four bases, clay catalysis resulted in the formation of a non-uniform distribution of the 16 possible pair sequences
Maybe you have some other work you're referring to, but I predict the result will be the same.
It's not spontaneous as they've told us or implied. It's spontaneous only after intelligent engineers manipulate the clay and introduce nucleobases and other components that cannot be accounted for in the clays themselves.