Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 160 (8123 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-02-2014 12:47 PM
85 online now:
Bliyaal, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), PurpleYouko, ringo, Tanypteryx (7 members, 78 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Colbard
Happy Birthday: Omnivorous
Post Volume:
Total: 735,113 Year: 20,954/28,606 Month: 41/1,410 Week: 59/275 Day: 13/28 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
789Next
Author Topic:   Do fossils disprove evolution?
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 1212 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 76 of 121 (526144)
09-26-2009 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by subbie
09-26-2009 12:02 AM


Re: New information from a blind non-thinking source
Thats not new information from a blind non-thinking source. It was brought to fruition by a team of the most brilliant minds in the world. Its just like Dawkins thinking he simulated evolution on a man-made computer. You people are patheticly desperate. The knees of Darwinism are wobbling and its only a matter of time before the hand of truth is going to slap you down!

Good night, and may God's loving hand of mercy open your eyes of understanding before its too late for you.
ICDESIGN everywhere I look


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by subbie, posted 09-26-2009 12:02 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by subbie, posted 09-26-2009 12:46 AM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2009 12:56 AM ICdesign has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 77 of 121 (526148)
09-26-2009 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by ICdesign
09-26-2009 12:16 AM


Re: New information from a blind non-thinking source
It was brought to fruition by a team of the most brilliant minds in the world. And they understand that it is new information from a blind non-thinking source. What makes you think you are in a better position to evaluate the process than they are?

Good night, and may His Noodly Appendage cast its blessings upon you.

RAmen.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ICdesign, posted 09-26-2009 12:16 AM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12679
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 78 of 121 (526149)
09-26-2009 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by ICdesign
09-25-2009 9:17 PM


Re: Mutation Rates
Your joking right Dr Adequate. If you want to impress someone lets see you simulate creating life from nothing.

You just moved the goalposts so fast that they broke the speed of sound.

In fact, the equivalent of abiogenesis has been observed in TIERRA-like simulations of evolution, in that random changes to the memory eventually produced a self-replicating program which then evolved.

I'll make it easy on you. Lets see you prove how to create significant new information from a blind non-thinking source.

That's easy. Reproduction, variation, and selection. Duh.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ICdesign, posted 09-25-2009 9:17 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12679
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 79 of 121 (526151)
09-26-2009 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by ICdesign
09-26-2009 12:16 AM


Re: New information from a blind non-thinking source
Thats not new information from a blind non-thinking source. It was brought to fruition by a team of the most brilliant minds in the world.

Which of them designed the aerial?

Oh, right, it was produced by reproduction, variation and selection.

Its just like Dawkins thinking he simulated evolution on a man-made computer.

True statements do have something in common, yes.

You people are patheticly desperate.

Your skills at mind-reading are inferior even to your knowledge of biology.

The knees of Darwinism are wobbling and its only a matter of time before the hand of truth is going to slap you down!

Hehe. The fantasy that "Darwinism" is "on its knees" and that victory is just around the corner is a creationist myth that has been passed down, literally, from generation to generation of creationists.

Ex-creationist Glen Morton has aptly dubbed it "The Longest Running Falsehood In Creationism".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ICdesign, posted 09-26-2009 12:16 AM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12679
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 80 of 121 (526152)
09-26-2009 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by ICdesign
09-25-2009 11:21 PM


Re: New information from a blind non-thinking source
One thing before I go. (Oh, and thanks for the friendly debate)
I was just wondering what that antenna had to do with new information
to the Genome. The answer is nothing.

If you wished to know about new information to the genome, then you should have asked about new information to the genome, instead of asking a different question and then whining when you got an answer to the question you actually asked.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by ICdesign, posted 09-25-2009 11:21 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12679
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 81 of 121 (526153)
09-26-2009 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by ICdesign
09-25-2009 8:49 PM


Re: Both Sides
Both sides should be discussed, absolutely. The problem with Darwinism is that it is all smoke and mirrors. Where is the evidence that the sorts of incidental changes required for large-scale evolution ever occur? The evidence simply isn't there. Imagine what would happen to the germ theory of disease if scientists never found any microorganisms or viruses that produced diseases. Thats the problem with Darwinism. In place of detailed, testable accounts of how a complex biological system could REALISTICLLY have emerged, Darwinism offers handwaving just-so stories of how such systems might have emerged...in some idealized conceptual space far removed from biological reality.
Why, then does Darwinism continue to garner such a huge following, especially amoung the intellectually elites such as many of you folks?
Two reasons: 1) It provides a materialistic creation story that dispenses with any need for design or God (this is very convenient for those who want to escape the demands of religion, morality, and conscience) 2) The promise of getting design without a designer is incredibly seductive--its the ultimate free lunch.

An interesting fantasy. But I think you'll find that there is another reason why people who know more about biology than you do disagree with you about biology.

See if you can figure it out --- I've given you a fairly broad hint.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by ICdesign, posted 09-25-2009 8:49 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12679
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 82 of 121 (526155)
09-26-2009 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by ICdesign
09-25-2009 10:42 PM


Re: Both Sides
Here is the perfect example of the smoke and mirrors trick you guys try to pull all the time.
Lots of small changes do not equal a huge leap into another brand new species. This has NEVER been observed and never will be because it is impossible.

Oh, you're one of those creationists. Not one of the 50% of creationists who admit that speciation has been observed and claim that it's an "important part of the creation model".

Why don't you fight it out with them while we laugh and eat popcorn?

If you think massive new information to the Genome is not required to produce a new feature in an organizm I highly recommend you head down to the libraries you keep refering to

We have seen organisms develop new features. Often. Repeatedly.

You demonstrate perfectly the strange paradox of creationism --- that creationists are obsessed with biology without ever having taken the slightest interest in it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by ICdesign, posted 09-25-2009 10:42 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12679
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 83 of 121 (526157)
09-26-2009 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by ICdesign
09-25-2009 10:06 PM


Re: Both Sides
HO HUM.....OK, your right Coyote. The fossil record is chocked full of transitional forms that are undisputable

Of course.

and the science labs are bustling with scientist's and their mountians of proven tests of how to generate significant new information to a Genome.

Of course.

I mean, we have observed Macro-evolution in so many studies

Of course --- asuming that by "Macro-evolution" you mean "speciation".

its a miracle no one in the world has ever heard of it.

Ah, there you're wrong. You are extrapolation from your own ignorance of biology to everyone else in the world. But if you think about it, there are lots of people who know more about biology that you do. Biologists, for example.

Ohh, no more questions here Coyote. I'll just sit down and shut up after being put in my place like that.

That would be a good plan. While you're sitting there quietly, you might want to read a book on genetics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by ICdesign, posted 09-25-2009 10:06 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12679
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 84 of 121 (526158)
09-26-2009 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by ICdesign
09-25-2009 11:01 PM


Re: Observed instances of speciation
I'm not even close to being wrong pal. You are the one trying to take the focus off the issue by bringing up the definition of kind. Its all part of the Darwinist trick. Lets blurr the definition of kind so we can avoid the issue.

What a comical falsehood.

But you must have noticed that in reality we keep trying to get you to give a precise definition of the terminology that you guys have invented to blur the issue.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ICdesign, posted 09-25-2009 11:01 PM ICdesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by ICdesign, posted 09-26-2009 12:47 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 1212 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 85 of 121 (526263)
09-26-2009 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Dr Adequate
09-26-2009 1:14 AM


Re: Observed instances of speciation
I was looking at how much time you spend trying to defend evolution
and I can't help but wonder what kind of look you will have on your face when you are standing before Almighty God.

Variation within a kind is all part of the design. A dog has been and always will be a dog. All you have to do is look around you Doc. Everything is after its own kind just as God commanded it to be.

The bottom line problem you Darwinist's have is where did the information come from? When you can come up with a proven solution
to that problem, get back to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2009 1:14 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by subbie, posted 09-26-2009 1:01 PM ICdesign has responded
 Message 90 by Coragyps, posted 09-26-2009 3:21 PM ICdesign has responded
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2009 4:54 PM ICdesign has responded
 Message 112 by bluescat48, posted 09-26-2009 8:41 PM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 113 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2009 1:39 AM ICdesign has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 86 of 121 (526271)
09-26-2009 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by ICdesign
09-26-2009 12:47 PM


Re: Observed instances of speciation
Mutations create new information.

Gosh, you sure ask easy questions.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by ICdesign, posted 09-26-2009 12:47 PM ICdesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by ICdesign, posted 09-26-2009 1:36 PM subbie has not yet responded

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 1212 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 87 of 121 (526277)
09-26-2009 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by subbie
09-26-2009 1:01 PM


Re: Observed instances of speciation
Its a proven fact that most mutations are either harmful or neutral,
first of all. To say mutations produce any kind of significant new information is a lie.
The original question was however: Where did information first come from? Everything you Darwinist's believe requires a miracle to have taken place. But hey, all you have to do is add massive time to the equation and "poof", trillions of miracles happened one after another.
No problem right?

Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.

Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by subbie, posted 09-26-2009 1:01 PM subbie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Coyote, posted 09-26-2009 1:41 PM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 89 by Blue Jay, posted 09-26-2009 2:06 PM ICdesign has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4679
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 88 of 121 (526279)
09-26-2009 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by ICdesign
09-26-2009 1:36 PM


Creationists' denial
Its a proven fact that most mutations are either harmful or neutral, first of all.

Most?

And the rest are what?

Face it, biologists and other scientists have evidence of beneficial mutations, and creationists simply refuse to acknowledge that evidence because of religious reasons.

Believe what you like, but don't claim its science.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ICdesign, posted 09-26-2009 1:36 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 2615
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 89 of 121 (526281)
09-26-2009 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by ICdesign
09-26-2009 1:36 PM


Re: Observed instances of speciation
Hi, ICDesign.

ICDesign writes:

Its a proven fact that most mutations are either harmful or neutral,first of all.

This is an interesting development, to me.

How do you know that most mutations are either harmful or neutral?

You certainly haven't seen most mutations, so you must be basing this argument on the tiny subset of mutations that actually have been seen, right?

Could it be that you think patterns seen in nature constitute "facts"?

Why don't you consider other patterns seen in nature (e.g. radioactive decay rates and rock layer superposition) to also constitute "facts"?


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ICdesign, posted 09-26-2009 1:36 PM ICdesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by ICdesign, posted 09-26-2009 3:22 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5132
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 90 of 121 (526286)
09-26-2009 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by ICdesign
09-26-2009 12:47 PM


Re: Observed instances of speciation
A dog has been and always will be a dog.

Dogs have no relation at all to coyotes or wolves, huh? They just like to interbreed when they get the chance, but they aren't even cousins? Is that what you're telling us?


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by ICdesign, posted 09-26-2009 12:47 PM ICdesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by ICdesign, posted 09-26-2009 3:26 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
45
6
789Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014