|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: One Question for Evo-Bashers | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So, how do we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one which we 1) don't understand, but may in the future, and/or 2) don't have the ability to understand due to our limited intelligence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: That is laughable, PeterB. The rational extrapolation from observations of nature is that the tree has parents. If you wish to assert otherwise, it is you who needs to prove it. ( note: the word is 'prove')
quote: Yeah, and a pretty wild fantasy it is, as every living thing on the planet, as far has has been proven thus far, has at least one parent(used loosely).
quote: Right. And no one has shown this effect at larger than subatomic scale. I don't think the tree qualifies. Are you venturing into yet another area you know nothing about?
quote: Actually, to real biologists, it is obvious that biology is exactly what we thought it to be.
quote: God, I love when you get all cocky and bombastic. It makes me warm and fuzzy all over. Of course, you may as well peg me for buying into that heliocentric claptrap too. That one is much older, and so obviously that much more incorrect.
quote: Yeah, its DNA is distinctly different. Just like the DNA between any two genera. Hmmmm..... not the same critter == not the same DNA. Geez, PB, pretty insightful. Besides, this would be the case with your MPG hypothesis as well, so why is this even an issue?
quote: Better compare it with something it actually resembles, rather than something it resembles less well. Oh, and, my well informed friend, the genes of the two have been compared.
http://www.botanik.uni-bonn.de/conifers/ar/wo/ writes: "Sequences were obtained for the rbcL gene from chloroplast DNA of the newly discovered Australian conifer Wollemia nobilis (Araucariaceae), 5 species of Araucaria and 4 species of Agathis. Phylogenetic analysis of our new data and other available sequences indicate that 1) Araucariaceae is monophyletic; 2) Agathis and Araucaria are both monophyletic; 3) Wollemia is the sister group to Agathis; 4) the Pinaceae are the sister group to all other conifers, although the monophyly of the conifers is not unequivocally demonstrated" (Gilmore and Hill 1997). quote: That is part of the problem. We don't know, because we don't have one. The only hope is to weed out all of those critters that we know do have mommies and daddies, and spread the inference to anything similar as it it reasonable to assume that a tree that is similar to quite a few other trees also has a similar origin. In otherwords, for practical pruposes, it ought to not look like other species. That is the only way we'd be able to identify it. How different must it be? Maybe it uses only one of the four amino acids in DNA, something like that. Maybe it produces signifant numbers of proteins-- say 50% of the proteins it depends upon-- not found in any other animal.
quote: Discovered isn't 'popped into existence.' You must be confused.
quote: But not reasonably interpretted like that. The chances of you being correct are tiny. The chance that this tree has relatives is nearly 100%.
quote: No, PB. I don't care because I can't recall you ever once making a sensible argument. And no, your vision doesn't scare me. Why would it? "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. A. Huxley" ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
quote: Well arguably that process is what we creationists refer to as the creation. If you're looking for "new organism being designed, formed, and plopped", then look to the fossil record, 140+/- years of documented fully formed distinct creatures extracted from the earth, validating the record of the process you mentioned. We can infer design simply by common logic based on thousands of design cases in every day life, and if you really want, we can back it up by archaeologically verified ancient documents describing the creation event by an intelligent Designer. Regards,S
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: The fossil record does not show what you think it shows.
quote: No we can't. But we've been through that. You are just repeating yourself.
quote: You can't seriously be making this argument. Sure we can back it up. We can back up several dozen creation-by-intelligent-designer events using archeologically verified documents. Do you accept al of those accounts? Or just one? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7686 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PB: Apparently it has no ancestors. Untill you proof otherwise. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J: That is laughable, PeterB. The rational extrapolation from observations of nature is that the tree has parents. If you wish to assert otherwise, it is you who needs to prove it. ( note: the word is 'prove') PB: Since when do we live in the upside down world? I have to proof a non-existence? Don't fool me. Ever heard about the scientific method? To proof a non-existence.....incredible, that you come up with such answers. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PB: That's your interpretation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J: Yeah, and a pretty wild fantasy it is, as every living thing on the planet, as far has has been proven thus far, has at least one parent(used loosely). PB: All theories start like phantasies. Thing is to provide evidence. I did that. Now there is denial, scoffing, mocking, argumenta ad hominem, etcetera. Since I am a stoic I don't mind. I rather present some new ideas than being blinded by 19th century vanity. As if random mutation and selection would be all....don't let me laugh.Besides, the first organism ever to have 'evolved' through abiogenesis didn't have parents, so your assertion is false. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I thought it was you who wrote elsewhere that you were fascinated by particles popping in and out of existence (uncertainty & quantum mechanics, I guess). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J: Right. And no one has shown this effect at larger than subatomic scale. I don't think the tree qualifies. PB: Why do you think so? It was you who invented quantum mechaniscs, I guess. J: Are you venturing into yet another area you know nothing about? PB: What do you mean? What is the other area I do not know anything about? quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In fact you should be amazed by the Wollemia nobilis. It's obvious from such observations that biology is not as we thought it to be. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J: Actually, to real biologists, it is obvious that biology is exactly what we thought it to be. PB: Now you must present me a reference. Real biologists are biologists advocating evolutionism? quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PB: Apparently, biology is not as simple as you think it is. From a proponent of a 19th century theory one can expect it, though. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J: God, I love when you get all cocky and bombastic. It makes me warm and fuzzy all over. Of course, you may as well peg me for buying into that heliocentric claptrap too. That one is much older, and so obviously that much more incorrect. PB: Apparently you don't get what I am trying to convey. It is dead-obvious that evolutionism is not the whole story in this universe. At least not as it has been set up in the 1930s. The theory is outdated and has been overthrown several times on all levels. I even contributed to it. So draw your conclusions. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PB: Different genera are indeed present in the record. Agathis and Wollemia are distinct genera. Agathis is still around, so is Wollemia. Why not show a contemporary Agathis in comparison with Wollemia? Because its DNA is distinctly different. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J: Yeah, its DNA is distinctly different. Just like the DNA between any two genera. Hmmmm..... not the same critter == not the same DNA. Geez, PB, pretty insightful. Besides, this would be the case with your MPG hypothesis as well, so why is this even an issue? PB: It is an issue since you claim that there is a mother and a father in the fossil record. But there isn't. And remember I do not have to proof a non-existence. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Better compare it with something extinct, so nobody can track the molecular evidence. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PB: Better compare it with something it actually resembles, rather than something it resembles less well. J: Oh, and, my well informed friend, the genes of the two have been compared. http://www.botanik.uni-bonn.de/conifers/ar/wo/ writes: "Sequences were obtained for the rbcL gene from chloroplast DNA of the newly discovered Australian conifer Wollemia nobilis (Araucariaceae), 5 species of Araucaria and 4 species of Agathis. Phylogenetic analysis of our new data and other available sequences indicate that 1) Araucariaceae is monophyletic; 2) Agathis and Araucaria are both monophyletic; 3) Wollemia is the sister group to Agathis; 4) the Pinaceae are the sister group to all other conifers, although the monophyly of the conifers is not unequivocally demonstrated" (Gilmore and Hill 1997). PB: ...and they are both monophyletic. And what does the sistergroup mean scientifically? It is a 'trick' that holds that 'two immediate descendants of an ancestral species are of the same age. Hence, if A and B are two sister species (i.e. each other's closest relative) then A and B are at least as old as the oldest fossil of either A or B.' In other words: evo-blabla. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PB: How does such organism look like, than? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J: That is part of the problem. We don't know, because we don't have one. PB: So you are chasing something you don't know what it looks like? Vanity, all vanity. J: The only hope is to weed out all of those critters that we know do have mommies and daddies, and spread the inference to anything similar as it it reasonable to assume that a tree that is similar to quite a few other trees also has a similar origin. PB: Non-scientific inferrence. The usual evo-humbug that doesn't bring us a single step further. J: In otherwords, for practical pruposes, it ought to not look like other species. PB: What about the platypus? Not tracable in the fossil record. J: That is the only way we'd be able to identify it. How different must it be? Maybe it uses only one of the four amino acids in DNA, something like that. Maybe it produces signifant numbers of proteins-- say 50% of the proteins it depends upon-- not found in any other animal. PB: So you are making up your own criteria. Based on what? To keep up the appearance of evolution? Even if I presented you an organism like you describe you would back away. The usual evo-tactics. Try a black smoker, probably you will find this organism there. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PB: You asked for an organism that popped into existence in some kind of forest. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J: Discovered isn't 'popped into existence.' You must be confused. PB: So, how do you discriminate between 'discovered' and 'popped into existence'? quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I gave you an example that can be interpreted like that. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J: But not reasonably interpretted like that. PB: Are you the judge, or what? J: The chances of you being correct are tiny. The chance that this tree has relatives is nearly 100%. PB: No, the organism can only be explained with the GUToB. Whether or not is has been created recently, I don't care. My goal is to scientifically overthrow evolutionism and I will. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PB: You could care less because my vision opposes your evolutionary interpretation of data and I am able to scientifically defend my vision. That scares you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J: No, PB. I don't care because I can't recall you ever once making a sensible argument. PB: In the light of the outdated evolutionary vision I will never make a sensible argument. I don't care, since I have nothing to do with this ancient believe system.Sometimes one has to think beyond the reigning paradigms. It will bring new science. In the 19th century everybody was looking for the ether. Einstein said there is no ether. End ether. In the 21st century everybody was looking for evolution. I say there is no evolution there is the MPG and non-random mutation. End evolution. And no, your vision doesn't scare me. Why would it? Have a nice day,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Sonnikke,
quote: Please tell me how the fossil record fits your version of creation. If you are going to bring the flood into it, when did it end? The K-T boundary? If not, at what rough geological time (equivalent) did the flood deposits cease to be laid down?
quote: Logical fallacy: Argument From Spurious Similarity. http://www.cs.colorado.edu/...ptic/arguments.html#similarity
quote: What's an "archaeologically verified" document? Do we know the alleged authors had actual knowledge of what they wrote? Do we even know who they were? What creation event did you have in mind that has "archaeologically verified" documents? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-18-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Don't know really. When were you born?
quote: Nope. You have to contradict the rational extrapolations from data that we already have. You need to show WHY these extrapolations are not adequate.
quote: Oh, god forbid....
quote: Yep. And it does not go like this: Hmmmmm.... I found a new thing, therefore it must have been created ex nihilo.
quote: I repeat, your job is to disprove the conclusions reached by pretty much eveyone who actually studies these things.
quote: Well, I'm convinced.
quote: You didn't provide evidence, PB. I know that you believe that you did, and I feel for you.
quote: Yes. Being a man out of time sucks doesn't it?
quote: ummmm... I'll do my best to stop you.
quote: Did you miss the part where I said, "every critter alive today"? I'm pretty sure it was in there.
quote: I think so because no one have yet demonstrated this effect on larger than a sub-atomic scale, which is exactly what I said. What kind of response is this? And why is it that I must have been the 'one' who invented quantum mechanics to LOOK IT UP?
quote: LOL.............
quote: They are the ones studying the trees. The ones that study and work in the field and publish things that other people actually read and respect.
quote: I picked up on the cockiness and the bombast right off the bat.
quote: 1) Lets just stick with Earth for now.2) It is dead-obvious only to you, and you really provide nothing even to argue about. quote: Modified numerous times. Big deal. Such is science.
quote: In what way?
quote: Reasonable candidates for this trees ancestors are easily identified.
quote: No you have to demonstrate why everything we know about heredity is wrong.
quote: In other words, hand-waving away research that contradicts your theory.
quote: Don't be an idiot. I'm not trying to make the comparisons that require this thing that no one has found. Try to keep this in context.
quote: Your problem with logic isn't something I can help. Hand waving away what you don't like isn't convincing either.
quote: Come on. You can do better than that. Or don't you look these things up?
The Fossil Record Based on a fragment of lower jaw found in opal deposits at Lightning Ridge in New South Wales, a type of ancestral platypus (Steropodon galmani) existed alongside the dinosaurs about 110 million years ago. In 1991, a fossil tooth belonging to a different kind of ancient platypus (originally described as Monotrematum sudamericanum but now probably regarded as another Obdurodon species, see below) was discovered in the Patagonian desert of Argentina. The tooth was found in sediments deposited over 60 million years ago, at the time when Australia and South America were still joined as part of the southern supercontinent Gondwana. Fossils belonging to three other extinct platypus species (Obdurodon insignis, Obdurodon dicksoni, and Obdurodon sp. A) have been found in Australian sediments deposited between 25 and 15 million years ago, while a leg bone from the first close relative of the modern platypus (Ornithorhynchus sp.) has been dated to about 4.5 million years ago. The earliest known remains of the platypus in its current form (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) date back to around 100,000 years ago. The platypus is sometimes described as a "living fossil" because of this ancient lineage and its combination of mammalian and reptilian features.
URL quote: Just giving examples.
quote: To give you a fighting chance against evolution, actually.
quote: The usual crea-tactics-- refuse to provide adequate evidence.
quote: Prolly.....? Really.....?
quote: I have answered this already.
quote: Apparently you feel as though you are. Look at the way you argue. That you haven't managed to convince anyone of your great find is an indicator of how reasonable your claims are. But, alas, posterity will prove you right, right?
quote: LOL...... if this were true, why is it that it is easily explained via much less exotic methods?
quote: Yes, I am aware of your goal. How did this become your goal?
quote: Einstein had evidence. Everyone knew there were problems with the existing theories. A lot of people were working on it. Einstein was the one who put it together correctly, first. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 12-18-2002] {Fixed a quote box, and substituted "URL" for a very long URL - Adminnemooseus} [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-18-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jeff Inactive Member |
I appreciate the lather, so well worked up by you fellows, but you're taking this thread off topic. We aren't trying to establish whether ID/C is a valid science. ( it isn't )
I have another thread started that would suit this subject very well: ...have a viddy of the thread:Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ? http://EvC Forum: Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ? -->EvC Forum: Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ? If you see no problem with 'inferring a designer' because you WANT to see design in living things, perhaps there you might explain the methods & mechanisms used by this mysterious designer to implement and execute her alleged design ? Why is this never addressed by the ID/C croud ?They pretend there's a design, then a designer...and then call it a day and stop. Pretty thin stuff. Ah, but I digress... Why are there no secular creationists ?Why does their 'science' only impress christian fundementalists who insist on a literal interpretation ( an oxymoron ) of Genesis. Why aren't Hinduists & Buddhists impressed by Creation science and its evidence ? It seems to me that if you have to join a religious cult to appreciate their brand of science....it very likely isn't good science, but more trappings of their religious cult. regards, jeff ------------------"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7686 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
dear John,
J: Einstein had evidence. Everyone knew there were problems with the existing theories. A lot of people were working on it. Einstein was the one who put it together correctly, first. PB: every self respecting objective scientist knows evolutionism is in trouble. I will give you 10 examples that bring it down: 1) the redundant Src kinase family,2) the redundant alpha actinin family, 3) the 1G5 gene 4) the swim reflex in conjunction with the gag reflex in newborn 5) the ancient mtDNA in human/primates 6) the ZFY region 7) the ZFX gene/exon 8) the insoluble IL-1beta incongruence 9) the LCR16a gene 10)the wollemi's invariable DNA Genetic redundnacies in general are sufficient to bring down evolutionism since they do not demonstrate a relationship with gene duplications. Genetic redundancies leave the evolutionary community with complete surprise and disbelief (Nature - Not Found). The same accounts for adaptive mutations (Nature - Not Found). Have a nice day,Peter "Random mutations & selection? Ancient humbug!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1896 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote:As opposed to half-formed? What does that mean, exactly? quote: So, because we know, say, computers are desinged today, and we know that, say, the pyramids were designed, therefore, it is logical to say that biological entities were also designed... I see.... And all animals are human, too....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1896 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: As you have contributed to the overthrow of evolutionism, I was perplexed, as you can imagine, when I did a literature search for your name and 'evolutionism' and 'overthrow' and I got zero returns... Perhaps you can provide a citation - or better yet, a reprint - of your seminal publications on this issue. Thanks...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1896 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
PB:
the ancient mtDNA in human/primates I do hope that you are still not trying to claim that the paper in question posits a human-chimp divergence at 150,000 years ago...If so, that one example will "bring down" your entire feces.. I mean thesis...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6496 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: Actually, everything on his list has been shown to be 1. a result of Borger's lack of any kind of relevant background in genetics and thus completely distorted views i.e. W.nobilis, ZFX 2. Ignoring the evidence exactly against what he is saying 3. claiming that the authors for any reference given against his point either say exactly the opposite of what they are saying or that the data says something that is does not i.e. 150 kya last common ancestor of chimp and human.4. And most commonly, being repeatedly demonstrated to be wrong but then repeating the same falsehoods over and over without ever substantiating the claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
quote: Refresh my memory, there are about 250,000,000 catalogued fossils correct? And, arguably a handful of "transitionals".
quote: I accept the holy bible. Regards,S
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
quote: Why is that unreasonable in your opinion?Speaking of the pyramids, I'm not sure what the latest news is, but I know that they have been the topic of discussion for many years, as to who and how? etc...It was never assumed by anyone that they were NOT designed, even though it happened in ancient times. Design was obvious. Why is it so unreasonable to correlate known design with apparant design? p.s. Correction, animals are NOT human
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024