Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What exactly is ID?
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4709 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 581 of 1273 (542439)
01-10-2010 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 577 by Brad H
01-10-2010 3:22 AM


Re: snow flake
If you present me with the above evidence, as asked, then I will toss my Bible in the trash and never again darken the door way of another church. I would become a hard line evolutionist and atheist.
Yea!! And punch him in the nose for not doing it the way you said he had to do it. Obviously your way is the right way 'cause a book said so. God be damned if he does something different.
Before you start burning books can you please define "hard line evolutionist"? Is that much like those crazed militant gravitationalists or even more frightening the Cult of the germ theory of disease? Those folks really really believe in the evidence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 577 by Brad H, posted 01-10-2010 3:22 AM Brad H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 582 by Brad H, posted 01-10-2010 5:16 AM Vacate has replied

Vacate
Member (Idle past 4709 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 586 of 1273 (542446)
01-10-2010 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 582 by Brad H
01-10-2010 5:16 AM


Atheist
That would be a person who "not only is a customer, but also owns stock in the company."
I am not quite sure I understand. It does seem a bit rash to suddenly start writing evolution textbooks so I must assume you intend some other method of income related to biology?
You can make more money selling creationism, but I assume given your declaration of immediate conversion you hold honesty as an important condition?
Do you then, honestly, believe that God has to have done what you say he had to do? Given the evidence suggests differently why then do you support atheism instead of just disliking God? I can think of a few people I dislike but I am not atheist about their existence. If you do simply decide to dislike God you cannot claim to be Atheist, angry Christian perhaps, but not atheist.
Personally I find your tenuous belief to be sad. I thought only atheists had such a lack of faith in a creator. To be on the edge of a complete conversion must be slightly unsettling?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 582 by Brad H, posted 01-10-2010 5:16 AM Brad H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 594 by Brad H, posted 01-10-2010 7:10 AM Vacate has replied

Vacate
Member (Idle past 4709 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 597 of 1273 (542459)
01-10-2010 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 594 by Brad H
01-10-2010 7:10 AM


Re: Atheist
I am not sure that I fully understand your question here Vacate. It seems like you are asking why would I hate God should I discover that He never existed.
No no, what I mean is why would God cease to exist simply because your wrong?
If I did in fact discover that the Bible was false, that is exactly what that would mean.
That makes no sense. Your version or interpretation may be incorrect. It fails to follow that if the Bible is wrong God cannot exist. Just the God you say has to have done things exactly as you say doesn't exist.
I am so confident that the truth lays in that which I have placed my faith, that I can make such a bold statement. How many atheists can say that.
I would hazzard a guess and say none? Atheists have no faith, thats kinda the point.
By the way I am not on any edge of conversion here.
But you are! Your one piece of evidence away from a total conversion, you even said so. I cannot comprehend how one peice of evidence can literally kill God, poof!! Not a different God than you imagined He was, but actually no God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 594 by Brad H, posted 01-10-2010 7:10 AM Brad H has not replied

Vacate
Member (Idle past 4709 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 624 of 1273 (542594)
01-11-2010 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 617 by Smooth Operator
01-11-2010 3:38 AM


Re: Genetic Entropy
Smooth Operator in message 102
We would than simply count the remaining base pairs, which describe this remaining pattern, and conclude that, let's say 750 bits of information code for the remaining parts. This means that 50 bits of information are lost.
This type of claim seems provable, is it not? Sequence of an ancestor and current of any given species and a genetic loss should be apparent. The larger the gap from ancestor to present species should reveal a larger genetic loss. This sounds like a simple case of adding up the "bits" and Genetic Entropy becomes quite obvious.
Edited by Vacate, : Added message number to the link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 617 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-11-2010 3:38 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 649 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-12-2010 7:23 AM Vacate has replied

Vacate
Member (Idle past 4709 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 663 of 1273 (542764)
01-12-2010 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 649 by Smooth Operator
01-12-2010 7:23 AM


Re: Genetic Entropy
As a matter of fact, I already posted a link which compared 110 mammalian species and how their genetic information kept accumulating slightly deleterious mutations.
On the 649th post of this thread you refer to a link that may or may not be on this thread. Message 115. The link does not appear to be what you claim it to be however, why exactly do you think this paper has any impact at all on evolution?
Sadly, even if you had actually shown this to be true, it doesn't even address what I posted. Nor does it even resemble a passing similarity to statement you made, and I quoted, that shows this. Either you didn't bother to read my post that invited you to prove to the world that evolution is wrong via basic math or you cannot provide said evidence.
So how about it?
Vacate writes:
Sequence of an ancestor and current of any given species and a genetic loss should be apparent. The larger the gap from ancestor to present species should reveal a larger genetic loss.
Do you have any data to support your claim that we can count the loss of, I believe the claim was, base pairs? I have never claimed to know much about genetics but I can subtract with some success.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 649 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-12-2010 7:23 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 665 by Wounded King, posted 01-12-2010 3:27 PM Vacate has not replied
 Message 673 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-13-2010 12:11 PM Vacate has replied

Vacate
Member (Idle past 4709 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 677 of 1273 (542882)
01-13-2010 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 673 by Smooth Operator
01-13-2010 12:11 PM


Re: Genetic Entropy
Notice what the article claims. It says that during the course of mammalian evolution, teh body size had increased. Therefore, the accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations increased also. And than they finish it off by saying that this could contribute to the extinction of large mammals.
No, that is not what the article says. "consequently, Ne tends to decline" - I realize you missed that part but you missed it again when Wounded King explained what the article actually says, better than I could, above on this very thread. Please read more carefully.
***ABE: I just noticed that with PaulK you indicate a decrease in size shows genetic entropy, but you quote an article and argue with me that an increase in size produces "slightly deleterious mutations" and that is an indicator of genetic entropy.
So do you swing both ways or is there something else afoot?
Please read carefully.
I will if you will. Did you miss the whole point of my post yet again? That is twice now. Are you simply not reading very carefully or are you avoiding it because you cannot support your claim? I bet you can avoid it once again by not even making it this far into the post.
Edited by Vacate, : Whats size got to do with it?
Edited by Vacate, : Fixed title

This message is a reply to:
 Message 673 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-13-2010 12:11 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 689 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-15-2010 4:14 PM Vacate has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024