Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Or maybe your side is simply wrong.

Not wrong. That is why your saliva-slinging tirades of science-loathing, ICR whiplash inducing conspiracies are so comical.

You are sounding like a broken record Hollie. You don't seem able to stay focused long enough to respond to the questions.

Either that or you don't know enough about population genetics and mutations to respond. You don't have to say anything just stand on your rhetoric but you are not exhibiting a science discussion which is your cretique of creationist and ID proponents.

Maybe you should try considering the evidence rather then attack someone for their views in faith.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You still don't get it,Neo darwinism is a religious belief. It takes a great amount of faith to accept this theory.

It's been explained to you both tediously and repeatedly that Darwin's theory of evolution has science status and factual data to support the theory and predictions.

Your continued juvenile tantrums, replete with juvenile attempts at slander with terms such as “Darwinism”, and your insistence that only through the intervention of one or more gods could we account for life on this planet only provides you with the same, non-existent credibility of your charlatan homies at the ICR.

I am convinced that the worst thing that has happened to the fundie creationism propaganda industry is the advent of the web. While providing the fundie conspiracy theorists and charlatans with a wider audience to abuse, it has also provided them with a greater audience for their loony conspiracies, twisted theories and junk science.

Yes ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.

I don't need Neo explained to me.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Here let me explain it. It is predictable that the creator would use the same substances and genetic code to produce all living things. The bad assumption is concluding since all living things have similarities they must all be related.

Does a builder of a homes always use mostly the same tools and same products to build new homes even though they may look different ?

False assumptions and bad analogies.

However, with DNA mapping, we can find similarities that connect species. In case you missed it, it was that detestable science which provided the knowledge to map DNA.

Why are your gods such incompetent "designers"? Or, why do your gods hate their "creation"?

Have you read the Noah tale? Only Noah and his immediate fanily were alive after your gods murdered their children - because they were a disappointment. It was left to Noah and his immediate family to repopulate the earth. That suggests some rather... sordid... events were to unfold... you know... family members and procreation and such.

But.... but..... but.... but.....but....

I am leaving for home to Arizona from California do me a favor and point out my faulty assumptions. I will respond when I get the chance. Try to9 stay focused and keep it on science ok,that is not too much to ask is it ?

 

[Hollie]

Maybe you should try considering the evidence rather then attack someone for their views in faith.

Odd that you should make such a claim when you drench your posts with "Darwinists", "evolutionists", etc.

As for evidence, you simply link to creationist websites which further fraudulent information.

 

[Hollie]

I don't need Neo explained to me.

There is no such entity or ideology. You need "'splainin" that you're using terms promoted by the fundie creationist websites you promote.

 

[UltimateReality]

Here let me explain it. It is predictable that the creator would use the same substances and genetic code to produce all living things. The bad assumption is concluding since all living things have similarities they must all be related.

Does a builder of a homes always use mostly the same tools and same products to build new homes even though they may look different ?

False assumptions and bad analogies.

However, with DNA mapping, we can find similarities that connect species. In case you missed it, it was that detestable science which provided the knowledge to map DNA.

Why are your gods such incompetent "designers"? Or, why do your gods hate their "creation"?

Have you read the Noah tale? Only Noah and his immediate fanily were alive after your gods murdered their children - because they were a disappointment. It was left to Noah and his immediate family to repopulate the earth. That suggests some rather... sordid... events were to unfold... you know... family members and procreation and such.

But.... but..... but.... but.....but....

You are such a hypocrite. You take offense to the word Darwinist- right here under the darwinism definition... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/darwinism, but then you use the term "gods" to a gentleman that obviously subscribes to a monotheistic belief system. Not only are you a hypocrite, but you are a Liar with an agenda.

 

[UltimateReality]

TWO BIG Questions Hollie still hasn't responded to:

Did you plagiarize another forum poster?

Were you raised in a Christian home?

 

[Hollie]

Here let me explain it. It is predictable that the creator would use the same substances and genetic code to produce all living things. The bad assumption is concluding since all living things have similarities they must all be related.

Does a builder of a homes always use mostly the same tools and same products to build new homes even though they may look different ?

False assumptions and bad analogies.

However, with DNA mapping, we can find similarities that connect species. In case you missed it, it was that detestable science which provided the knowledge to map DNA.

Why are your gods such incompetent "designers"? Or, why do your gods hate their "creation"?

Have you read the Noah tale? Only Noah and his immediate fanily were alive after your gods murdered their children - because they were a disappointment. It was left to Noah and his immediate family to repopulate the earth. That suggests some rather... sordid... events were to unfold... you know... family members and procreation and such.

But.... but..... but.... but.....but....

I am leaving for home to Arizona from California do me a favor and point out my faulty assumptions. I will respond when I get the chance. Try to9 stay focused and keep it on science ok,that is not too much to ask is it ?

Do you mean that revolting evilutionary science you insist is false?

I was hoping you would have offered some science testimony to support your sectarian version of gods but not once have you managed to do so.

It's apparent your entire promotion in these threads is to vilify the science you despise. It's also apparent that your agenda, as well as that of the ICR, is to vilify science in the hope that, that will bolster your promotion of gods.

That's a failed agenda. Even if evolution is completely negated (and that is not going to occur given it adheres consistently to the principles of rationality and science to qualify it both as a Theory of Science [not a hypothesis], and knowledge) -- so what? It doesn't add a single factor in favor of any religious assertion.

All of the failed attempts to negate evolution add nothing to Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Islam being "right".

 

[UltimateReality]

Hollie, remember when I said you bring nothing new to this thread?? You've been following this flow chart, haven't you???

 

[UltimateReality]

In 2011, the ID movement counted its 50th peer-reviewed scientific paper and new publications continue to appear. The current boom goes back to 2004, when Discovery Institute senior fellow Stephen Meyer published a groundbreaking paper advocating ID in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. There are multiple hubs of ID-related research.

The list and descriptions are here:

CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

 

[UltimateReality]

Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).

This research, published by molecular biologist Ann Gauger of the Biologic Institute, Ralph Seelke at the University of Wisconsin Superior started by breaking a gene in the bacterium Escherichia coli required for synthesizing the amino acid tryptophan. When the gene was broken in just one place, random mutations in the bacteria’s genome were capable of “fixing” the gene. But when two mutations were required to restore function, Darwinian evolution could not do the job. Such results show that it is extremely unlikely for blind and unguided Darwinian processes to find rare amino-acid sequences that yield functional proteins. In essence, functional proteins are multi-mutation features in the extreme.

 

[UltimateReality]

Sad thing about Hollie's total ignorance is she thinks everything is all figured out. It's not. Truly objective Science generally points away from Darwinism.

Citing skeptics of neo-Darwinism such as Behe and "the almost 900 scientists of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism," the paper notes that:

Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why -- even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements -- all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western world instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective "micromutations" (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by "larger mutations" ... and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment (as predicted) instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species...

 

[Hollie]

Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).

This research, published by molecular biologist Ann Gauger of the Biologic Institute, Ralph Seelke at the University of Wisconsin Superior started by breaking a gene in the bacterium Escherichia coli required for synthesizing the amino acid tryptophan. When the gene was broken in just one place, random mutations in the bacteria’s genome were capable of “fixing” the gene. But when two mutations were required to restore function, Darwinian evolution could not do the job. Such results show that it is extremely unlikely for blind and unguided Darwinian processes to find rare amino-acid sequences that yield functional proteins. In essence, functional proteins are multi-mutation features in the extreme.

Thereby negating all of the biology that we know. Hey - if you read it on the internet, it must be true and because you used large, bolded text, we're now convinced.

Therefore, we have proved "The gods did it".

Time for another global flood.

 

[UltimateReality]

David L. Abel, “The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP),” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 6(27) (2009).

Materialists (HOLLIE) often vaguely appeal to vast periods of time and boundless probabilistic resources in the universe to make their scenarios sound plausible. But is “mere possibility” sufficient justification to assert “scientific plausibility”? This peer-reviewed article in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling answers that question, arguing that “[m]ere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility” because “[a] precisely defined universal bound is needed beyond which the assertion of plausibility, particularly in life-origin models, can be considered operationally falsified.” The paper observes that “Combinatorial imaginings and hypothetical scenarios can be endlessly argued simply on the grounds that they are theoretically possible,” but then argues that the unwillingness of materialists to consider certain origin of life models to be false is actually stopping the progress of science, since “at some point our reluctance to exclude any possibility becomes stultifying to operational science.” The paper observes that “Just because a hypothesis is possible should not grant that hypothesis scientific respectability,” an important rejoinder to materialists who propose speculative stories about self-organization or co-option to explain the origin of biological complexity. The author then rigorously calculates the Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM), incorporating the maximum probabilistic resources available for the universe, galaxy, solar system, and the earth:

cΩu = Universe = 10log13 reactions/sec X 10log17 secs X 10log78 atoms = 10log108
cΩg = Galaxy = 10log13 X 10log17 X 10log66 = 10log96
cΩs = Solar System = 10log13 X 10log17 X 10log55 = 10log85
cΩe = Earth = 10log13 X 10log17 X 10log40 = 10log70

 

[UltimateReality]

Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).

This research, published by molecular biologist Ann Gauger of the Biologic Institute, Ralph Seelke at the University of Wisconsin Superior started by breaking a gene in the bacterium Escherichia coli required for synthesizing the amino acid tryptophan. When the gene was broken in just one place, random mutations in the bacteria’s genome were capable of “fixing” the gene. But when two mutations were required to restore function, Darwinian evolution could not do the job. Such results show that it is extremely unlikely for blind and unguided Darwinian processes to find rare amino-acid sequences that yield functional proteins. In essence, functional proteins are multi-mutation features in the extreme.

Thereby negating all of the biology that we know. Hey - if you read it on the internet, it must be true and because you used large, bolded text, we're now convinced.

Therefore, we have proved "The gods did it".

Time for another global flood.

How does that negate biology? Please explain? (i'm guessing all we'll get is crickets chirping again since Materialist Darwinist Plagiarist Hollie has no thoughts of her own.)

 

[Hollie]

Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).

This research, published by molecular biologist Ann Gauger of the Biologic Institute, Ralph Seelke at the University of Wisconsin Superior started by breaking a gene in the bacterium Escherichia coli required for synthesizing the amino acid tryptophan. When the gene was broken in just one place, random mutations in the bacteria’s genome were capable of “fixing” the gene. But when two mutations were required to restore function, Darwinian evolution could not do the job. Such results show that it is extremely unlikely for blind and unguided Darwinian processes to find rare amino-acid sequences that yield functional proteins. In essence, functional proteins are multi-mutation features in the extreme.

Thereby negating all of the biology that we know. Hey - if you read it on the internet, it must be true and because you used large, bolded text, we're now convinced.

Therefore, we have proved "The gods did it".

Time for another global flood.

How does that negate biology? Please explain? (i'm guessing all we'll get is crickets chirping again since Materialist Darwinist Plagiarist Hollie has no thoughts of her own.)

The bold text convinced me. And Michael Behe, another tired, used-up crank who is rolled out by creationist hacks to babble about hack creationism.

Let me guess, you and the other guy are the same poster, different accounts, and scour creationist websites for material to dump into thread upon thread.

 

[Montrovant]

Hollie, I have a few questions for you.

1.If everything is always evolving as evolutionist suggest because all organisms experience mutations,why do we have living fossils alive today and have fossils of their ancestors that were dated from way back in the past show no evolutionary change ?

2. Why do we not see new life forms constantly coming into existence ?

3. I know evolutionist don't like this question but bit is tied to evolutionist even though they deny it. How did the first cell form from a natural process ?

4. Amino Acids combine to form proteins. Both right handed and left handed Amino Acids can easily combine. What would happen to the cell and the organism if the left and right handed Amino Acid would combine ? Why is it that only left handed Amino Acids are the only Amino Acids found in cells of living organisms ?

5. I asked you why over time the flies mutations I studied for 11 years and Darwins pigeons,and finches all after only a few generations returned to what they were ? Since they did return to what they were they did not evolve why does your side claim they evolved ?

These are questions I asked you and you never responded to them.

If I might interject, I think part of the problem is you are looking at evolution as a linear change from 'bad' to 'good'. That is not the idea at all. Evolution, as I understand it, proposes that things change, not that they are changing on the way to some sort of perfect state. The changes which work for whatever environment the particular creature is in will be passed on, but that doesn't make them better in an absolute sense. Rather they may be better for that particular environment.

So, as to why some creatures show little change over long periods of time, the answer can be simply that few changes have occurred which provide a greater survivability. Either they creature is already very well suited to survive and reproduce, or the environment in which it lives has undergone little change, or some combination of these.

How would you apply this thinking to Homo Sapiens, who are VERY poorly suited to just about any environment, requiring skins of other animals in order not to freeze to death, and requiring implements formed from other objects to even have the ability to hunt prey.

It seems fairly obvious to me that the answer would be that our intellect, ability to reason, and use of tools (thank you, opposeable thumbs! ) were and are a greater boon to humans as a species than other traits. If, for instance, a previous version of humanity had not had the intelligence and ability to use the skins of animals to keep warm, or to find/build shelter, they would have died....and their traits would not have been passed on. Because they were able to thrive even without thick(er) fur, or sharp claws, or whatever traits they lacked that others had, they lived, reproduced, and passed their greater intelligence on to their progeny.

 

[Montrovant]

UltimateReality, how many of the 50 peer-reviewed articles you mentioned were published in creationist or ID journals? I ask because I recall seeing somewhere that there had been a few ID articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, but that the large majority were published in journals from ID organizations such as the Discovery Institute or did not actually make any claims about a designer.

In a related question, how many of the 900 scientists you mention in the dissent from evolution are in scientific fields related to evolution? There are many fields of scientific study, and some have only a passing relationship to evolution, if even that. Just as Hollie showing statistics about biologists not believing in god doesn't really mean anything, saying 900 scientists agreed to sign a disagreement with evolution is meaningless if we don't know what type of science they study.

Whatever the case may be, what I have seen is that the vast majority of scientists in fields relating to evolutionary theory accept it as being sound. Perhaps that is a blindness on their part, an institutional desire not to be proven wrong; until I see a lot more than 50 (possible) peer-reviewed ID articles and 900 scientists (from unknown fields) disagreeing, I will need to see some pretty compelling evidence to believe in the validity of ID as a field of scientific study. As usual, that doesn't deny the possible existence of a designer, merely my inability to see it as a form of scientific research.

 

[UltimateReality]

If I might interject, I think part of the problem is you are looking at evolution as a linear change from 'bad' to 'good'. That is not the idea at all. Evolution, as I understand it, proposes that things change, not that they are changing on the way to some sort of perfect state. The changes which work for whatever environment the particular creature is in will be passed on, but that doesn't make them better in an absolute sense. Rather they may be better for that particular environment.

So, as to why some creatures show little change over long periods of time, the answer can be simply that few changes have occurred which provide a greater survivability. Either they creature is already very well suited to survive and reproduce, or the environment in which it lives has undergone little change, or some combination of these.

How would you apply this thinking to Homo Sapiens, who are VERY poorly suited to just about any environment, requiring skins of other animals in order not to freeze to death, and requiring implements formed from other objects to even have the ability to hunt prey.

It seems fairly obvious to me that the answer would be that our intellect, ability to reason, and use of tools (thank you, opposeable thumbs! ) were and are a greater boon to humans as a species than other traits. If, for instance, a previous version of humanity had not had the intelligence and ability to use the skins of animals to keep warm, or to find/build shelter, they would have died....and their traits would not have been passed on. Because they were able to thrive even without thick(er) fur, or sharp claws, or whatever traits they lacked that others had, they lived, reproduced, and passed their greater intelligence on to their progeny.

But I guess the real question and mystery is, if evolution is true, how did this happen gradually?

 

[UltimateReality]

Thereby negating all of the biology that we know. Hey - if you read it on the internet, it must be true and because you used large, bolded text, we're now convinced.

Therefore, we have proved "The gods did it".

Time for another global flood.

How does that negate biology? Please explain? (i'm guessing all we'll get is crickets chirping again since Materialist Darwinist Plagiarist Hollie has no thoughts of her own.)

The bold text convinced me. And Michael Behe, another tired, used-up crank who is rolled out by creationist hacks to babble about hack creationism.

Let me guess, you and the other guy are the same poster, different accounts, and scour creationist websites for material to dump into thread upon thread.

Speaking of scouring websites, what's the deal with cut and pasting the other thread and passing it off as your own? I guess if evolution has taught us one thing, it is that human's are not above burying their head in the sand, like you are doing right now, and hoping that I will stop asking you the questions you don't want to provide answers to. It's a good thing you can hide behind the anonymity of the internet and have that "no one knows me" courage. The same thing happens on my firearm forums.

Your statements above are not explanations for why you believe the findings negate biology. They are just useless sarcasm. It is sad that you need to quote others to sound intelligent. If I were you I would start by studying the various fallacies that occur in debate. Once you have brushed up on those, hopefully you will be much less likely to commit them so atrociously.

Were you raised in a Christian home and abandoned your faith when you started struggling with same sex attraction?