Creationists

[LOki]

You can balk at the thought of the genetic code being a form of communication all you like and question whether genes are data that get transcribed but there are mountains of literature that agree with my view on this suject.

All of it question-begging.

That being a fact we can infer there is no form of language or a code that was not designed or developed absent of an intelligent mind.

Equivocation.

Great response. Too bad you have relied on equivocation.

Despite the obvious opportunity you had, you failed to demonstrate this. Why is that?

Are you on that "pick a word from the dictionary and use it for a week" program?

We all are aware that if you believe it is so, that is sufficient for you to be absolutely certain that it is so, because no one can prove to you that it is not so.

 

[newpolitics]

Ok let's try this again shall we.

Your theory calls for natural selection allowing organisms with better traits over time passing on these traits that aid in the survival of the species. If humans are related to some of these creatures evolutionist claim,why are none of these superior traits found in the human Genepool ?. Examples of superior traits our relatives possessed and did not pass on to modern day humans.

1. superior eye sight
2. superior land speed
3. superior strength
4. superior sense of smell

This is a tuffy I know but it is a questing that needs a rational explanation if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again.

Are we gonna get a baseless answer like we get when asking about how did life spontaneously start,with zero evidence backing your copy and paste jobs ?

Simple. There would be no evolutionary selective pressure to produce a "super-animal," which is basically what you described. An animal evolves only as much as it needs to survive to pass on DNA. If an animal became over-evoved, it will kill all of its prey, and then it would die out from starvation. There's you're answer.

As an aside, one could argue that humans are over-evolved. We are TOO smart and have over-powered our environment. However, this is because we evolved in emergency, drought conditions in East Africa, and had to learn to become extremely cooperative problem-solvers in order to find food and water. When we emerged from those drought conditions, we were easily able to negotiate and dominate more livable environment

You are not really answering the question and you are going against your own theory. The point is traits that help an organism survive and pass on traits why would these traits of survival not be passed on ? Where did these traits go ?

Where did what traits go? You imply we should be a hybrid of every organism, ever. I am not qualified to address such a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. This is not what evolutionary theory would ever predict. Try for a second, to study the theory you pretend to debunk.

Also, landmasses, terrains, and cimate are in a state of continuous change and have been since the beginning of the earth 4.5 Billion years ago. Therefore, what worked for an organism 5 million years ago, might not necessarily work now. Change is required.

 

[LOki]

Simple. There would be no evolutionary selective pressure to produce a "super-animal," which is basically what you described. An animal evolves only as much as it needs to survive to pass on DNA. If an animal became over-evoved, it will kill all of its prey, and then it would die out from starvation. There's you're answer.

As an aside, one could argue that humans are over-evolved. We are TOO smart and have over-powered our environment. However, this is because we evolved in emergency, drought conditions in East Africa, and had to learn to become extremely cooperative problem-solvers in order to find food and water. When we emerged from those drought conditions, we were easily able to negotiate and dominate more livable environment

You are not really answering the question and you are going against your own theory. The point is traits that help an organism survive and pass on traits why would these traits of survival not be passed on ? Where did these traits go ?

Where did what traits go? You imply we should be a hybrid of every organism, ever. I am not qualified to address such a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. This is not what evolutionary theory would ever predict. Try for a second, to study the theory you pretend to debunk.

Also, landmasses, terrains, and cimate are in a state of continuous change and have been since the beginning of the earth 4.5 Billion years ago. Therefore, what worked for an organism 5 million years ago, might not necessarily work now. Change is required.

The trouble with this asshat's "tuffies" is the bullshit premises built into them, that you have to accept in order to offer an answer.

The way to deal with his "tuffies" is to require him to first defend his bullshit premises.

 

[LOki]

Dependent, does that not suggest a necessity,do you believe chance produces a necessity ?

There is no answer to this nonsense question. Do you believe blue adds up to 27?

So what happens if a mutation happens ?

Nothing, IF DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule, as the disingenuous retard you defend so enthusiastically demands.

OTOH if I am correct, and DNA is a NOT symbol for proteins, but a molecule whose information is dependent on... no, MORE than just dependent on... INHERENT in its chemistry; if, as I have clearly stated, you CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and then expect no alteration of the initial protein coded for, then there will be a change expressed in the product (i.e. the protein in this case) of the altered information that constitutes the mutation.

You have something transcribing the information then if an error happens you have another mechanism to try and correct that mistake and you think that just happened through chance ?

Perhaps if I imagined that a leprechaun caused it to happen, and then demanded that you had to prove it wrong would be more convincing to you.

But the rational world would still call it crap.

While this is going on you have the diversity of livinging organisms with only a four letter alphabet.

The diversity of organisms has nothing to do with any alphabet--and it's a good thing too, since the vast majority of organisms that ever existed, didn't even have an alphabet.

 

[LOki]

My one and only God has always existed. There is only one God you must be trying to confuse my beliefs with someone else.

VS​

My one and only Great Pumpkin has always existed. There is only one Great Pumpkin you must be trying to confuse my beliefs with someone else.

If Youwerecreated cannot prove Linus wrong, then Youwerecreated is wrong!

 

[UltimateReality]

This tu toque non-sequitur is just as bullshit as the other you keep trying to sell.

0's and 1's are among the many symbols that can be used to represent the letter "A".

Riiiiiiight. Except you have it backwards regarding DNA genomesplice.

I don't have anything backwards ... except (apparently) when you wish to accuse me of attacking a strawman.

I said 0's and 1's ARE symbols in computer code.

Hence, the 1's and 0's are ACTUALLY (as I have clearly stated) symbols! "They represent on or off, or in the case of flash memory, the presence of an electron or no electron."

If you substitute electrical and physical properties of a computer with something else, the symbols you posit become irrelevant; you just get a null product. Just as with DNA in a living thing.

You can reaname these vaules, but you can't change the electrical and physical properties, the G's, T's... err, I mean the 0's and 1's represtent. Sound familiar???

This sounds like the instances you agree with me solely for the purposes of accusing me of attacking a strawman; after which, you resume promoting the precise argument you claimed was the strawman.

So just like G's, T's, C's and A's represent the chemical bases in DNA, the 0's and 1's represent an electrical property of the processor or storage medium. You don't have to use 0 and 1 to represent this property, but you can't change the property. Yet, still, the information in flash memory is independent of the electrical properties used to store it.

You're still equivocating, as well as using a false analogy. The function of computer "code" is the manipulation of any symbols that can represent any information, such that any information can be (and is) stored as symbols. As useful as it may be to think of DNA as "code," DNA in living things functions differently.

You're still trying to say that "the information in flash memory is independent of the electrical properties used to store it," but the information in flash memory is still dependent on the electrical properties of the flash memory used to store it, in such a way that without the electrical properties you get nothing.

Which is just a little less dumb a thing to say as: "... dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries," but the informational code is still dependent on the chemistry of the molecule, in such a way that without that particular chemistry you get nothing.

You were wrong over 1700 posts ago ... you're still wrong now, for the same reasons.

And you still are hopelessly lost and don't get it.

 

[UltimateReality]

There is no answer to this nonsense question. Do you believe blue adds up to 27?

Nothing, IF DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule, as the disingenuous retard you defend so enthusiastically demands.

OTOH if I am correct, and DNA is a NOT symbol for proteins, but a molecule whose information is dependent on... no, MORE than just dependent on... INHERENT in its chemistry; if, as I have clearly stated, you CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and then expect no alteration of the initial protein coded for, then there will be a change expressed in the product (i.e. the protein in this case) of the altered information that constitutes the mutation.

You have something transcribing the information then if an error happens you have another mechanism to try and correct that mistake and you think that just happened through chance ?

Perhaps if I imagined that a leprechaun caused it to happen, and then demanded that you had to prove it wrong would be more convincing to you.

False analogy.

 

[UltimateReality]

This tu toque non-sequitur is just as bullshit as the other you keep trying to sell.

0's and 1's are among the many symbols that can be used to represent the letter "A".

Riiiiiiight. Except you have it backwards regarding DNA genomesplice.

I don't have anything backwards ... except (apparently) when you wish to accuse me of attacking a strawman.

I said 0's and 1's ARE symbols in computer code.

Hence, the 1's and 0's are ACTUALLY (as I have clearly stated) symbols! "They represent on or off, or in the case of flash memory, the presence of an electron or no electron."

If you substitute electrical and physical properties of a computer with something else, the symbols you posit become irrelevant; you just get a null product. Just as with DNA in a living thing.

You can reaname these vaules, but you can't change the electrical and physical properties, the G's, T's... err, I mean the 0's and 1's represtent. Sound familiar???

This sounds like the instances you agree with me solely for the purposes of accusing me of attacking a strawman; after which, you resume promoting the precise argument you claimed was the strawman.

So just like G's, T's, C's and A's represent the chemical bases in DNA, the 0's and 1's represent an electrical property of the processor or storage medium. You don't have to use 0 and 1 to represent this property, but you can't change the property. Yet, still, the information in flash memory is independent of the electrical properties used to store it.

You're still equivocating, as well as using a false analogy. The function of computer "code" is the manipulation of any symbols that can represent any information, such that any information can be (and is) stored as symbols.

The specific arrangement of bases determines the amino acid used in the "word" for a specific protein. Manipulation of the bases and their order results in information for a different protein being stored. I guess instead of your endless gibberish attacks, you need to list the specific ways the genetic code in a cell differs in execution from the binary code in a computer, because you are really arguing they shouldn't be compared to each other. The real point you are desperately trying to make is that the information in DNA happened by chance. This is the source of your semantics trickery and intellectual dishonesty in your feeble attempt to distract from a truth you can't logically deny.

The logical argument is true based on presently observable truths:
All presently observable information with specificity has an intelligent agent as it source.
DNA contains information with specificity.
Therefore, DNA has an intelligent agent as its source.

Before you engage in your typical intellectually dishonest behavior and scream non sequitur, you must realize you would be falsely accusing me of the fallacy of the undistributed middle. But for that to be applicable, there would have to be other sources of information with specificity that I have left out. This is your mission, and so far no one has been able to, not even Dawkins with his computer program trickery: Find a presently observable source for information, that when stored, transmitted, translated, and transcribed, performs a specific function, other than an intelligent agent and I will renounce by belief in ID Theory.

Finally, if Darwinism doesn't cover origins as Hollie claims, why do you so vehemently attempt to discredit the truth about information in the cell? Because to admit it would cause you to have to concede the only known sources of information with specificity we presently observe has an intelligent agent as it source?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Simple. There would be no evolutionary selective pressure to produce a "super-animal," which is basically what you described. An animal evolves only as much as it needs to survive to pass on DNA. If an animal became over-evoved, it will kill all of its prey, and then it would die out from starvation. There's you're answer.

As an aside, one could argue that humans are over-evolved. We are TOO smart and have over-powered our environment. However, this is because we evolved in emergency, drought conditions in East Africa, and had to learn to become extremely cooperative problem-solvers in order to find food and water. When we emerged from those drought conditions, we were easily able to negotiate and dominate more livable environment

You are not really answering the question and you are going against your own theory. The point is traits that help an organism survive and pass on traits why would these traits of survival not be passed on ? Where did these traits go ?

Where did what traits go? You imply we should be a hybrid of every organism, ever. I am not qualified to address such a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. This is not what evolutionary theory would ever predict. Try for a second, to study the theory you pretend to debunk.

Also, landmasses, terrains, and cimate are in a state of continuous change and have been since the beginning of the earth 4.5 Billion years ago. Therefore, what worked for an organism 5 million years ago, might not necessarily work now. Change is required.

I have studied it for many years. Your theory is based on change over time through mutations and natural selection. I have listed the traits that should not have been eliminated from the genepool that humans came from. Those were superior traits that would allow humans to survive and pass on these traits. Face it, if you had an ounce of reasoning you would understand why I asked.

 

[Youwerecreated]

My one and only God has always existed. There is only one God you must be trying to confuse my beliefs with someone else.

VS​

My one and only Great Pumpkin has always existed. There is only one Great Pumpkin you must be trying to confuse my beliefs with someone else.

If Youwerecreated cannot prove Linus wrong, then Youwerecreated is wrong!

Your childish games reveal a lot about you loki. Face it you believe life began through chance that needed miracles. I believe life began because a brilliant designer.

 

[newpolitics]

You are not really answering the question and you are going against your own theory. The point is traits that help an organism survive and pass on traits why would these traits of survival not be passed on ? Where did these traits go ?

Where did what traits go? You imply we should be a hybrid of every organism, ever. I am not qualified to address such a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. This is not what evolutionary theory would ever predict. Try for a second, to study the theory you pretend to debunk.

Also, landmasses, terrains, and cimate are in a state of continuous change and have been since the beginning of the earth 4.5 Billion years ago. Therefore, what worked for an organism 5 million years ago, might not necessarily work now. Change is required.

I have studied it for many years. Your theory is based on change over time through mutations and natural selection. I have listed the traits that should not have been eliminated from the genepool that humans came from. Those were superior traits that would allow humans to survive and pass on these traits. Face it, if you had an ounce of reasoning you would understand why I asked.

Why don't you paint a more specific picture for me, of what you think should have happened? Try to describe exactly what traits you think humans should have, and how and why this would have come about. If you can't describe this, then don't put it down.

 

[Hollie]

Riiiiiiight. Except you have it backwards regarding DNA genomesplice.

I don't have anything backwards ... except (apparently) when you wish to accuse me of attacking a strawman.

I said 0's and 1's ARE symbols in computer code.

Hence, the 1's and 0's are ACTUALLY (as I have clearly stated) symbols! "They represent on or off, or in the case of flash memory, the presence of an electron or no electron."

If you substitute electrical and physical properties of a computer with something else, the symbols you posit become irrelevant; you just get a null product. Just as with DNA in a living thing.

This sounds like the instances you agree with me solely for the purposes of accusing me of attacking a strawman; after which, you resume promoting the precise argument you claimed was the strawman.

So just like G's, T's, C's and A's represent the chemical bases in DNA, the 0's and 1's represent an electrical property of the processor or storage medium. You don't have to use 0 and 1 to represent this property, but you can't change the property. Yet, still, the information in flash memory is independent of the electrical properties used to store it.

You're still equivocating, as well as using a false analogy. The function of computer "code" is the manipulation of any symbols that can represent any information, such that any information can be (and is) stored as symbols.

The specific arrangement of bases determines the amino acid used in the "word" for a specific protein. Manipulation of the bases and their order results in information for a different protein being stored. I guess instead of your endless gibberish attacks, you need to list the specific ways the genetic code in a cell differs in execution from the binary code in a computer, because you are really arguing they shouldn't be compared to each other. The real point you are desperately trying to make is that the information in DNA happened by chance. This is the source of your semantics trickery and intellectual dishonesty in your feeble attempt to distract from a truth you can't logically deny.

The logical argument is true based on presently observable truths:
All presently observable information with specificity has an intelligent agent as it source.
DNA contains information with specificity.
Therefore, DNA has an intelligent agent as its source.

Before you engage in your typical intellectually dishonest behavior and scream non sequitur, you must realize you would be falsely accusing me of the fallacy of the undistributed middle. But for that to be applicable, there would have to be other sources of information with specificity that I have left out. This is your mission, and so far no one has been able to, not even Dawkins with his computer program trickery: Find a presently observable source for information, that when stored, transmitted, translated, and transcribed, performs a specific function, other than an intelligent agent and I will renounce by belief in ID Theory.

Finally, if Darwinism doesn't cover origins as Hollie claims, why do you so vehemently attempt to discredit the truth about information in the cell? Because to admit it would cause you to have to concede the only known sources of information with specificity we presently observe has an intelligent agent as it source?

I'm afraid my stalker is simply cutting and pasting from Stephen Meyer and propaganda taken from creationist ministries with his silly cliches' and slogans that follow the creationist politburo party line: "the cell is complicated, therefore it must have been designed". Throughout the thread, that is the crestionist agenda: to "prove" their gods with the "god of the gaps", fallacy. One would think that evidence and facts as used by science to support knowledge would be the mechanism to support the proposal for gods but as we see with consistency, evidence for supernaturalism is not in the creationist agenda.

That truly is the reality of the Christian creationist agenda. It's just a shame that creationists don't understand that employing the science they despise in intellectually dishonest attempts to refute science only further weakens their arguments. For all the false analogies, ridiculous comparisons and logical errors: "the only known sources of information with specificity we presently observe has an intelligent agent as it source"? we're left with fundie Christians using lies and deceit in desperate attempts to press their religious agenda.

What I find interesting about fundies is just how arbitrary their "belief" really is. The two fundies in this thread are are Christian for no reason other than parentage. Let's be honest and conclude that for the overwhelming majority of people, their religious affiliation is nothing more than accepting the religion of their parents or the majority religion. Had the two fundies in this thread been raised in Middle East, they would be muhammud worshippers insisting man was made from clay. That is precisely why (aside from the ridiculous analogies and false assumptions noted above), the boilerplate creationist polemics are cut and pasted from creationist ministries.

If you raise a child in the middle of a remote jungle with no exposure to concepts relating to gods, there's no reason to suspect the child will arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism. All theistic beliefs are externally brought to human beings. No humans display inherent theism. Has any child ever suddenly generated belief in or knowledge of Amun Ra or allah? If you raise a baby in a Buddhist culture, it will almost certainly embrace Buddhism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. Those religious beliefs are learned behavior.


Here is a portion of an article from a 2009 review about religion published in Science (On the Origion of Religion, Elizabeth Culotta; very interesting by the way):

On the Origin of Religion - Origins


From the article: "Barrett and others see the roots of religion in our sophisticated social cognition. Humans, they say, have a tendency to see signs of "agents" minds like our own at work in the world. "We have a tremendous capacity to imbue even inanimate things with beliefs, desires, emotions, and consciousness, and this is at the core of many religious beliefs," says Yale psychologist Paul Bloom.

Notice the roots of religion: "our sophisticated social cognition". No mention of gods. Further, the comment regarding we humans "imbue even inanimate things with beliefs, desires, emotions, and consciousness...and this is at the core of many religious beliefs". Here again, no mention of gods but rather attaching human-based desires to inanimate objects such as idols, golden icons, plastic effigies and other symbols.

 

[LOki]

Riiiiiiight. Except you have it backwards regarding DNA genomesplice.

I don't have anything backwards ... except (apparently) when you wish to accuse me of attacking a strawman.

I said 0's and 1's ARE symbols in computer code.

Hence, the 1's and 0's are ACTUALLY (as I have clearly stated) symbols! "They represent on or off, or in the case of flash memory, the presence of an electron or no electron."

If you substitute electrical and physical properties of a computer with something else, the symbols you posit become irrelevant; you just get a null product. Just as with DNA in a living thing.

This sounds like the instances you agree with me solely for the purposes of accusing me of attacking a strawman; after which, you resume promoting the precise argument you claimed was the strawman.

So just like G's, T's, C's and A's represent the chemical bases in DNA, the 0's and 1's represent an electrical property of the processor or storage medium. You don't have to use 0 and 1 to represent this property, but you can't change the property. Yet, still, the information in flash memory is independent of the electrical properties used to store it.

You're still equivocating, as well as using a false analogy. The function of computer "code" is the manipulation of any symbols that can represent any information, such that any information can be (and is) stored as symbols. As useful as it may be to think of DNA as "code," DNA in living things functions differently.

You're still trying to say that "the information in flash memory is independent of the electrical properties used to store it," but the information in flash memory is still dependent on the electrical properties of the flash memory used to store it, in such a way that without the electrical properties you get nothing.

Which is just a little less dumb a thing to say as: "... dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries," but the informational code is still dependent on the chemistry of the molecule, in such a way that without that particular chemistry you get nothing.

You were wrong over 1700 posts ago ... you're still wrong now, for the same reasons.

And you still are hopelessly lost and don't get it.

 

[LOki]

You have something transcribing the information then if an error happens you have another mechanism to try and correct that mistake and you think that just happened through chance ?

Perhaps if I imagined that a leprechaun caused it to happen, and then demanded that you had to prove it wrong would be more convincing to you.

False analogy.

Not even an analogy.

 

[ima]

I think we were created. God was trying to make more monkeys and he mistakenly made us.

 

[LOki]

The logical argument is true based on presently observable truths:
All presently observable information with specificity has an intelligent agent as it source.

Contentious premise.

DNA contains information with specificity.

So does everything else.

Therefore, DNA has an intelligent agent as its source.

Question begging conclusion.

 

[LOki]

My one and only God has always existed. There is only one God you must be trying to confuse my beliefs with someone else.

VS​

My one and only Great Pumpkin has always existed. There is only one Great Pumpkin you must be trying to confuse my beliefs with someone else.

If Youwerecreated cannot prove Linus wrong, then Youwerecreated is wrong!

Your childish games reveal a lot about you loki.

Like what? That like child I can see that the emperors new clothes are a fraud? The same as the "Designer" you posit is so wonderful?

Face it you believe life began through chance that needed miracles.

NO SALE!

I believe life began because a brilliant designer.

But you can't disprove the Great Pumpkin; therefore according to your argumentative paradigm, you are wrong.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Where did what traits go? You imply we should be a hybrid of every organism, ever. I am not qualified to address such a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. This is not what evolutionary theory would ever predict. Try for a second, to study the theory you pretend to debunk.

Also, landmasses, terrains, and cimate are in a state of continuous change and have been since the beginning of the earth 4.5 Billion years ago. Therefore, what worked for an organism 5 million years ago, might not necessarily work now. Change is required.

I have studied it for many years. Your theory is based on change over time through mutations and natural selection. I have listed the traits that should not have been eliminated from the genepool that humans came from. Those were superior traits that would allow humans to survive and pass on these traits. Face it, if you had an ounce of reasoning you would understand why I asked.

Why don't you paint a more specific picture for me, of what you think should have happened? Try to describe exactly what traits you think humans should have, and how and why this would have come about. If you can't describe this, then don't put it down.

1. Land speed
2. vision
3. sense of smell
4. strength

To name a few but this went with only one attempt and a poor attempt to explain why these traits did not get passed to humans. We can agree according to natural selection these are traits that would aid in survival of any group that possessed them.

 

[Hollie]

I have studied it for many years. Your theory is based on change over time through mutations and natural selection. I have listed the traits that should not have been eliminated from the genepool that humans came from. Those were superior traits that would allow humans to survive and pass on these traits. Face it, if you had an ounce of reasoning you would understand why I asked.

Why don't you paint a more specific picture for me, of what you think should have happened? Try to describe exactly what traits you think humans should have, and how and why this would have come about. If you can't describe this, then don't put it down.

1. Land speed
2. vision
3. sense of smell
4. strength

To name a few but this went with only one attempt and a poor attempt to explain why these traits did not get passed to humans. We can agree according to natural selection these are traits that would aid in survival of any group that possessed them.

Yours are the claims of a simpleton.

Those traits that are valuable as adaptive to the environment would most likely be passed from generation to generation.

Land speed is valuable to a plains dwelling creature but is much less valuable to a forest dweller.

Even your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya (which is dumbfounding) is more precise than you left to your own devices.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The logical argument is true based on presently observable truths:
All presently observable information with specificity has an intelligent agent as it source.

Contentious premise.

DNA contains information with specificity.

So does everything else.

Therefore, DNA has an intelligent agent as its source.

Question begging conclusion.

No,it's logical to infer a designer not blind chance and miracles being the cause. Not question begging, it's question begging to suggest DNA information came about in the way you believe it came about.