The Failure Of Evolution Theory . . . in a nutshell, information

[toobfreak]

Nope, you're just another quack who mindlessly presupposes that the metaphysical apriority of naturalism is necessarily true and, therefore, does not really know why he believes evolution is true.

Is that a fact? Is that what I believe? Huh. Thanks for clearing that up, good to know.

 

[toobfreak]

I wouldn't know what's going on in your head

But you just spent the past two days TELLING ME what's in my head!

given that Hinduism absurdly holds that the Universe has cyclically existed from eternity in violation of the imperatives of logic, mathematics and science.

Do you have any idea at all that you are a total narcissistic, delusional, pseudo-intellectual shithead that no one else on the planet likes nor agrees with? Of course you do. That's why you've wrapped yourself up in this cocoon of pseudo-science gibberish.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You never defined what you regard to be new information

You made the claim.....prove it already.
Your claim has zero to do with what I regard.

 

[Ringtone]

Do you have any idea at all that you are a total narcissistic, delusional, pseudo-intellectual shithead that no one else on the planet likes nor agrees with? Of course you do. That's why you've wrapped yourself up in this cocoon of pseudo-science gibberish.

Speaking of total narcissists wrapped in cocoons of intellectual bigotry, the following has never occurred to you in all of your unexamined life, has it, chuckles?

The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that all of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, entailing a "transmutationally" branching process of speciation, up from a common ancestry, over geological time. The hypothesis is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is not subject to scientific falsification.​

​

The evolutionist begs the question; that is to say, he assumes his conclusion—his interpretation of the available evidence—in his metaphysical premise. Most evodelusionary laymen are not consciously aware of the actual impetus of their belief. It flies right over their heads.​

​

Hocus Pocus​

​

We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry. All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time. This in no way falsifies the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared, and systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.​

 

[Ringtone]

You made the claim.....prove it already.
Your claim has zero to do with what I regard.

So did you ever answer the question regarding the point mutations on the duplicate genes of the DDC model of gene duplication? Do they constitute new information or produce new functions in your opinion or are you too lazy to inform yourself? In other words, are you a braying jackass who asks stupid questions and asserts stupid things due to your rank ignorance or are you going to contribute something real to this discussion?

Thanks.

Still winning!

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

 

[Hollie]

Hey, I could use some good hogwash! Know where I can get some? BTW, jackass, how can I be blind to the most immediate proof of God when I already KNOW God exists, you idiot?!

I wouldn't know what's going on in your head given that Hinduism absurdly holds that the Universe has cyclically existed from eternity in violation of the imperatives of logic, mathematics and science.

However, you insist that the "imperatives of logic, mathematics and science" point to a 6,000 year old planet, science being a global conspiracy, Arks cruising the seas and talking serpents all created by your partisan gods as opposed to the Hindu gods.... because you say so. .

 

[toobfreak]

Speaking of total narcissists wrapped in cocoons of intellectual bigotry, the following has never occured to you in all of your unexamined life, has it, chuckles?

CHUCKLES? I love Chuckles. Always been one of my favorite candies since I was very young!

 

[Ringtone]

Similar argument might work regarding homonyms, hominids, and ad hominem.

But first an honest person would have to acknowledge the metaphysical bias from which he interprets the available evidence. I've only encountered two evolutionists who ever did, and did so as a result of my pointing it out to them. Prior to that, the real, underlying impetus of their belief never occurred to them.

 

[Ringtone]

Hey, I could use some good hogwash! Know where I can get some? BTW, jackass, how can I be blind to the most immediate proof of God when I already KNOW God exists, you idiot?!

I wouldn't know what's going on in your head given that Hinduism absurdly holds that the Universe has cyclically existed from eternity in violation of the imperatives of logic, mathematics and science.

However, you insist that the "imperatives of logic, mathematics and science" point to a 6,000 year old planet, science being a global conspiracy, Arks cruising the seas and talking serpents all created by your partisan gods as opposed to the Hindu gods.... because you say so. .

I'm not a YEC, Hollie . . . but you knew that, you pathological liar.

 

[Hollie]

Similar argument might work regarding homonyms, hominids, and ad hominem.

But first an honest person would have to acknowledge the metaphysical bias from which he interprets the available evidence. I've only encountered two evolutionists who ever did, and did so as a result of my pointing it out to them. Prior to that, the real, underlying impetus of their belief never occurred to them.

Isn't it great being an anonymous poster poser on the internet? You can make up stuff as you go and represent your fantasies as true.

 

[Hollie]

Hey, I could use some good hogwash! Know where I can get some? BTW, jackass, how can I be blind to the most immediate proof of God when I already KNOW God exists, you idiot?!

I wouldn't know what's going on in your head given that Hinduism absurdly holds that the Universe has cyclically existed from eternity in violation of the imperatives of logic, mathematics and science.

However, you insist that the "imperatives of logic, mathematics and science" point to a 6,000 year old planet, science being a global conspiracy, Arks cruising the seas and talking serpents all created by your partisan gods as opposed to the Hindu gods.... because you say so. .

I'm not a YEC, Hollie . . . but you knew that, you pathological liar.

That's odd as your attempts at argument are identical to the nonsense coming out of the YEC'er ministries.

Read carefully what I post so you can perhaps "find yourself".

 

[Ringtone]

Is that a fact? Is that what I believe? Huh. Thanks for clearing that up, good to know.

I try to be of service when I can.

 

[Hollie]

Hey, I could use some good hogwash! Know where I can get some? BTW, jackass, how can I be blind to the most immediate proof of God when I already KNOW God exists, you idiot?!

I wouldn't know what's going on in your head given that Hinduism absurdly holds that the Universe has cyclically existed from eternity in violation of the imperatives of logic, mathematics and science.

However, you insist that the "imperatives of logic, mathematics and science" point to a 6,000 year old planet, science being a global conspiracy, Arks cruising the seas and talking serpents all created by your partisan gods as opposed to the Hindu gods.... because you say so. .

I'm not a YEC, Hollie . . . but you knew that, you pathological liar.

As this fraudulently titled thread is similarly fraudulent to other threads you have opened, are you going to offer something to support your statement about the failure of evolution theory?

Your emotional outbursts and juvenile name-calling do nothing to support your fraudulent thread title.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So did you ever answer the question regarding the point mutations on the duplicate genes of the DDC model of gene duplication?

If that's part of your claim.....post your proof already.

 

[Hollie]

Do you have any idea at all that you are a total narcissistic, delusional, pseudo-intellectual shithead that no one else on the planet likes nor agrees with? Of course you do. That's why you've wrapped yourself up in this cocoon of pseudo-science gibberish.

Speaking of total narcissists wrapped in cocoons of intellectual bigotry, the following has never occurred to you in all of your unexamined life, has it, chuckles?

The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that all of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, entailing a "transmutationally" branching process of speciation, up from a common ancestry, over geological time. The hypothesis is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is not subject to scientific falsification.​

​

The evolutionist begs the question; that is to say, he assumes his conclusion—his interpretation of the available evidence—in his metaphysical premise. Most evodelusionary laymen are not consciously aware of the actual impetus of their belief. It flies right over their heads.​

​

Hocus Pocus​

​

We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry. All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time. This in no way falsifies the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared, and systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.​

I see a part of where you're struggling. Lacking a science vocabulary, you are ignorant of some pretty simple terms and definitions used in science. Biological evolution has long ago progressed from hypothesis. The theory has passed through the filter of the scientific method from theory and testing and is not in doubt among the relevant science community. Yes, your YEC'ist cults will deny science fact but that is your issue to deal with.

Regarding your appallingly ignorant comment: "The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that all of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect,..." you are left to address your own ignorant statement. What unnatural or supernatural forces can you describe to account for the diversity of life on the planet?

Demonstrate your imagined unnatural or supernatural forces. Show us the magic. Post the YEC'er "General Theory of Supernatural Creation" and we can see if your magic and supernaturalism meets the same standard of review that science meets.

OK, pumpkin?

 

[Ringtone]

If that's part of your claim.....post your proof already.

So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome? Don't forget the link. I know you're big on those . . . except when you're not.

Thanks.

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome?

I never made that claim......so no proof from you?

 

[alang1216]

From the article:

Firstly, it must be able to explain where the enormous quantity of information came from to produce the very first living organism.​

Just how much information was required to produce the first living thing? To answer that you need to know what the first living thing looked like. Do you imagine it was a worm? Maybe a single cell? Maybe a bacterium? All very complex beings and impossible to just happen by accident, on that we likely agree. But maybe that first life was simpler than that bacterium, simpler even that an amino acid? Maybe it was an organic molecule floating in a lifeless soup of organic molecules. Similar molecules might attach themselves together and continue forming long molecular chains. Growth. Eventually they would grow so long that they would break apart. Reproduction. Molecules that were better at growing and splitting would monopolize the available resources better. Evolution.

Growth + Reproduction + Evolution = LIFE

 

[alang1216]

Evolution is a fact, proven over and over in every scientific field, there is a very good reason it is accepted by the vast majority of scientists in the field. Your arguments are flawed since they are based on false assumptions. You are essentially like those who studied the aerodynamics of flight and proved that bumblebees can't fly.

Bald claims appealing to authority sans an argument anywhere in sight.

From an OP who began the thread with:

The Failure Of Evolution Theory
by Christian von Wielligh

 

[Ringtone]

I never made that claim......so no proof from you?

So you still don't grasp the following?

Mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information.​

​

Do degenerative genes, altered genes or duplicated genes constitute or produce new information?​

Hot damn, Twinkles! You still can't make up your mind?

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.