- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Ed J @ April 23 2012,01:41) Quote (Stu @ April 23 2012,00:41) Quote (Ed J @ April 23 2012,00:20) Hi Stuart, Information always comes from a source,
environment and time alone cannot produce any!There is only adaptation by natural selection;
Darwinian evolution is a farce! Catchy wording
does NOT give his false theory credibility, Stuart!
There always is a source, loose the delusion!There is no 'evolution by natural selection'!
Species don't change into other species
no matter how much “time” elapses or
how much the environment changes.God bless
Ed J
You don't have any idea, either Ed.This is a fabulous contradiction you post. On the one hand you say that natural selection causes adaptation, and on the other hand you say that there is no adaptation caused by natural selection.
Stuart
Hi Stuart, NO GO!Quote you say that there is no adaptation caused by natural selection.
That is what you said; I said the opposite.
The terms adaptation and evolution are not
interchangeable as your perception suggests?Example #1: The Indian scout was sent into the wilderness because his adaptation skills are phenomenal.
Example #2: The Indian scout was sent into the wilderness because his evolution skills are phenomenal?
Definition #1 Adaptation: the action or process of adapting or being adapted.
Definition #2 Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms
ARE THOUGHT to have developed and diversified from earlier forms.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
The Holy Wikipedia:“An adaptation in biology is a trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection.”
An adaptation is the thing produced by evolutionary change, caused by natural selection. Evolution is represented by the adaptations that arise through evolutionary processes.
The process of adaptation is that which is brought about by natural selection.
Same thing, expressed using two different senses of the word adaptation, the noun and the verb.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 22 2012,23:58) Quote (Devolution @ April 22 2012,18:40) CONTINUED:BY JEREMY JAMES. T H Huxley, who was probably the most ardent public advocate of Darwin’s theory in the period following the publication of The Origin of Species (1859), had no qualms about exploiting both the Simple Cell trick and the Big Number trick. During some of his famous public debates he claimed that, given enough time, a team of 100 monkeys typing on a 100 typewriters, day and night, without stopping, would eventually type out Psalm 23.
To most of his audience this seemed a fairly plausible proposition. After all, if the monkeys just keep hammering away they are bound to get there eventually –aren’t they? Let’s take a closer look. The whole question is one of probability. Just how long would they have to keep typing to produce the intended outcome? Psalm 23 (in the King James Version) contains 461 characters (For the sake of simplicity we’ll ignore spaces and capitalisation. We’ll also be kind to the monkeys and give them typewriters with just 26 keys).
The probability that the first monkey would strike the letter ‘t’ on his first stroke is 1 in26. The probability that he would strike the letter ‘h’ on his second stroke is also 1 in 26. The same probability applies to each of the 461 letters in the psalm. However, the probability that he would do this for 461 successive strokes in the required sequence is not 26 x 461 but 26 to the power of 461 (26*461).
The members of Huxley’s audience had absolutely no idea that they were dealing with numbers of this magnitude. The truth is that 26*461 is so incredibly large that an event contingent upon such a probability could never arise. The monkeys would never succeed in typing the psalm correctly, no matter how long they spent at their typewriters.
In fact, they wouldn’t even manage to type the first two sentences correctly! Statisticians usually take 10*40 as the point beyond which an event is impossible. In other words, if that is the number of random iterations that are needed to achieve the outcome in question, then it simply cannot happen – ever. Please take careful note of this crucial fact. It is science, hard mathematics, and not the childish make-believe that passes for science in the field of evolutionary biology.
Countless scientists in our modern industrial and academic communities – men and woman of learning and intelligence – have been taken for fools. They too have fallen for the Simple Cell trick and the Big Number trick. Perhaps the tricks are being packaged in a more sophisticated manner than they were in the days of Huxley and his crew, but they are still fundamentally the same tricks.The college textbooks also take care to omit the Rat’s Nest of anomalies that we noted earlier.
Their presence would only prompt the more perceptive students to start thinking for themselves. If they did, they would soon come to realize that the so-called science of evolution is built, not on tangible evidence, consistent logic and causal progression, but wishful thinking, pixie dust, and a cult-like avoidance of unpleasant facts.
So, are you going to explain what this has to do with evolution by natural selection?You don't know where to begin, do you. You're full of it.
Stuart
No explanation, Devolution?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 22 2012,23:58) Quote (Devolution @ April 22 2012,18:40) CONTINUED:BY JEREMY JAMES. T H Huxley, who was probably the most ardent public advocate of Darwin’s theory in the period following the publication of The Origin of Species (1859), had no qualms about exploiting both the Simple Cell trick and the Big Number trick. During some of his famous public debates he claimed that, given enough time, a team of 100 monkeys typing on a 100 typewriters, day and night, without stopping, would eventually type out Psalm 23.
To most of his audience this seemed a fairly plausible proposition. After all, if the monkeys just keep hammering away they are bound to get there eventually –aren’t they? Let’s take a closer look. The whole question is one of probability. Just how long would they have to keep typing to produce the intended outcome? Psalm 23 (in the King James Version) contains 461 characters (For the sake of simplicity we’ll ignore spaces and capitalisation. We’ll also be kind to the monkeys and give them typewriters with just 26 keys).
The probability that the first monkey would strike the letter ‘t’ on his first stroke is 1 in26. The probability that he would strike the letter ‘h’ on his second stroke is also 1 in 26. The same probability applies to each of the 461 letters in the psalm. However, the probability that he would do this for 461 successive strokes in the required sequence is not 26 x 461 but 26 to the power of 461 (26*461).
The members of Huxley’s audience had absolutely no idea that they were dealing with numbers of this magnitude. The truth is that 26*461 is so incredibly large that an event contingent upon such a probability could never arise. The monkeys would never succeed in typing the psalm correctly, no matter how long they spent at their typewriters.
In fact, they wouldn’t even manage to type the first two sentences correctly! Statisticians usually take 10*40 as the point beyond which an event is impossible. In other words, if that is the number of random iterations that are needed to achieve the outcome in question, then it simply cannot happen – ever. Please take careful note of this crucial fact. It is science, hard mathematics, and not the childish make-believe that passes for science in the field of evolutionary biology.
Countless scientists in our modern industrial and academic communities – men and woman of learning and intelligence – have been taken for fools. They too have fallen for the Simple Cell trick and the Big Number trick. Perhaps the tricks are being packaged in a more sophisticated manner than they were in the days of Huxley and his crew, but they are still fundamentally the same tricks.The college textbooks also take care to omit the Rat’s Nest of anomalies that we noted earlier.
Their presence would only prompt the more perceptive students to start thinking for themselves. If they did, they would soon come to realize that the so-called science of evolution is built, not on tangible evidence, consistent logic and causal progression, but wishful thinking, pixie dust, and a cult-like avoidance of unpleasant facts.
So, are you going to explain what this has to do with evolution by natural selection?You don't know where to begin, do you. You're full of it.
Stuart
What gives you the right to insult whoever you please?
I have never spoken to you before and the first thing i get is disrespect and accusations.So the only way to respond to one such as you is to speak in your own monkey language…
Ooga, booga, wagga, lugga, unna ugga…
Quote (Stu @ April 23 2012,21:24) Quote (Ed J @ April 23 2012,01:41) Quote (Stu @ April 23 2012,00:41) Quote (Ed J @ April 23 2012,00:20) Hi Stuart, Information always comes from a source,
environment and time alone cannot produce any!There is only adaptation by natural selection;
Darwinian evolution is a farce! Catchy wording
does NOT give his false theory credibility, Stuart!
There always is a source, loose the delusion!There is no 'evolution by natural selection'!
Species don't change into other species
no matter how much “time” elapses or
how much the environment changes.God bless
Ed J
You don't have any idea, either Ed.This is a fabulous contradiction you post. On the one hand you say that natural selection causes adaptation, and on the other hand you say that there is no adaptation caused by natural selection.
Stuart
Hi Stuart, NO GO!Quote you say that there is no adaptation caused by natural selection.
That is what you said; I said the opposite.
The terms adaptation and evolution are not
interchangeable as your perception suggests?Example #1: The Indian scout was sent into the wilderness because his adaptation skills are phenomenal.
Example #2: The Indian scout was sent into the wilderness because his evolution skills are phenomenal?
Definition #1 Adaptation: the action or process of adapting or being adapted.
Definition #2 Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms
ARE THOUGHT to have developed and diversified from earlier forms.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
The Holy Wikipedia:“An adaptation in biology is a trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection.”
An adaptation is the thing produced by evolutionary change, caused by natural selection. Evolution is represented by the adaptations that arise through evolutionary processes.
The process of adaptation is that which is brought about by natural selection.
Same thing, expressed using two different senses of the word adaptation, the noun and the verb.
Stuart
ADAPTION
Your question is a contradiction.
But you can't grasp that now can you?Adaption is NOT a “evolutionary” process.
That is false.
Adaption calls upon information that is already present within the cells and are triggered when environmental conditions apply or are manipulated by man (for breeding purposes etc).
HOW that information got there can NOT be explained by evolution thank you very much.Don't mind all the other proofs, just pick on something you THINK you understand huh?
Didn't you even read about the relationship between the mitochondria & the cell host?
How it's DNA & RNA are NOT THE SAME as the very cell it inhabits?How both are dependent on the other to exist, yet independent at the same time?
Do you even comprehend the significance of this FACT and what it does to your “current” theory of evolution's laws on this event?Adaption IS NOT evolution.
I remember when i was younger before evolution had totally brainwashed/browbeaten every science teacher into submission lest they lose their jobs (somebodies “secure” in their beliefs huh?)…
And at least they were…back then…at least they still had some honor left and also admitted that Evolution and Adaption are NOT THE SAME.
THEY all said the SAME thing…NOT THE SAME.
So don't try your little tricks on me UNTIL you understand what it is you are reading and THINK you are understanding okay?BTW
Ever heard of those white moths that suddenly started growing black wings because of a environmental condition they were subject to?
I can't remember the details, just briefly read it, couldn't stomach the typical evolutionary humbug being jammed down our throats claiming PROOF of evolution at work…and all with such arrogance..BUT..guess what?
That adaption has REVERTED back to it's original state!
NO MORE BLACK WINGS..And all we can hear from the evolutionists and their proud boastings is a deafening silence.
Which is typical…not many fanatical Darwinian adherents out there know what honor means…you know…apologize when wrong? Admit error?
Just proud boastings and insults…like what YOU DO.But guess what…you know why they never apologized?
Because you can NEVER be wrong in evolution…
A little more fairy dust and a couple hundred more millions of years and all fixed.
Great little magic trick huh.ALSO,
I don't have to talk to people like you okay?
I don't like people who so easily insult people they don't even know like i've seen you doing so often.
It is called disrespect/arrogance.
And my Lord does not demand i need acknowledge your types okay?
I see by your fruits what manner of person you are…and i don't like it.
So have a nice day.Quote (Stu @ April 23 2012,21:24) Quote (Ed J @ April 23 2012,01:41) Quote (Stu @ April 23 2012,00:41) Quote (Ed J @ April 23 2012,00:20) Hi Stuart, Information always comes from a source,
environment and time alone cannot produce any!There is only adaptation by natural selection;
Darwinian evolution is a farce! Catchy wording
does NOT give his false theory credibility, Stuart!
There always is a source, loose the delusion!There is no 'evolution by natural selection'!
Species don't change into other species
no matter how much “time” elapses or
how much the environment changes.God bless
Ed J
You don't have any idea, either Ed.This is a fabulous contradiction you post. On the one hand you say that natural selection causes adaptation, and on the other hand you say that there is no adaptation caused by natural selection.
Stuart
Hi Stuart, NO GO!Quote you say that there is no adaptation caused by natural selection.
That is what you said; I said the opposite.
The terms adaptation and evolution are not
interchangeable as your perception suggests?Example #1: The Indian scout was sent into the wilderness because his adaptation skills are phenomenal.
Example #2: The Indian scout was sent into the wilderness because his evolution skills are phenomenal?
Definition #1 Adaptation: the action or process of adapting or being adapted.
Definition #2 Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms
ARE THOUGHT to have developed and diversified from earlier forms.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
The Holy Wikipedia:“An adaptation in biology is a trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection.”
An adaptation is the thing produced by evolutionary change, caused by natural selection. Evolution is represented by the adaptations that arise through evolutionary processes.
The process of adaptation is that which is brought about by natural selection.
Same thing, expressed using two different senses of the word adaptation, the noun and the verb.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,I see you have resorted to 'almighty Wikipedia',
to bad it cannot counter the mighty “Webster”!Adaptation: the action or process of adapting or being adapted.
Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms
ARE 'THOUGHT' to have developed and diversified from earlier forms.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgBY:JEREMY JAMES
The Long War Against God
Evolution is a profoundly political issue. The Freemasonic elite and ultra-rich atheists who control the pulse of academia in Britain, Germany, France, Italy and the UnitedStates – and have done so for centuries – will not tolerate any attempt to connect creation with its Creator. Since they loath the God of the Bible, they must find an alternative way to account for the existence of life on earth, and even of the earth itself. Some scientists have tried to go down the pan-spermia road, whereby life on earth is explained by the chance arrival in our atmosphere of frozen bacteria from the depths of space, carried vast distances on interstellar dust. Others have speculated that, eons ago, life on earth was ‘seeded’ deliberately by intelligent lifeforms from another galaxy. But, to date, neither of these ‘explanations’ has won favour with the majority of scientists, probably because they speculate only about the distribution of life and not its origin.
Thus evolution is the only game in town. It carries with it the further advantage of promoting an evolutionary paradigm in other branches of science, notably cosmology. If the masses can be trained to accept that life on earth evolved from inert matter, then it should be relatively easy to convince them that the universe itself evolved out of nothing. [This is the so-called ‘Big Bang’ theory, another outrageous piece of pseudo-science which, alas, we have no time to address in this short paper.] Must one be an atheist or an enemy of God to believe in evolution? Not at all! I suspect that most scientists who believe in evolution do so simply because they have been trained to believe it.
The modern educational system has been framed in the main by humanists and atheists who hate Christianity and wish to destroy it. As a result it has greatly blunted our inborn ability to ask an honest question and not be satisfied until we get an honest answer. Evolution is a consensus view which cannot tolerate criticism of any kind. To question evolution is to question science itself. An academic who does so risks being drummed out of his faculty or ostracized as a crank. Numerous academics in good standing have been punished for expressing doubts about the scientific validity of evolution. Many were non-Christian and didn’t even work in a life-science faculty. Punishment can include peer ridicule, exclusion from seminars and conferences, loss of promotion, inability to get papers published, failure to secure research funding, and even loss of tenure.
Over the last fifty years or so, Creation scientists and proponents of a creationist position have published devastating critiques of evolutionary theory. There was a time when evolutionists were prepared to stand on a public platform and debate the scientific validity of evolution with their Creationist opponents. However, they were annihilated with such frequency that they are no longer willing to expose themselves to ridicule in this way. Even Richard Dawkins, a radical advocate of evolution, is very careful to avoid public debate with seasoned Creationists. The only ‘debate’ evolutionists will conduct is through the controlled media and publishing houses, where all of the embarrassing questions can be pushed to one side and where a sickly caricature of the Creationist position can be ridiculed with impunity.
Why do leading newspapers never publish an article addressing the many known flaws and defects in evolutionary theory? Because they don’t want the public to know just how irrational and dishonest it really is. The Masonic cabal who control The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The London Times, Berliner Zeitung, and Le Monde, along with dozens of other influential newspapers in both Europe and America, have no intention of providing a platform for views which might expose the great lie of evolution and the covert propaganda machine that underpins it.
Quote (Devolution @ April 23 2012,21:28) Quote (Stu @ April 22 2012,23:58) Quote (Devolution @ April 22 2012,18:40) CONTINUED:BY JEREMY JAMES. T H Huxley, who was probably the most ardent public advocate of Darwin’s theory in the period following the publication of The Origin of Species (1859), had no qualms about exploiting both the Simple Cell trick and the Big Number trick. During some of his famous public debates he claimed that, given enough time, a team of 100 monkeys typing on a 100 typewriters, day and night, without stopping, would eventually type out Psalm 23.
To most of his audience this seemed a fairly plausible proposition. After all, if the monkeys just keep hammering away they are bound to get there eventually –aren’t they? Let’s take a closer look. The whole question is one of probability. Just how long would they have to keep typing to produce the intended outcome? Psalm 23 (in the King James Version) contains 461 characters (For the sake of simplicity we’ll ignore spaces and capitalisation. We’ll also be kind to the monkeys and give them typewriters with just 26 keys).
The probability that the first monkey would strike the letter ‘t’ on his first stroke is 1 in26. The probability that he would strike the letter ‘h’ on his second stroke is also 1 in 26. The same probability applies to each of the 461 letters in the psalm. However, the probability that he would do this for 461 successive strokes in the required sequence is not 26 x 461 but 26 to the power of 461 (26*461).
The members of Huxley’s audience had absolutely no idea that they were dealing with numbers of this magnitude. The truth is that 26*461 is so incredibly large that an event contingent upon such a probability could never arise. The monkeys would never succeed in typing the psalm correctly, no matter how long they spent at their typewriters.
In fact, they wouldn’t even manage to type the first two sentences correctly! Statisticians usually take 10*40 as the point beyond which an event is impossible. In other words, if that is the number of random iterations that are needed to achieve the outcome in question, then it simply cannot happen – ever. Please take careful note of this crucial fact. It is science, hard mathematics, and not the childish make-believe that passes for science in the field of evolutionary biology.
Countless scientists in our modern industrial and academic communities – men and woman of learning and intelligence – have been taken for fools. They too have fallen for the Simple Cell trick and the Big Number trick. Perhaps the tricks are being packaged in a more sophisticated manner than they were in the days of Huxley and his crew, but they are still fundamentally the same tricks.The college textbooks also take care to omit the Rat’s Nest of anomalies that we noted earlier.
Their presence would only prompt the more perceptive students to start thinking for themselves. If they did, they would soon come to realize that the so-called science of evolution is built, not on tangible evidence, consistent logic and causal progression, but wishful thinking, pixie dust, and a cult-like avoidance of unpleasant facts.
So, are you going to explain what this has to do with evolution by natural selection?You don't know where to begin, do you. You're full of it.
Stuart
What gives you the right to insult whoever you please?
I have never spoken to you before and the first thing i get is disrespect and accusations.So the only way to respond to one such as you is to speak in your own monkey language…
Ooga, booga, wagga, lugga, unna ugga…
I accept your concession of defeat regarding the question I asked.Perhaps you would have the courtesy to stop abusing the forum by your moronic copy-and-paste without any ability to discuss it.
You are behaving like a moron. Are you one?
Stuart
Quote (Devolution @ April 23 2012,22:20) You don't have any idea, either Ed. This is a fabulous contradiction you post. On the one hand you say that natural selection causes adaptation, and on the other hand you say that there is no adaptation caused by natural selection.
Stuart[/quote]
Hi Stuart, NO GO!Quote you say that there is no adaptation caused by natural selection.
That is what you said; I said the opposite.
The terms adaptation and evolution are not
interchangeable as your perception suggests?Example #1: The Indian scout was sent into the wilderness because his adaptation skills are phenomenal.
Example #2: The Indian scout was sent into the wilderness because his evolution skills are phenomenal?
Definition #1 Adaptation: the action or process of adapting or being adapted.
Definition #2 Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms
ARE THOUGHT to have developed and diversified from earlier forms.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org[/quote]
The Holy Wikipedia:“An adaptation in biology is a trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection.”
An adaptation is the thing produced by evolutionary change, caused by natural selection. Evolution is represented by the adaptations that arise through evolutionary processes.
The process of adaptation is that which is brought about by natural selection.
Same thing, expressed using two different senses of the word adaptation, the noun and the verb.
Stuart[/quote]
ADAPTION
Your question is a contradiction.
But you can't grasp that now can you?Adaption is NOT a “evolutionary” process.
That is false.
Adaption calls upon information that is already present within the cells and are triggered when environmental conditions apply or are manipulated by man (for breeding purposes etc).
HOW that information got there can NOT be explained by evolution thank you very much.
Evolution is the change in the frequency of genes in a population over time. The word adaptation can either refer to a feature / trait that results from the expression of different combinations of genes, or the process of adaptation. Adaptation the process is an evolutionary one, the main phenotypic effect of natural selection of genes through the survival / reproductive advantages they confer through the phenotypes they produce.You don’t have to take my word for this, you can consult anyone you like. My opinion about this fact is irrelevant, as is yours.
Quote Don't mind all the other proofs, just pick on something you THINK you understand huh?
Didn't you even read about the relationship between the mitochondria & the cell host?
How it's DNA & RNA are NOT THE SAME as the very cell it inhabits?How both are dependent on the other to exist, yet independent at the same time?
Do you even comprehend the significance of this FACT and what it does to your “current” theory of evolution's laws on this event?
Well the problem for a moron creationist, which you are (there are two categories, the moron creationists who copy and paste from creationist websites without understanding, and the lying cretin creationists who know they are lying), is that the independently existing mitochondrial DNA is best explained through common ancestry, leading to the conclusion that all life made of eukaryotic cells shared a single-celled eukaryotic ancestor, and there is nothing to stop us taking that back to a prokaryote too.Quote Adaption IS NOT evolution.
I remember when i was younger before evolution had totally brainwashed/browbeaten every science teacher into submission lest they lose their jobs (somebodies “secure” in their beliefs huh?)…
And at least they were…back then…at least they still had some honor left and also admitted that Evolution and Adaption are NOT THE SAME.
THEY all said the SAME thing…NOT THE SAME.
So don't try your little tricks on me UNTIL you understand what it is you are reading and THINK you are understanding okay?
Please see above. The process of adaptation is an evolutionary process.Quote BTW
Ever heard of those white moths that suddenly started growing black wings because of a environmental condition they were subject to?
I can't remember the details, just briefly read it, couldn't stomach the typical evolutionary humbug being jammed down our throats claiming PROOF of evolution at work…and all with such arrogance..BUT..guess what?
That adaption has REVERTED back to it's original state!
NO MORE BLACK WINGS..
It shows that you didn’t bother to learn the example properly. You have no integrity posting on this subject if you cannot defend what you post, which you clearly can’t. You might consider me calling you moronic to be somewhat rude, but I don’t think you have reflected on your own breathtaking rudeness in filling pages here, carrying on your moronic Gish Gallop, with stuff you are unable to defend. Does your god expect you to behave like that?Quote And all we can hear from the evolutionists and their proud boastings is a deafening silence.
Which is typical…not many fanatical Darwinian adherents out there know what honor means…you know…apologize when wrong? Admit error?
Just proud boastings and insults…like what YOU DO.
While Darwin’s achievement is outstanding, if it can be proved wrong then it deserves to be cast aside. It is no skin off my nose if that happens, indeed it would be a great new learning opportunity.Quote But guess what…you know why they never apologized?
Because you can NEVER be wrong in evolution…
A little more fairy dust and a couple hundred more millions of years and all fixed.
Great little magic trick huh.
You don’t understand how science works, do you. Actually if Darwin was wrong then it would be possible to show it. The famous statement of this is of JS Haldane, whose mock criteria for disproving evolution was if you found bunny rabbit fossils in pre-cambrian rocks. It is you who apparently believes in a
just-so story that cannot be falsified, and therefore there is no means of discrimination between your story and any crackpot’s story. But with Darwin’s theory, it is falsifiable, and the next piece of evidence that unambiguously contradicts it either demands a serious rewrite or complete rejection of it. By comparison, I don’t see lots of theologians lining up ready to throw out the gospels because the accounts of the crucifixion are inconsistent.Quote ALSO,
I don't have to talk to people like you okay?
I don't like people who so easily insult people they don't even know like i've seen you doing so often.
It is called disrespect/arrogance.
And my Lord does not demand i need acknowledge your types okay?
I see by your fruits what manner of person you are…and i don't like it.
So have a nice day.
You can talk with whomever you want. But you are posting in a section of the forum called Skeptics so you can hardly expect a free ride when you are posting such lies as you are. Why would any god need you to lie on its behalf?Stuart
Quote (Devolution @ April 22 2012,21:19) I had trouble finding the name of the author to that brilliant informative post….besides Stu's typical angry response and accusations, i thought it obvious that it was a cut & paste job!
Everyone clap please. Stu knew it was a cut and paste job. Well done Stu. Another clap please.Quote (t8 @ April 24 2012,23:14) Quote (Devolution @ April 22 2012,21:19) I had trouble finding the name of the author to that brilliant informative post….besides Stu's typical angry response and accusations, i thought it obvious that it was a cut & paste job!
Everyone clap please. Stu knew it was a cut and paste job. Well done Stu. Another clap please.
I was right, wasn't I. On this christian website It is the non-believing posters who have higher standards than the mods and owners.Stuart
Quote (Devolution @ April 24 2012,01:20) ADAPTION
Your question is a contradiction.
But you can't grasp that now can you?Adaption is NOT a “evolutionary” process.
That is false.
Adaption calls upon information that is already present within the cells and are triggered when environmental conditions apply or are manipulated by man (for breeding purposes etc).
HOW that information got there can NOT be explained by evolution thank you very much.
Stu believes that information can be added from nowhere.
Maybe if he did a course on computer programming it might help him to appreciate the mathematics behind creating things and how code works and can create variation.This whole idea that new information just popped out of nothing is truly laughable and on par with believing in pink tricorns. (Related to white unicorns in case you are confused.)
Quote (Stu @ April 25 2012,02:19) I was right, wasn't I.
Hey 1 + 1 = 2.
I am right too aren't I?OK, I will spell it out for you.
It was obviously a cut and paste job to the point that you should have just known that everyone else knew it too, rather than think we needed you to expose deceit for our benefit. You thought you were on to something, but Stu honestly, did you think that no one knew?And sometimes I would prefer not to quote the source just so that you can't attack the messenger. It is about attacking the message if it is to have any validity. But weak debaters go after the messenger just as you see in politics and try to get off on technicalities just as the guilty do in court.
But we should be better than that and of course you can attack any messenger because we are all faulty in some way. How about the message though. Concentrate on that, and we have a good debate.
Quote (t8 @ April 24 2012,23:20) Quote (Devolution @ April 24 2012,01:20) ADAPTION
Your question is a contradiction.
But you can't grasp that now can you?Adaption is NOT a “evolutionary” process.
That is false.
Adaption calls upon information that is already present within the cells and are triggered when environmental conditions apply or are manipulated by man (for breeding purposes etc).
HOW that information got there can NOT be explained by evolution thank you very much.
Stu believes that information can be added from nowhere.
Maybe if he did a course on computer programming it might help him to appreciate the mathematics behind creating things and how code works and can create variation.This whole idea that new information just popped out of nothing is truly laughable and on par with believing in pink tricorns. (Related to white unicorns in case you are confused.)
Would you disagree that random mutations can remove essential information from the genome?If you agree that this can happen, then please explain the difference between mutations removing information and mutations adding information.
Since you mention mathematics, compare the amount of information in a genome before and after any mutation. Mutation involves changing some of the chemical letters in the sequence, but the number of letters remains the same, and so does the amount of information.
Gene duplication results in an instantaneous doubling of the information that was previously present in that section of DNA.
But the point you are trying to get at is that because computers contain digital information that requires programmers, that therefore all digital information arose from the intent of some programmer. That is a logical fallacy of course.
Those unicorns you mention, are they the same species as is described in all earnestness in the KJV?
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ April 24 2012,23:29) Quote (Stu @ April 25 2012,02:19) I was right, wasn't I.
Hey 1 + 1 = 2.
I am right too aren't I?
Not for large values of 2.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 25 2012,02:36) Would you disagree that random mutations can remove essential information from the genome?
Stu.It doesn't take much to lose information in comparison to adding information.
e.g., If you have 1 million dollars it is easy to believe that you could have half a million 1 year later.
But if you had no money, and one year later had a million dollars, then you can bet that it just did not pop out of nothing.
There is no comparison with losing information to adding new and useful/important information. One requires at least degradation, while the other at least requires the same thing which you appear to lack.
Quote (t8 @ April 24 2012,23:43) Quote (Stu @ April 25 2012,02:36) Would you disagree that random mutations can remove essential information from the genome?
Stu.It doesn't take much to lose information in comparison to adding information.
e.g., If you have 1 million dollars it is easy to believe that you could have half a million 1 year later.
But if you had no money, and one year later had a million dollars, then you can bet that it just did not pop out of nothing.
There is no comparison with losing information to adding new and useful/important information. One requires at least degradation, while the other at least requires the same thing which you appear to lack.
But if you count the chemical letters in the genome before and after an instance of random mutation, either it will be the same number, or in the case of gene duplication, many more. So mutation can add information, right?Stuart
Quote (t8 @ April 24 2012,23:29) Quote (Stu @ April 25 2012,02:19) I was right, wasn't I.
Hey 1 + 1 = 2.
I am right too aren't I?OK, I will spell it out for you.
It was obviously a cut and paste job to the point that you should have just known that everyone else knew it too, rather than think we needed you to expose deceit for our benefit. You thought you were on to something, but Stu honestly, did you think that no one knew?And sometimes I would prefer not to quote the source just so that you can't attack the messenger. It is about attacking the message if it is to have any validity. But weak debaters go after the messenger just as you see in politics and try to get off on technicalities just as the guilty do in court.
But we should be better than that and of course you can attack any messenger because we are all faulty in some way. How about the message though. Concentrate on that, and we have a good debate.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious T8, i appreciate that!God bless.
Quote (Devolution @ April 25 2012,15:11) Quote (t8 @ April 24 2012,23:29) Quote (Stu @ April 25 2012,02:19) I was right, wasn't I.
Hey 1 + 1 = 2.
I am right too aren't I?OK, I will spell it out for you.
It was obviously a cut and paste job to the point that you should have just known that everyone else knew it too, rather than think we needed you to expose deceit for our benefit. You thought you were on to something, but Stu honestly, did you think that no one knew?And sometimes I would prefer not to quote the source just so that you can't attack the messenger. It is about attacking the message if it is to have any validity. But weak debaters go after the messenger just as you see in politics and try to get off on technicalities just as the guilty do in court.
But we should be better than that and of course you can attack any messenger because we are all faulty in some way. How about the message though. Concentrate on that, and we have a good debate.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious T8, i appreciate that!God bless.
You plagiarised, by posting without acknowledging the author. What are we to assume?Had I not determined that you didn't write the screeds of bollocks you have rudely Gish-Galloped all over the forum, I might have mistaken you for a lying cretin creationist, one who knows he is lying, instead of getting your classification right as a moron creationist, one who at least has ignorance as some kind of mitigation.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 24 2012,23:36) Quote (t8 @ April 24 2012,23:20) Quote (Devolution @ April 24 2012,01:20) ADAPTION
Your question is a contradiction.
But you can't grasp that now can you?Adaption is NOT a “evolutionary” process.
That is false.
Adaption calls upon information that is already present within the cells and are triggered when environmental conditions apply or are manipulated by man (for breeding purposes etc).
HOW that information got there can NOT be explained by evolution thank you very much.
Stu believes that information can be added from nowhere.
Maybe if he did a course on computer programming it might help him to appreciate the mathematics behind creating things and how code works and can create variation.This whole idea that new information just popped out of nothing is truly laughable and on par with believing in pink tricorns. (Related to white unicorns in case you are confused.)
Would you disagree that random mutations can remove essential information from the genome?If you agree that this can happen, then please explain the difference between mutations removing information and mutations adding information.
Since you mention mathematics, compare the amount of information in a genome before and after any mutation. Mutation involves changing some of the chemical letters in the sequence, but the number of letters remains the same, and so does the amount of information.
Gene duplication results in an instantaneous doubling of the information that was previously present in that section of DNA.
But the point you are trying to get at is that because computers contain digital information that requires programmers, that therefore all digital information arose from the intent of some programmer. That is a logical fallacy of course.
Those unicorns you mention, are they the same species as is described in all earnestness in the KJV?
Stuart
Quote Would you disagree that random mutations can remove essential information from the genome? If you agree that this can happen, then please explain the difference between mutations removing information and mutations adding information.
YES.
Do you want me to post a recent lengthy non Christian and endorsed scientific paper on this?
How loss of information from the genome is a one way street?That is, that all the evidence to date, still PROVES that NO mutations can in any way ADD information to said genome.
Information coming from real “hands on” scientists “in the field” actually doing the work and not involved in theoretical postulations passed as fact…of which evolutionists are famous at.When a cluster of bacteria, for example, becomes resistant to a chemical additive, what actually occurs to provide this immunity/resistance, is a deletion of that pre-existent information/code within the Bacteria, that if retained, would be detrimental to said bacteria.
So by removing/deleting that susceptible relative code of information, the effects to the susceptibility by said chemical, or whatever, are also removed..enter immunity/resistance.And once that code/information is deleted, that's it! It's deleted for good within that particular group/cluster/family.
Yet in it's place you hope some new information emerges…but this does not happen to the dismay of evolutionists.
You see, the cells are subject to rules decided by mechanisms/codes that the cells themselves must obey which are built in to said cells and monitored and policed by the hosts many in place “defenses” which ensure mutations do NOT occur.The cells can not make their own additions/codes/added information as though they were self aware in the decision processes involved! There are checks and balances that prevent this from occurring…checks and balances the cells have NO CONTROL over.
And of the very very very few instances of this occurring, that is, added information, the changes are so miniscule as to be questionable as to the tag “added”…and not only that, but that so called “added” information always reverts back to it's original state in successive generations…and rapidly so at that.
But evolutionists don't mention this….
You must remember that evolutionists have a agenda…
And it is Orweillian in nature.There is, however, a “type” of added information that does occur though…which is not really added information but a result of mutation related to your hopes…it is called CANCER….there is your ONLY added informational mutation…a corrupted/faulty/damaged/detrimental strain of information whose effects are well known…that is…eventual death to the host.
Maybe you should extract yourself from your selective and biased information base and search outside the evolutionary box for real scientific information..information from esteemed and practicing non Christian scientists at that…those doing the hands on real work in their respective fields.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
