Atheist says Creatinionist Wins...

[6days]

Evolutionists start out with the false conclusion, or belief in materialism, then try shoehorn interpretations of evidence to fit their belief system. This has lead to many flawed conclusions and bad science.

...why did you call evolutionary theory science?

Huh?.....

Biology is science, not a "belief system".

Nobody said otherwise. You sure like to attack strawmen you create.

How do you plan to isolate and unequivocally identify an "intelligent origin" in a biological system that by all units of measure is a random process "controlled" by natural selection?

Start with what YOU suggested. You look for something non random. Codes are non random, as they are always created by an intelligence...Perhaps the DNA code could be your first piece of evidence.

Natural selection is a process that eliminates...it does not create.
"Negative frequency dependant selection) is one of the few forms of natural selection that can act to preserve genetic variation,[/b] most forms of natural selection lead to the loss of genetic variation[/b] as unfit alleles are "weeded out" of the population.
htt://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios101/Selexio.htm

You just can't seem to get over the fact that this canard has been refuted, can you?

Now you are being silly. You seem to think natural selection is some type of a savior for evolutionism. You better let the University of Illinois at Chicago know that they are wrong about n.s. Hold the presses on all text books...Silent Hunter is about to explain how natural selection increases genetic variation.

I guess it all comes down to your definition of "sophisticated". You assume the word, as used, means incredibly, incredibly, incredibly complex. It doesn't.

Wait... the goalposts you set was ...You asked to be 'enlightened of fossilized eyeballs preserved in such a way to determine their "sophistication" being found in the fossil record'. You have now been enlightened! (by a secular source as you requested) of eyes that they think are 515 million years old that could see with "exceptional clarity" and "better vision than most of its modern descendants"

"A geological blink of an eye" is a lot longer than 6-24 hours days.

That wasn't where you placed the goalposts. You asked to be 'enlightened of fossilized eyeballs preserved in such a way to determine their "sophistication" being found in the fossil record' It's a Cambrian rabbit!. These eyes are not only in the fossil record but very early in the Cambrian according to secular dating. There is zero evidence these eyes (with exceptional clarity) evolved.

You seem unwilling to accept that C14 is the wrong test method.

ha.... you say its the wrong test method because it does not give the results you want.

What's funny is that your "own people", using C14, arrive at a date far, far exceeding your preferred 6k year time frame yet you won't accept those results either.

"My people" say dates of*+/-40,000 years is consistent with the creation flood model. The global flood would have drastically effected the ratio....With all vegetation dead...much buried starting to form coal and oil...
The C14 would increase at this time relative to the C12. Also effecting the ratio at this time would be volcanic activity around the earth emitting lots of CO2 without the normal C14.

The facts indicate Armitage wasn't fired because of his theology or that he had "suggested that soft dino tissue might be an indicator the fossil had been assigned a age much too old"; he was fired because his contract expired and because of budget constraints. He didn't like it so he played the crybaby "you fired me because of my religion" card.

The evidence, as Lighthouse mentioned doesn't support your crybaby beliefs. It would seem that the university (Like C14 dating labs) hate being challenged on their beliefs about our origins.

 

[Lighthouse]

Obviously you have no idea how much it costs to litigate frivolous lawsuits.

Irrelevant to the point at hand. And if they thought the judge would just throw out the case then why be worried about the cost of litigation?

Obviously you have no idea how much it costs to litigate frivolous lawsuits.

See above and use your brain. God designed and created them for a reason.

Why am I not surprised. I'm about to have a heart attack from not surprised.

That's not how that works.:nono:

Heart attacks don't happen in a state of calm; e.g. not being surprised.

If the best you have is a couple of misspelled words to beat upon (copy-and-paste is also to blame) then you would do well to clean your own house for I'm more than certain you have committed spelling errors yourself.

I proofread.

Well, I do understand when someone is a walking, talking bag of hot air. You're looking as foolish as 6days, as exhibited by your sharp focus on the letter "I".

You are really self conscious about that typo. Are you sure there's not more going on?

You are? Really? Then why do you strive so religiously to promote something so unscientific as "intelligent design" as science?

I'm not the one religiously promoting accidents and happenstance.

You don't? Really? Then tell me, smart guy, where did your preferred version of deity come from? (FYI, "he" always existed and is "the uncaused cause", is begging the question.)

No, demanding that He had to come from somewhere is. Because you just can't believe it could happen that way so you ignore any evidence that contradicts you.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Huh?.....

You called evolutionary theory science and were quoted doing so. Get over it.

Nobody said otherwise. You sure like to attack strawmen you create.

What strawman? You call every argument you can't refute a strawman then create one of your own or claim the goalposts have been moved then move them yourself.

The point was, theories are scientific and are based on evidence; evolutionary theory, for example. Ergo evolutionary theory is scientific. Beliefs, IE creationism/intelligent design, are based on faith. Ergo creationism/intelligent design is not scientific. Thank you for once again admitting evolutionary theory is science.

Start with what YOU suggested. You look for something non random. Codes are non random, as they are always created by an intelligence...Perhaps the DNA code could be your first piece of evidence.

You put too much emphasis on the word "code", which is a man-made identifier which has simply stuck as a descriptor for lack of a more precise term. Here, I suspect, you are going to scream "strawman" or "moving the goal posts". Whatever. The same standard applies, otherwise, you are special pleading. How do you plan to isolate and unequivocally identify "intelligence" as the source of this "code" that by all units of measure is randomly "controlled" by natural selection?

Now you are being silly. You seem to think natural selection is some type of a savior for evolutionism. You better let the University of Illinois at Chicago know that they are wrong about n.s. Hold the presses on all text books...Silent Hunter is about to explain how natural selection increases genetic variation.

I cannot open your link on this, however, your quote (from the link?) does little to bolster your position.

Wait... the goalposts you set was ...You asked to be 'enlightened of fossilized eyeballs preserved in such a way to determine their "sophistication" being found in the fossil record'. You have now been enlightened! (by a secular source as you requested) of eyes that they think are 515 million years old that could see with "exceptional clarity" and "better vision than most of its modern descendants"

This again comes down to your interpretation of what was meant by "exceptional clarity" and "better vision than most of its modern descendants". Compared to a near opaque window and one that is lightly frosted, the frosted glass would have "exceptional clarity". What "modern decendants" are these creatures being compared against?

That wasn't where you placed the goalposts. You asked to be 'enlightened of fossilized eyeballs preserved in such a way to determine their "sophistication" being found in the fossil record' It's a Cambrian rabbit!. These eyes are not only in the fossil record but very early in the Cambrian according to secular dating. There is zero evidence these eyes (with exceptional clarity) evolved.

See, here you are beating a strawman.

I clarified "geological blink of an eye" where you make an unsubstantiated claim that "blink of an eye" ("rapidly evolved") really means, "What he is really saying... there is no evidence the eye evolved" (post #38). Patterson neither said nor implied any such thing. You're the worst of liars.

ha.... you say its the wrong test method because it does not give the results you want.

Rather, its the wrong test method because it does not give the results YOU want.

"My people" say dates of*+/-40,000 years is consistent with the creation flood model. The global flood would have drastically effected the ratio....With all vegetation dead...much buried starting to form coal and oil...
The C14 would increase at this time relative to the C12. Also effecting the ratio at this time would be volcanic activity around the earth emitting lots of CO2 without the normal C14.

+/- 40,000 years? Really? That's a rather large margin of error for a dating method having a maximum range of about 50,000 years. You've been corrected on your erroneous assumptions on C12/C14 ratios by more knowledgeable posters in another thread so I won't rehash them here.

The evidence, as Lighthouse mentioned doesn't support your crybaby beliefs. It would seem that the university (Like C14 dating labs) hate being challenged on their beliefs about our origins.

Armitage wasn't fired because of his theology or that he had "suggested that soft dino tissue might be an indicator the fossil had been assigned a age much too old"; he was fired because his contract expired and because of budget constraints. He didn't like it so he played the crybaby "you fired me because of my religion" card. Can't handle the truth? Tough!

 

[Jose Fly]

Codes are non random, as they are always created by an intelligence.

So the genetic "code" for the smallpox virus that killed hundreds of millions of people was created by God.

The genetic "code" for the parasite that causes malaria, which has killed hundreds of millions of people, was created by God.

The genetic "code" for the bacteria that causes tuberculosis, which has killed hundreds of millions of people, was created by God.

The genetic "code" for the bacteria that causes cholera, which has killed hundreds of millions of people, was created by God.

What a messed up belief system.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Irrelevant to the point at hand.

Irrelevant? Hardly. It goes directly to why the case was settled.

And if they thought the judge would just throw out the case then why be worried about the cost of litigation?

It was their decision. Do you honestly want me to tell you what they were thinking?

See above and use your brain. God designed and created them fora reason.

"fora"? Really?

I proofread.

You should try doing a better job... :chuckle: Clean your house.

That's not how that works.

Heart attacks don't happen in a state of calm; e.g. not being surprised.

You don't get out much, do you?

I'm not the one religiously promoting accidents and happenstance.

It's a large part of what drives natural selection.

No, demanding that He had to come from somewhere is.

Special pleading? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

Does life come from life, or not?

Because you just can't believe it could happen that way (creationism) so you ignore any evidence that contradicts you.

]Because you just can't believe it could happen that way (evolution by natural selection) so you ignore any evidence that contradicts you.

 

[Silent Hunter]

So the genetic "code" for the smallpox virus that killed hundreds of millions of people was created by God.

The genetic "code" for the parasite that causes malaria, which has killed hundreds of millions of people, was created by God.

The genetic "code" for the bacteria that causes tuberculosis, which has killed hundreds of millions of people, was created by God.

The genetic "code" for the bacteria that causes cholera, which has killed hundreds of millions of people, was created by God.

What a messed up belief system.

Man sinned therefore...

Christianity has an excuse for everything.

 

[Jose Fly]

Man sinned therefore...

Christianity has an excuse for everything.

No, no, no....you have to remember how creationists also argue that evolutionary mechanisms can't create anything new, including "genetic information" (whatever that is). Therefore, the genetic "codes" that allow all those pathogens to inflict their diseases upon humanity had to have come from God.

According to creationist arguments, they couldn't have come from anywhere else.

 

[6days]

What strawman?

You ignore the actual words and arguments, substituting a distorted version of what was said. You find it easier to handle a strawman.... than a he man *

*... How do you plan to isolate and unequivocally identify "intelligence" as the source of this "code" that by all units of measure is randomly "controlled" by natural selection?

*
I'm running with your words. Didn't you say that something "non random" is evidence for intelligence?
As to DNA, "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created."*Bill Gates,*The Road Ahead.

I cannot open your link on this, however, your quote (from the link?) does little to bolster your position.

Either you have little understanding of biology, or you are just being silly. Natural selection does not create. Selection SELECTS from what is already there..... and sometimes eliminates. *(I think need to claim that mutations are your creative mechanism)

This again comes down to your interpretation of what was meant by "exceptional clarity" and "better vision than most of its modern descendants". Compared to a near opaque window and one that is lightly frosted, the frosted glass would have "exceptional clarity". What "modern decendants" are these creatures being compared against?

*
Not my interpretation... the article says "Dr Paterson explains, "The number of lenses and other aspects of their optical design suggest that Anomalocaris would have seen its world with exceptional clarity..."
And, "this new discovery confirms that it had superb vision"

And your question ..'What modern descendants?'... Read the article.*

I clarified "geological blink of an eye" where you make an unsubstantiated claim that "blink of an eye" ("rapidly evolved") really means, "What he is really saying... there is no evidence the eye evolved" (post #38). Patterson neither said nor implied any such thing. You're the worst of liars.

*
I quoted his exact words...in *quote marks and gave you the link. You are combining words from a few posts and misrepresnting. My comment on his words is correct. He is admitting there is no evidence of eye evolution. Superb vision is a 'rabbit' in the Cambrian.The researcher in the article believes in common ancestry though, so says the*"creature's eyes belong to an earlier period of the 'Cambrian explosion' in evolutionary terms, but as there is no evidence of eyes in the pre-Cambrian period,**it suggests complex eyes developed extraordinarily quickly. As Dr Paterson sums it up, "In the geological blink of an eye".

+/- 40,000 years? Really? That's a rather large margin of error for a dating method having a maximum range of about 50,000 years.

I stated it poorly. There are geologists saying that C14 dates of about 40,000 years is consistent with expectations in the creation flood model of an actual date of abut 4500 years. (Based on conditions I mentioned above)

Armitage wasn't fired because of his theology or that he had "suggested that soft dino tissue might be an indicator the fossil had been assigned a age much too old"....

As the OP suggests, that is the atheist spin on what happened.*
Here is Armitages words on how things really went down..."It was not simply a motion for summary judgment that the judge ruled against. The judge ruled against them in a motion for adjudication. There’s a big difference. In other words the judge made a ruling on the case and as a trier of fact concluded that we proved our case that they discriminated against my religion and they failed to follow up or investigate a written complaint of religious discrimination. There was no sense for the University to be dragged into the jury trial because it was clear that they were going to lose at trial and the awards would have been much larger than they presently are."

 

[Silent Hunter]

You ignore the actual words and arguments, substituting a distorted version of what was said. You find it easier to handle a strawman.... than a he man

Dodge, dart, and weave. When you can't refute something you find it easier to make unfounded accusations. I'll get to "substituting a distorted version of what was said" later in the post.

Here's what I posted that you seem to be complaining about. What part of it is a distortion?

"The point was, theories are scientific and are based on evidence; evolutionary theory, for example. Ergo evolutionary theory is scientific. Beliefs, IE creationism/intelligent design, are based on faith. Ergo creationism/intelligent design is not scientific. Thank you for once again admitting evolutionary theory is science."

I'm running with your words. Didn't you say that something "non random" is evidence for intelligence?

Yes I did.

Your mission, Jim, if you choose to accept it, is to explain your plan to isolate and unequivocally identify "intelligence" as the source of this "code" that by all units of measure is randomly "controlled" by natural selection.

You avoided this challenge from my last post. Are you up to it yet?

As to DNA, "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created."*Bill Gates,*The Road Ahead.

It's a nice analogy. Too bad for you that DNA isn't software.

"Make a change in a computer code and the whole thing likely crashes. Make a change in a DNA code and you might make it run better. The change probably won’t have any effect at all (what with non-coding regions and the resilient nature of our protein construction system). DNA can repair it’s code (sometimes). DNA can have code from completely different systems (viruses) inserted and will be perfectly fine, unless the virus kills the organism, but the DNA will work until the rest of the cell runs out of fuel.

DNA can be massively rearranged and it can have no effect on the system. Chromosomes can combine (as they did in our ancestors after the chimpanzee line split off) with no ill effects. Genes can be moved to different places on other chromosomes with no ill effects (as long as the whole thing got moved)."
http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2014/09/10/dna-is-not-like-a-computer/

Either you have little understanding of biology, or you are just being silly. Natural selection does not create. Selection SELECTS from what is already there..... and sometimes eliminates. *(I think need to claim that mutations are your creative mechanism)
*

I'm going to take a stab at this and guess that your understanding of biology, natural selection, genetics, and pretty much anything else having to to do with science and technology consists of cut-and-paste "quotes" from Creationist Web sites; so excuse me if I'm not going to trust your rather large cache of quote mines and half-truths as anything approaching gospel when it comes to scientific understanding. Besides, I'm married to a Christian medical doctor who is my go-to when it comes to anything having to do with biology. She's read a few of your posts. Her reaction and what she said is unfit for posting. Let's just say she's still rolling on the floor, in tears, from laughter.

Not my interpretation... the article says "Dr Paterson explains, "The number of lenses and other aspects of their optical design suggest that Anomalocaris would have seen its world with exceptional clarity..."
And, "this new discovery confirms that it had superb vision"

Ok, that's nice. It could see pretty good. I'm still not particularly impressed.

And your question ..'What modern descendants?'... Read the article.*

Please excuse me if I opt to forgo wading through a rather long article for something that, in all likelihood, probably isn't there.

I quoted his exact words...in *quote marks and gave you the link. You are combining words from a few posts and misrepresnting.

Seriously? Here is "your exact quote" of 'his exact words":

Dr John Patterson wrote:
"The latest find shows sophisticated vision had evolved very rapidly. It came with a bang, in a geological blink of an eye"
Notice what he is really saying..... THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE EYE EVOLVED. It's a Cambrian rabbit!
Nature#480 p237-240* / http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...d-by-natural-selection-in-a-geological-blink/.

My comment on his words is correct. He is admitting there is no evidence of eye evolution.

Well, 6days, it looks like, to me at least, that his "exact words" are YOUR words; "Notice what he is really saying..... THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE EYE EVOLVED."

Patterson said no such thing! His "exact words" are, according to you:

"The latest find shows sophisticated vision had evolved very rapidly. It came with a bang, in a geological blink of an eye".

Perhaps you can clear up how anyone, except you, could possibly read that as, "There is no evidence the eye evolved",

Superb vision is a 'rabbit' in the Cambrian.The researcher in the article believes in common ancestry though, so says the*"creature's eyes belong to an earlier period of the 'Cambrian explosion' in evolutionary terms, but as there is no evidence of eyes in the pre-Cambrian period,**it suggests complex eyes developed extraordinarily quickly. As Dr Paterson sums it up, "In the geological blink of an eye".

6days, can you tell me how many nanoseconds are in "a geological blink of an eye"?

In other words, in creationist speak, how long is "a geological blink of an eye"?

The Cambrian Period is a part of the Paleozoic Era and lasted 50+ million years. That's some blink!

I stated it poorly. There are geologists saying that C14 dates of about 40,000 years is consistent with expectations in the creation flood model of an actual date of abut 4500 years. (Based on conditions I mentioned above)

Could you be a little more vague? Your "creation flood model" contains some pretty iffy "conditions" that, apart from being discussed in creationist literature, are glaringly missing from the geological record.

As the OP suggests, that is the atheist spin on what happened.*
Here is Armitages words on how things really went down..."It was not simply a motion for summary judgment that the judge ruled against. The judge ruled against them in a motion for adjudication. There’s a big difference. In other words the judge made a ruling on the case and as a trier of fact concluded that we proved our case that they discriminated against my religion and they failed to follow up or investigate a written complaint of religious discrimination. There was no sense for the University to be dragged into the jury trial because it was clear that they were going to lose at trial and the awards would have been much larger than they presently are."

Certainly, I would expect Armitage to give his very biased spin on events and what he would have hoped the judge would rule. I don't put much trust in creationists; they lie (you being a notable example). As it is, we will never know how the case would have played out in court.

Now,, as to what REALLY happened:
Armitage wasn't fired because of his theology or that he had "suggested that soft dino tissue might be an indicator the fossil had been assigned a age much too old"; he was fired because his contract expired and because of budget constraints. He didn't like it so he played the crybaby "you fired me because of my religion" card. Can't handle the truth? Tough!

 

[MichaelCadry]

Hi Y'all,

Well, I guess Hedshaker helped destroy my Creation thread. I hope you are all happy here at this thread. I don't see why you wouldn't be. But what about us night owls? I will pop in and out once every night or so and see how you're all doing. Thanks for everything, 6days and to the rest of you, also. Hedshaker accomplished what he was set out to do. Check my thread out if you get a chance. I didn't realize that my thread was just turning into a fight with Hedshaker and me. Eeek!!

May God Increase Your Countenance Fourfold, 6days!! Bye to all of you. You're all in my prayers!!

Michael

 

[Jonahdog]

No, no, no....you have to remember how creationists also argue that evolutionary mechanisms can't create anything new, including "genetic information" (whatever that is). Therefore, the genetic "codes" that allow all those pathogens to inflict their diseases upon humanity had to have come from God.

According to creationist arguments, they couldn't have come from anywhere else.

But it is still man's fault. The Fall. Adam's fault, although it was really Eve's. Another reason women should never be in positions of power?

But, since the Christian deity is all knowing he put the codes into those first microorganisms to begin with since he knew they would be needed soon as further, and continuing, punishment for his creation's misbehavior. My guess is that he turned them on after that apple was eaten to show his power and disfavor. Would seem then to have taken a positive act by the Biblical deity to unleash disease and death on the human race since prior to The Fall, all was just hunky-dory.

 

[6days]

Here's what I posted that you seem to be complaining about. What part of it is a distortion?

I was pointing out how you create strawman arguments. I gave an exsmple. You said "Biology is science, not a "belief system"." I had not said otherwise...I agree with that statement. However you then proceeded to try defeat the strawmsn you created.

Your mission, Jim, if you choose to accept it, is to explain your plan to isolate and unequivocally identify "intelligence" as the source of this "code" that by all units of measure is randomly "controlled" by natural selection.

This was answered...by YOU! You said non random (signals, patterns) can be considered as evidence of intelligence. *So you then try move the goal posts to "unequivocally identify". Even this new target was hit. Sophisticated complex codes containing information always require intelligence.*

It's a nice analogy. Too bad for you that DNA isn't software.

I imagine you know who Bill Gates is? He didn't say that DNA is software. He said "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created"

"Make a change in a computer code and the whole thing likely crashes. Make a change in a DNA code and you might make it run better. The change probably won’t have any effect at all (what with non-coding regions and the resilient nature of our protein construction system). DNA can repair it’s code (sometimes). DNA can have code from completely different systems (viruses) inserted and will be perfectly fine, unless the virus kills the organism, but the DNA will work until the rest of the cell runs out of fuel.

Pretty incredible, isn't it? Intelligently designed...even with self repair mechanisms!*

Chromosomes can combine (as they did in our ancestors after the chimpanzee line split off) with no ill effects.

The fusion 'argument is silly and has been debunked modern science and
by christian geneticists and biologists.*

Either you have little understanding of biology, or you are just being silly. Natural selection does not create. Selection SELECTS from what is already there..... and sometimes eliminates. (I think need to claim that mutations are your creative mechanism)

I'm going to take a stab at this and guess that your understanding of biology, natural selection, genetics, and pretty much anything else....

You claimed your wife knows biology better than you. She will know that selection eliminates (sometimes preserves) pre-existing genetic information. Or, you can ask any breeder (dogs, cattle, plants). What I quoted and you objected to was "Negative frequency dependant selection) is one of the few forms of natural selection that can act to preserve genetic variation,[/b] most forms of natural selection lead to the loss of genetic variation[/b] as unfit alleles are "weeded out" of the population."

Ok, that's nice. It could see pretty good.

lol... The researchers described it as "sophisticated vision....better than its modern descendants....optical design...exceptional clarity...superb vision".*

*I'm still not particularly impressed.

Of course not.*

Please excuse me if I opt to forgo wading through a rather long article for something that, in all likelihood, probably isn't there.

So... your strawmen will continue.*:

Dr John Patterson wrote:
"The latest find shows sophisticated vision had evolved very rapidly. It came with a bang, in a geological blink of an eye"*
Notice what he is really saying.....*THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE EYE EVOLVED.*It's a Cambrian rabbit!

Well, 6days, it looks like, to me at least, that his "exact words" are YOUR words; "Notice what he is really saying.....*THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE EYE EVOLVED."
Patterson said no such thing!

I think English is not your first language? If not you do exceptionally well. But you are mistaken in how you read the above. I put Dr. Pattersons words in quote marks. The *comment after the quote was obviously not his. He would not be talking about himself in the 3rd person...and it wasn't in quotes.*

6days, can you tell me how many nanoseconds are in "a geological blink of an eye"?

17?
Doesn't matter how many geological blinks....there is no evidence that sophisticated, superb vision evolved. Its like a Cambrian bunny. In fact according to evolutionary thinking, the descendants of this creature have less sophisticated vision.*

The Cambrian Period is a part of the Paleozoic Era and lasted 50+ million years. That's some blink!

Read the article... they place this creature early in the Cambrian and say no evidence of eyes in the Precambrian.* There is NO evidence that this superb vision system evolved. What you have is your beliefs.

Your "creation flood model" contains some pretty iffy "conditions" that, apart from being discussed in creationist literature, are glaringly missing from the geological record.

Actually, the evidence is glaringly obvious.*The evidence is often discussed in secular journals also...although they*think it was actually many large floods.**Examples...
1. Secular*articles often have articles supporting the Biblical creation model which includes the global flood. (Although the evolutionary based journals of course interpret evidence from their world view). For example, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has an article of a worldwide pattern of fossils.
2012, Mechanism for Burgess Shale-type preservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Gaines, R. R.
2. "Evidence Suggests Noah's Ark Flood Existed, Says Robert Ballard, Archaeologist Who Found Titanic"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...t-ballard-archeologist-titanic_n_2273143.html

Certainly, I would expect Armitage to give his very biased spin on events and what he would have hoped the judge would rule. I don't put much trust in creationists; they lie (you being a notable example). As it is, we will never know how the case would have played out in court.

We have a very good idea how the case would have played out. The judge in preliminary ruled against the university for adjudication. Based on facts... the university lost round 1 and then offered Armitage the settlement.

 

[Jose Fly]

But it is still man's fault. The Fall. Adam's fault, although it was really Eve's. Another reason women should never be in positions of power?

But, since the Christian deity is all knowing he put the codes into those first microorganisms to begin with since he knew they would be needed soon as further, and continuing, punishment for his creation's misbehavior. My guess is that he turned them on after that apple was eaten to show his power and disfavor. Would seem then to have taken a positive act by the Biblical deity to unleash disease and death on the human race since prior to The Fall, all was just hunky-dory.

Exactly. The "codes" for the traits that allow those pathogens to inflict so much untold suffering had to come from somewhere, and according to 6days' argument that "codes are always created by an intelligence", and given that the "intelligence" he's talking about is God, there is only one conclusion that follows....

God intentionally and deliberately created smallpox, malaria, cholera, and all the other pathogen-caused diseases that haunt mankind.

Pretty sick belief system IMO.

 

[Lighthouse]

Irrelevant? Hardly. It goes directly to why the case was settled.

And that was not the point I was getting to.

It was their decision. Do you honestly want me to tell you what they were thinking?

It was rhetorical.

"fora"? Really?

Faulty connection on a wireless keyboard. It's not like I misspelled the same word twice.

You should try doing a better job... :chuckle: Clean your house.

You don't have any room to talk.

You don't get out much, do you?

You need to learn to read.

It's a large part of what drives natural selection.

I know.

Special pleading? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

Does life come from life, or not?

You're assuming God came from anything.

And it's not special pleading if you're simply arguing there's more than one possibility.

Ironically the person who delivered the line you quoted believes in intelligent design.

]Because you just can't believe it could happen that way (evolution by natural selection) so you ignore any evidence that contradicts you.

No I don't. For one, you can't ignore something that isn't there. And secondly, I would believe it if the evidence told that story.

 

[Interplanner]

cosmicfingerprints.com/royal-society-evolution

 

[Silent Hunter]

I was pointing out how you create strawman arguments. I gave an exsmple. You said "Biology is science, not a "belief system"." I had not said otherwise...I agree with that statement. However you then proceeded to try defeat the strawmsn you created.

You're almost as nuts as Cadry. I'm not at all surprised you didn't get the point. Biology is a science the same as evolutionary theory is science. You even admitted evolutionary theory is science. So, what's the problem?

This is the conversation so far on this point:

Tell me, 6days, what are the guidelines for testing godidit?

Do you mean how would you test if something is intelligently designed?* That's easy. Maybe you can tell me, how do you test when looking for aliens in space if you are listening to random noise, or a signal that is from intelligence?

I'd look for something non-random in the background noise. However, evolution is a random "process" guided, so to speak, by natural selection/survival of the most adapted to survive.

Yes... you look for signs of intelligent origins.

How do you plan to isolate and unequivocally identify an "intelligent origin" in a biological system that by all units of measure is a random process "controlled" by natural selection?

You put too much emphasis on the word "code", which is a man-made identifier which has simply stuck as a descriptor for lack of a more precise term. Here, I suspect, you are going to scream "strawman" or "moving the goal posts". Whatever. The same standard applies, otherwise, you are special pleading. How do you plan to isolate and unequivocally identify "intelligence" as the source of this "code" that by all units of measure is randomly "controlled" by natural selection?

I'm running with your words. Didn't you say that something "non random" is evidence for intelligence?

Yes I did.

Your mission, Jim, if you choose to accept it, is to explain your plan to isolate and unequivocally identify "intelligence" as the source of this "code" that by all units of measure is randomly "controlled" by natural selection.

You avoided this challenge from my last post. Are you up to it yet?

This was answered...by YOU! You said non random (signals, patterns) can be considered as evidence of intelligence. *So you then try move the goal posts to "unequivocally identify".

Really? Did I? You might want to check that out. See above.

Even this new target was hit.

If what you mean by "target", that "target" being the size of the observable universe, then, sure, you hit it.

Sophisticated complex codes containing information always require intelligence.

Do they? For example: "11161748065" is a sophisticated complex code containing information. Would you believe that this number is entirely random and was generated by a computer? To the computer it has meaning. Now, if you want to argue that a computer has intelligence... I'm all ears.

I imagine you know who Bill Gates is? He didn't say that DNA is software. He said "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created"

Computer programs ARE software, or did you actually mean to emphasize that DNA is LIKE computer programs/software?

Is the OPINION of Bill Gates supposed to be compelling?

So, tell me, 6days, what is your plan to isolate and unequivocally identify "intelligence" as the source of this "code" that by all units of measure is randomly "controlled" by natural selection.

Pretty incredible, isn't it? Intelligently designed...even with self repair mechanisms!*?

Heads, you win; tails, you win. The creationists ability misapply logic amazes them.

The fusion 'argument is silly and has been debunked modern science and
by christian geneticists and biologists.

That wasn't really part of my emphasis but thank you for taking the opportunity to beat straw.

You claimed your wife knows biology better than you. She will know that selection eliminates (sometimes preserves) pre-existing genetic information. Or, you can ask any breeder (dogs, cattle, plants). What I quoted and you objected to was "Negative frequency dependant selection) is one of the few forms of natural selection that can act to preserve genetic variation,[/b] most forms of natural selection lead to the loss of genetic variation[/b] as unfit alleles are "weeded out" of the population."

My wife asks:
What is "genetic information"?
How is "genetic information" measured?
How would one know with certainty if "genetic information" has been gained or lost?

So... your strawmen will continue.*:

How is lacking the patience to wade through a rather long article to look for something I suspect I will not being able to find a strawman?

I think English is not your first language? If not you do exceptionally well. But you are mistaken in how you read the above. I put Dr. Pattersons words in quote marks. The *comment after the quote was obviously not his. He would not be talking about himself in the 3rd person...and it wasn't in quotes.*

You should try reading all the way to the end. Stopping half-way makes you look even more foolish than you already are. Perhaps I can make it clearer...

He said: "The latest find shows sophisticated vision had evolved very rapidly. It came with a bang, in a geological blink of an eye".

You said: "Notice what he is really saying, there is no evidence the eye evolved".

Perhaps you can clear up how anyone, except you, could possibly read, "The latest find shows sophisticated vision had evolved very rapidly. It came with a bang, in a geological blink of an eye", as, "There is no evidence the eye evolved".

Doesn't matter how many geological blinks....there is no evidence that sophisticated, superb vision evolved. Its like a Cambrian bunny. In fact according to evolutionary thinking, the descendants of this creature have less sophisticated vision.*

I have to wear glasses. My parents had 20/20 vision almost until they died. Does that mean I have "less sophisticated vision"?

Read the article... they place this creature early in the Cambrian and say no evidence of eyes in the Precambrian.* There is NO evidence that this superb vision system evolved. What you have is your beliefs.

You thrive on arguments from ignorance. I'm still wondering how, "The latest find shows sophisticated vision had EVOLVED very rapidly", becomes "There is no evidence the eye evolved".

Actually, the evidence is glaringly obvious.*The evidence is often discussed in secular journals also...although they*think it was actually many large floods.**Examples...
1. Secular*articles often have articles supporting the Biblical creation model which includes the global flood. (Although the evolutionary based journals of course interpret evidence from their world view). For example, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has an article of a worldwide pattern of fossils.
2012, Mechanism for Burgess Shale-type preservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Gaines, R. R.
2. "Evidence Suggests Noah's Ark Flood Existed, Says Robert Ballard, Archaeologist Who Found Titanic"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...t-ballard-archeologist-titanic_n_2273143.html

Another heads, you win; tails, you win scenario? How does Robert Ballard's investigation of the Black Sea morph into an investigation of a world wide flood?

We have a very good idea how the case would have played out.

Actually, what you have is squat. You have absolutely no idea how the case would have ended. What you do have is a truck load of wishful thinking.

The judge in preliminary ruled against the university for adjudication. Based on facts... the university lost round 1 and then offered Armitage the settlement.

What facts? My understanding of the case is it is one of, he said, he said, but little in the way of objective evidence.

The fact is, Armitage wasn't fired because of his theology or that he had "suggested that soft dino tissue might be an indicator the fossil had been assigned a age much too old"; he was fired because his contract expired and because of budget constraints. He didn't like it so he played the crybaby "you fired me because of my religion" card.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Jose Fly,

Our God does 'allow' us to undergo similar situations of dying, like He did with the Flood. This is because of people's actions. The world gets evil, and He zaps it with something. If He wishes to send cholera on the Earth, it is the fault of many of the people on Earth. Those of us who are good have to undergo the purge because we are part of the Earth's population too.

So not all of us deserve the plagues that God sends upon mankind on Earth, just like it was during the Great Flood, where Noah and his family got saved and everyone else died. Just like Lot and his family got to flee Sodom and Gomorrah before the two cities destruction by God. Even Lot's own wife did not listen to God, but instead, looked back to see what was happening, when the Lord said not to do it. Everyone who disobeys Him pays the price; Everyone, including you or me, depending on whether we are an evil person or good. That's it in a nutshell. Man must make reconciliation for his sins or actions. Que sera, sera!

Jesus died and gave His Life so that those who sin could still be saved and go to Heaven. It does not mean that the sinners shouldn't make reconciliation for their sins. See Daniel 9:24KJV, "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity (sins)..." Please see the remainder of that verse, for those who can understand.

May Each Of You Believe In God And Spare Yourselves The Wrath Of God, Eh??

Michael

 

[Silent Hunter]

And that was not the point I was getting to.

It wasn't your point, but it was mine.

It was rhetorical.

It is now, in hindsight.

Faulty connection on a wireless keyboard. It's not like I misspelled the same word twice.

Don't blame the equipment. You made the error. You proofread so there shouldn't have been an error, right? (More on this in a second that I won't point out.) I actually "mispelled" the word once, the duplicate was copy-and-paste. Is it OK if I blame my equipment too?

You don't have any room to talk.

You're the one who thinks a minor spelling errors is cause to start a war. Your comment, "You don't have any room to talk", therefore applies to you alone.

You need to learn to read.

You need to learn to chill out.

I know.

Sure, now that you've been told

You're assuming God cam from anything.

I'll refrain from pointing out one of the two things that's wrong with your statement so you won't need to blame your equipment again; the other is, you're assuming your personal and private concept of a deity is something real.

And it's not special pleading if you're simply arguing there's more than one possibility.

Well, is there more than one possibility or is your personal and private concept of a deity the only possibility?

Ironically the person who delivered the line you quoted believes in intelligent design.

So? Beating straw is 6days forte.

Because you just can't believe it could happen that way (creationism) so you ignore any evidence that contradicts you.

Because you just can't believe it could happen that way (evolution by natural selection) so you ignore any evidence

No I don't. For one, you can't ignore something that isn't there. And secondly, I would believe it if the evidence told that story.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]Do you often engage in this sort of irony or is it a new skill you're developing?

 

[6days]

I'm not at all surprised you didn't get the point. Biology is a science the same as evolutionary theory is science.

We covered this already. Yes biology is science.
* If by 'evolutionary theory' you mean the change we observe over the course of generations due to heritable traits - That is science.
* If by*'evolutionary theory' you mean the common ancestry belief system - That is religion.*
* If you continue arguing against evolution being a belief system - Then you continue arguing against your your own strawman.

Computer programs ARE software, or did you actually mean to emphasize that DNA is LIKE computer programs/software?

Repeating...Bill Gates said*"DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created"

So, tell me, 6days, what is your plan to isolate and unequivocally identify "intelligence" as the source of this "code" that by all units of measure is randomly "controlled" by natural selection.

You can keep repeating your silly demand. I will keep repeating my previous answer at one way of identifying intelligence...This was answered...by YOU! You said non random (signals, patterns) can be considered as evidence of intelligence. So you then try move the goal posts to "unequivocally identify". Even this new target was hit. Sophisticated complex codes containing information always require intelligence.

Do they? For example: "11161748065" is a sophisticated complex code containing information. Would you believe that this number is entirely random and was generated by a computer?*To the computer it has meaning. Now, if you want to argue that a computer has intelligence... I'm all ears

Think before you post silly answers.

My wife asks:
What is "genetic information"?
How is "genetic information" measured?
How would one know with certainty if "genetic information" has been gained or lost?

Hi "Wife".... good questions.
1. Oxford dictionary defines genetic info ..."The genetic potential of an organism carried in the base sequence of its DNA (or, in some viruses, RNA) according to the genetic code." Or, perhaps it could be described as the difference between individuals of the same species.
2. Wiki says "Genetic variation within a population is commonly measured as the percentage of gene loci that are polymorphic or the percentage of gene loci in individuals that are heterozygous."
3. How to know with certainty if genetic information has been gained or lost.... hmmmm. I will bring your question back to a statement your hubby seemed to object to... I said "Selection SELECTS from what is already there..... and sometimes eliminates. (I think need to claim that mutations are your creative mechanism). Selection by itself can't increase variation.

 

[Jonahdog]

Repeating...Bill Gates said*"DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created"

Wanna bet that Bill thinks your 6 day creation story a few thousand years ago is pretty silly?
But we all appreciate your 1 sentence quote mine.