Evolution happening before our very eyes? Awesome.

[PhineasJWhoopee]

You're giving us information and you're profoundly not intelligent.

I'm still waiting for all this proof you're going to post...

I'm still waiting for a response for my post regarding the proof of macroevolutuon.

Okay, you appear to believe that given enough time, the cummulative effects of microevolutiory effects give rise to macroevolutionary changes. You point to the fossil record, homoolgy, and bio-geography as proof. Okay, let's look at the evidence.

A. Fossil Record
1. All the different, basic kinds of animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata - with no proof of ancestors.
2. Plants appear abruptly too. Scientists have been unable to find an Evolutionary history (beginning to end) for even one group of modern plants.
3. Contrary to common belief, most fossils are not of extinct types of animals. Most fossils are very similar (and often totally identical) to creatures living today. Evolutionary history should be filled with temporary, intermediate stages of Evolution, from amoeba to man. Where are they?
4. There is a continuing lack of evidence for Evolution in spite of the millions of fossils that have been discovered.

B. Homology
1. Homologous organisms exhibiting ‘unity of type’, would be expected to show homologous genes and homologous patterns of embryological development. But, wat is being discovered however, are non homologous genetic structures and different embryological development patterns.
2. Homologous structures[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] are arrived at by different routes and the cells giving rise to the different germ layers and their migration patterns are markedly dissimilar. Homologous attributes in the different classes of vertebrates (or even within the same species) are arrived at by different (non-homologous) routes from non-homologous sites in the embryo.[/FONT]

C. Bio-geography
1. The biogeography argument isn’t an argument in favor of evolution—it’s an argument against the Bible. Even if the argument is true, proving the Bible is false doesn’t prove that evolution is true.
2. The only real point of contention between creationists and evolutionists is how long it takes for living things to colonize a new area.
3. In Sursty, Iceland, scientists studying how long it takes an ecosystem to develop. In less than 50 years Surtsey has developed an old-looking ecological system.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Your problem is that your starting from a basic premise that everything must have a natural cause.

More dishonesty from the pathological liar.

I made no distinction between natural or supernatural in my example. The question to be answered is "how did the penny get in the jar?" "Greg put it there" does not answer that question.

....much like the person who finds a watch and when trying to determine it's origin, a priori rules out that there was designer.

Here is further evidence that you are simply parroting arguments you've read or heard without actually thinking about them.

The way your argument is supposed to go, a person who finds a watch does not rule out a designer, but assumes it was designed. Do you know why we assume that the watch was designed? Precisely because it is so dissimilar to the plants and creatures in its environment. It stands out as distinct from those things which do not appear to have a designer. It doesn't metabolize. It doesn't respond to stimuli. It doesn't reproduce. It lacks DNA. Sure, it looks designed, but living organisms do not.

Seriously, Paley's watchmaker totally backfires on creationists, but they are all too stupid and dishonest to realize it.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

What do you mean by "how"? lol...

If you're not interested in a serious discussion, why don't you just bow out?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What are the origins of the information found in DNA, the fundamental matter of lfe?

Information always come from an intelligent source.

Patently false. A radium isotope generates gigabytes upon gigabytes of information. Haven't you ever heard a Geiger counter?

Seriously, when are you going to get this? The creationists you are parroting are lying to you.

Some "scientist."

Oh, and here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF003.html

Information is not meaning and does not, per se, imply any special structure or function. Any arrangement implies information; the information is how the arrangement is described. If a new arrangement occurs, whether spontaneously or from the outside, new information is assembled in the process. Even if the arrangement consists of shattering a glass into tiny pieces, that means assembling new information

Emphasis added.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Sure, it looks designed, but living organisms do not.

Living organisms, don't appear to be designed? They sure do to me and many other scientists.

Again, what are the origins of the information found in DNA from a naturalistic perspective?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm still waiting for a response for my post regarding the proof of macroevolutuon.

Okay, you appear to believe that given enough time, the cummulative effects of microevolutiory effects give rise to macroevolutionary changes. You point to the fossil record, homoolgy, and bio-geography as proof. Okay, let's look at the evidence.

A. Fossil Record
1. All the different, basic kinds of animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata - with no proof of ancestors.
2. Plants appear abruptly too. Scientists have been unable to find an Evolutionary history (beginning to end) for even one group of modern plants.
3. Contrary to common belief, most fossils are not of extinct types of animals. Most fossils are very similar (and often totally identical) to creatures living today. Evolutionary history should be filled with temporary, intermediate stages of Evolution, from amoeba to man. Where are they?
4. There is a continuing lack of evidence for Evolution in spite of the millions of fossils that have been discovered.

B. Homology
1. Homologous organisms exhibiting ‘unity of type’, would be expected to show homologous genes and homologous patterns of embryological development. But, wat is being discovered however, are non homologous genetic structures and different embryological development patterns.
2. Homologous structures[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] are arrived at by different routes and the cells giving rise to the different germ layers and their migration patterns are markedly dissimilar. Homologous attributes in the different classes of vertebrates (or even within the same species) are arrived at by different (non-homologous) routes from non-homologous sites in the embryo.[/FONT]

C. Bio-geography
1. The biogeography argument isn’t an argument in favor of evolution—it’s an argument against the Bible. Even if the argument is true, proving the Bible is false doesn’t prove that evolution is true.
2. The only real point of contention between creationists and evolutionists is how long it takes for living things to colonize a new area.
3. In Sursty, Iceland, scientists studying how long it takes an ecosystem to develop. In less than 50 years Surtsey has developed an old-looking ecological system.

All of your claims, in one form or another, are addressed here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

You are a lair, and you are being lied to. You should be ashamed of yourself, but from what I can tell you have no shame. How pathetic.

 

[alkemyst]

This isn't true. Creationism doesn't explain anything. Consider an analogy:

[SNIP]
Creationism simply answers a "who" question that wasn't asked, and moreover it does so by naming an entity which doesn't appear to exist.

Unfortunately with 'Creationism' there are no rules and at times there can be many.

In the end, it's not a science really so there is no debating it at a scientific level.

People have proven placebo effects exist. If their belief saves them, who is anyone to argue?

If they tread on majority beliefs, then by all means fight that out.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Living organisms, don't appear to be designed?

No, they do not.

They sure do to me and many other scientists.

You misspelled "other morons."

Again, what are the origins of the information found in DNA from a naturalistic perspective?

Information is not a conserved quantity. It doesn't need an origin. It is generated at random, so fuck you.

 

[Nik]

I'm still waiting for a response for my post regarding the proof of macroevolutuon.

Okay, you appear to believe that given enough time, the cummulative effects of microevolutiory effects give rise to macroevolutionary changes. You point to the fossil record, homoolgy, and bio-geography as proof. Okay, let's look at the evidence.

A. Fossil Record
1. All the different, basic kinds of animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata - with no proof of ancestors.
2. Plants appear abruptly too. Scientists have been unable to find an Evolutionary history (beginning to end) for even one group of modern plants.
3. Contrary to common belief, most fossils are not of extinct types of animals. Most fossils are very similar (and often totally identical) to creatures living today. Evolutionary history should be filled with temporary, intermediate stages of Evolution, from amoeba to man. Where are they?
4. There is a continuing lack of evidence for Evolution in spite of the millions of fossils that have been discovered.

B. Homology
1. Homologous organisms exhibiting ‘unity of type’, would be expected to show homologous genes and homologous patterns of embryological development. But, wat is being discovered however, are non homologous genetic structures and different embryological development patterns.
2. Homologous structures[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] are arrived at by different routes and the cells giving rise to the different germ layers and their migration patterns are markedly dissimilar. Homologous attributes in the different classes of vertebrates (or even within the same species) are arrived at by different (non-homologous) routes from non-homologous sites in the embryo.[/FONT]

C. Bio-geography
1. The biogeography argument isn’t an argument in favor of evolution—it’s an argument against the Bible. Even if the argument is true, proving the Bible is false doesn’t prove that evolution is true.
2. The only real point of contention between creationists and evolutionists is how long it takes for living things to colonize a new area.
3. In Sursty, Iceland, scientists studying how long it takes an ecosystem to develop. In less than 50 years Surtsey has developed an old-looking ecological system.

I'm still waiting for you to click the fucking link you asked for at the beginning of this thread.

I'm also still waiting for you to show ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to back up your theological claims.

 

[Nik]

Unfortunately with 'Creationism' there are no rules and at times there can be many.

In the end, it's not a science really so there is no debating it at a scientific level.

People have proven placebo effects exist. If their belief saves them, who is anyone to argue?

If they tread on majority beliefs, then by all means fight that out.

Alchy's drunk again, folks.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Patently false. A radium isotope generates gigabytes upon gigabytes of information. Haven't you ever heard a Geiger counter?

Seriously, when are you going to get this? The creationists you are parroting are lying to you.

Some "scientist."

Oh, and here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF003.html

Emphasis added.

A Geiger Counter measures ionizing radiation from radioactive compunds. I'm not quite sure what you are talking about.

Here's a short video on the origins of the information in DNA.

http://www.stephencmeyer.org/news/2010/08/in_this_new_video_dr.html

 

[Nik]

Living organisms, don't appear to be designed? They sure do to me and many other scientists.

Again, what are the origins of the information found in DNA from a naturalistic perspective?

What evidence do you have to show that living organisms are designed?

What evidence do you have that ANYTHING "natural" (read: isn't man-made) is designed?

 

[Nik]

A Geiger Counter measures ionizing radiation from radioactive compunds. I'm not quite sure what you are talking about.

Here's a short video on the origins of the information in DNA.

http://www.stephencmeyer.org/news/2010/08/in_this_new_video_dr.html

Of course you don't know what he's talking about. You have proven in this thread that you cannot understand simple concepts.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

A Geiger Counter measures ionizing radiation from radioactive compunds. I'm not quite sure what you are talking about.

Yes, I'm quite sure you do not know what I'm talking about.

Information is everywhere. The way the pieces of broken glass fall when a window breaks contain information. The way cards are dealt contain information. Hell you can flip a coin 100 times and generate information. Information is not some mystical, magical thing, and it doesn't need an origin. You're just so fucking stupid that you swallow this creationist claptrap without the capacity for thinking about it.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Yes, I'm quite sure you do not know what I'm talking about.

Information is everywhere. The way the pieces of broken glass fall when a window breaks contain information. The way cards are dealt contain information. Hell you can flip a coin 100 times and generate information. Information is not some mystical, magical thing, and it doesn't need an origin. You're just so fucking stupid that you swallow this creationist claptrap without the capacity for thinking about it.

You can flip a coin or break glass a gazillion times (okay that's probably not a true quality but you get the idea) you are crerating data, but you are not creating information.

Again, what do you think the source is for the information needed to create life?

 

[Nik]

You can flip a coin or break glass a gazillion times (okay that's probably not a true quality but you get the idea) you are crerating data, but you are not creating information.

Again, what do you think the source is for the information needed to create life?

Why don't you just read about the creation of life right here.

You just MIGHT come to the (correct) conclusion that a supreme deity is not necessary to create life. In fact... doesn't even exist.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Why don't you just read about the creation of life right here.

You just MIGHT come to the (correct) conclusion that a supreme deity is not necessary to create life. In fact... doesn't even exist.

Here's the first sentence:

"The researchers constructed a bacterium's "genetic software" and transplanted it into a host cell."

No need to read any futher. The researchers are the designers of the synthetic DNA.

So how does DNA come about in the absence of a designer?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You can flip a coin or break glass a gazillion times (okay that's probably not a true quality but you get the idea) you are crerating data, but you are not creating information.

Patently false. You obviously know nothing about information theory.

Again, what do you think the source is for the information needed to create life?

Show me that one needs to exist, first.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Nik, just wondering, are you willing to make a Saul -> Paul-> Saul -> Paul conversion?

I'm being flip, which I probably shouldn't do, but you get the idea.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Patently false. You obviously know nothing about information theory.

Okay, explain it to me and how it relates here. I'm not a mathematician or an EE.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Okay, explain it to me and how it relates here. I'm not a mathematician or an EE.

Fuck you, you're the one in here throwing around claims about it, and here you are admitting you don't know the first thing on the subject. You have been supplied the information with which you can educate yourself, but you are not interested in the truth.

You are wantonly ignorant and you are shamelessly dishonest. How do you live with yourself?

 

[Nik]

Here's the first sentence:

"The researchers constructed a bacterium's "genetic software" and transplanted it into a host cell."

No need to read any futher. The researchers are the designers of the synthetic DNA.

So how does DNA come about in the absence of a designer?

Before I answer that question, what evidence do you have to support the need for a designer?

 

[Nik]

Nik, just wondering, are you willing to make a Saul -> Paul-> Saul -> Paul conversion?

I'm being flip, which I probably shouldn't do, but you get the idea.

Nope, I don't get the idea. What do you mean by "idea"?

 

[Nik]

You are wantonly ignorant

and you are shamelessly dishonest. How do you live with yourself?

See, these two fine examples of information are proven with evidence plainly described in this very thread.

This is what we call "fact."

 

[Ruptga]

nef