Please explain how the Geiger Counter, broken glass, and dealt cards explain the origin of genetic material.
You showed nothing of the sort.
That you fail to comprehend the refutations does not make them less true or valid. Information is generated at random, as those supplied examples demonstrate. You admitted yourself you don't understand information theory, so here you're basically just lying... again.
Please explain how the Geiger Counter, broken glass, and dealt cards explain the origin of genetic material.
In what way would that show intelligent design is false? Why couldn't the alleged "designer" have designed a continuously functional pathway?"Consider the argument that Michael Behe makes in his bookDarwin’s Black Box.There he proposes that design is detectable in many “molecular machines,” including thebacterial flagellum. Behe argues that this tiny motor needs all its parts to function—it is“irreducibly complex.” Such systems in our experience are a hallmark of designed systems, because they require the foresight that is the exclusive jurisdiction of intelligent agents. Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection and random variations, in contrast, requires a functional system at each transition along the way. Natural selection can select for present but not for future function. Notice that Behe’s argument rests not on ignorance, but on what we know about designed systems, the causal powers of intelligent agents, and on our growing knowledge of the cellular world and its many mechanisms.continuously functional Darwinian pathway from simple ancestor to present motor."
How does one test and discredit Behe’s argument? Describe a realistic,
You're really a piece of shit, you know that?Please explain how the Geiger Counter, broken glass, and dealt cards explain the origin of genetic material.
"Consider the argument that Michael Behe makes in his bookDarwins Black Box.There he proposes that design is detectable in many molecular machines, including thebacterial flagellum. Behe argues that this tiny motor needs all its parts to functionit isirreducibly complex. Such systems in our experience are a hallmark of designed systems, because they require the foresight that is the exclusive jurisdiction of intelligentcontinuously functional Darwinian pathway from simple ancestor to present motor."
agents. Darwins mechanism of natural selection and random variations, in contrast, requires a functional system at each transition along the way. Natural selection can select for present but not for future function. Notice that Behes argument rests not on ignorance, but on what we know about designed systems, the causal powers of intelligent agents, and on our growing knowledge of the cellular world and its many mechanisms.
How does one test and discredit Behes argument? Describe a realistic,
Dishonest debate techniques is now what you have to fall back upon?
He never said it explains the origin of genetic material, YOU DID!
Regarding that DI joke, i won't hold it against you if you explain to me how any real observation is falsifiable, an no, an analogy to anything won't do, it has to be a real observation of the subject at hand.
This, and other so-called defenses for ID, were given a fair trial in the federal case of Kitzmiller v. Dover School District. Michael Bebe even testified. Unfortunately for him, evidence was presented that refuted his contention that the flagellum is "irreducibly complex"; there are, in fact, other structures in bacteria share common elements with the flagellum.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/qt/3416_08b_td.html
Oh, I see. A bunch of lawyers decided something so it must be true...Hahaha.
You're really a piece of shit, you know that?
I never claimed that those examples explain the origins of genetic material. You are bearing false witness against me.
Those examples demonstrate that information is source-less. It arises anytime we decide to abstract relationships among objects in reality.
You should read the transcripts from that trial. It is pretty funny.
I'm sure it is.
Sooo... read it. Behe's testimony was a highlight, as were the revelations about the creationist, er, intelligent design textbook.
Oh, I see. A bunch of lawyers decided something so it must be true...Hahaha.
When Judge John E. Jones III was invested as a U.S. District Court judge in August 2002, he could never have imagined, he said recently, that within four years he would appear on the cover of Time and rub shoulders at a black-tie dinner this year with others judged as the 100 most influential people of his time.
Jones, a member of Trinity Lutheran Church, Pottsville, Pa., said fame wasnt his objective when President George W. Bush appointed him to the court in Pennsylvanias Middle District. But he acknowledged that judges like to decide important cases. He is comfortable, he added, with his new notoriety because Im entirely confident that I handled the case well. I worked hard. Im deeply satisfied that I carried out my duties the way Im supposed to.
The case? That would be Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, in which parents in Dover, Pa., took the school board to court over an attempt to make intelligent design part of the science curriculum.
Yes it does. You can measure the information contained in the fluctuations. The intervals will develop a string of values which can be analyzed for compressibility. Of course, the radiation just keeps going and going, so the string gets longer and longer, ever increasing the amount of information.Sorry, the fact that a Geiger Couter can detect radiation doesn't say much of anything about information.
You're lying. You see, the problem here is that you don't know information theory, so you're just talking out of your ass. What must it mean about your position that you spruik blatant falsehoods again and again in order to convince yourself that the truth is false? You're not just lying to everyone else, you are lying to yourself....and certainly doesn't relate to the topic of the information coded into DNA.
You're moving the goalposts -- another typical creationist tap-dance. Evolution doesn't purport to explain the "source" of life. It explains the cause of biological diversity through common ancestry.Regardless, please present your theory on the source of genetic material necessary for life.
Will do, but I'm more interested in your theory on how the genetic material necessary for life originated.
Errrr ... it's called survial of the fittest. Evolution is an overused term that is not accurate and alot of bible hugging SOBs are to stupid to know this. Smarter people need to fix their terminology.
*Crickets chirping*In what way would that show intelligent design is false? Why couldn't the alleged "designer" have designed a continuously functional pathway?
*Crickets chirping*In what way would a failure to describe such a system demonstrate intelligent design? All you have is an argument from incredulity -- you're basically saying "We don't know how it could have arisen, therefore intelligent design." Do you really fail to understand why that isn't a sound argument?
*Crickets chirping*Isn't it your belief that your alleged "designer" did not merely design biological organisms, but designed literally every aspect of our functioning universe, from planetary orbits to the hydrological cycle? If everything in the universe is designed, then how would you know what an "undesigned" phenomenon looked like?
You're lying. You see, the problem here is that you don't know information theory, so you're just talking out of your ass. What must it mean about your position that you spruik blatant falsehoods again and again in order to convince yourself that the truth is false? You're not just lying to everyone else, you are lying to yourself.
You're moving the goalposts -- another typical creationist tap-dance. Evolution doesn't purport to explain the "source" of life. It explains the cause of biological diversity through common ancestry.
I've asked that the thread be locked. Stupid people ruined a perfectly good conversation. I hate that it's come to that request
When you stop lying, I will stop calling you a liar.Rather than calling me names
Fuck you. Do your own homework. I did....why not explain information theory to me...
I've already answered this....and explain how it relates to the origin of genetic matter.
And I explained that your ignorance is not a problem with evolutionary theory.You've provided me with your proof of common ancestory, the fossil recor, homology, and biogeography, and I find it lacking. I explained to you in this thread why I find it lacking.
What origin?Again, what is your view on the origin of genetic matter?
Why did you stop masturbating to snuff films? Do you always beat your wife before dinner? What was it like when you first had gay sex?Since you can't and won't answer the question...
You're not going to get away with changing the subject. You see, in contrast to you, I have intelligence and integrity....I gave what I suspect is your answer above and even provided a debate on the question.
I see, if you can't win an argument you shut down the debate.
I see, if you can't win an argument you shut down the debate.