PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     numbers not in evolutionists f
       numbers not in evolutionists f

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 14 15 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you devalue the critique of Dr Bergman, well noted biologist.
Who?

Was it the dumb guy you quoted earlier? I don't recall his name. Don't feel like looking up either.

What about evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould who stated that even if evolutionary history on earth repeated itself a million times, he doubts whether anything like Homo Sapiens would ever develop again.
What about him?

He's absolutely right. Make that a billion times.

So... What's your point?

The sharpshooter fallacy again?

Man, you're so clueless...

Like I said
the probability of life arising by chance is so remote that we have to label it an impossibility.
Hahahaha! You just changed the subject! From the chances of man arising to the chances of life arising!!

Shamefully clueless. xD

EDIT: Did you say "by chance" again???

Hahaha! That should mean a ban in this site. xD

Of course it's impossible for life to arise or to evolve by chance!!! Go get a clue, and leave those poor strawmen alone!!!


(Edited by wisp 5/23/2009 at 11:38 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:34 PM on May 23, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 9:48 PM on May 23, 2009 :
So you devalue the critique of Dr Bergman, well noted biologist. Fair enough, What about evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould who stated that even if evolutionary history on earth repeated itself a million times, he doubts whether anything like Homo Sapiens would ever develop again. Like I said
the probability of life arising by chance is so remote that we have to label it an impossibility.


(Edited by gluteus_maximus 5/23/2009 at 9:52 PM).


Gluteus - I think Gould is probably correct in his statement.  I think it's highly unlikely that a species exactly like Homo sapiens would evolve again.  Take a million different worlds like earth with life taking place and you will get a million different results from evolution.  None of which is going to lead to the same result.  That H. sapiens evolved on earth involved a large degree of chance.  There are an infinite number of paths evolution can take.  We just happen to be the result of a multitude of paths that evolution took, and chance events were certainly involved - no question about that at all.

Gould certainly wasn't denying evolution.



 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:07 AM on May 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If the history of the world from 20 years ago repeated itself a million times, i doubt whether a gluteus able to understand the triviality of that statement could be produced.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 01:25 AM on May 24, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gluteus -
Like I said
the probability of life arising by chance is so remote that we have to label it an impossibility.


Please understand that when I say that the evolution of H. sapiens had a large degree of chance involved, that DOES NOT mean that the origin of life is unlikely.  Given the right conditions I'm sure it has happened countless number of times throughout the universe through time.  Of course I don't have any proof of that.  But from what we know today that is a logical conclusion to make.  And at some point in the future I think we will find evidence of this.

Evolution is a driven process, but what paths it takes chance has a large part to play in it.  

Take H. sapiens, what if for some reason chordates had not evolved back during the Pre-Cambrian - then we wouldn't be here.  Other life would be here, but not people.  

Or what if the asteroid and/or massive volcanic eruptions (the Deccan Traps in India) hadn't occurred - dinosaurs may not have become extinct with the result of mammals taking a less dominant role - evolution would have taken a differnt path, a path not leading to H. sapiens.

Or what if one of our primate ancestors had not survived - H. sapiens wouldn't be here.

There are countless other paths evolution on earth could have taken.  What other kinds of species could have developed if only that event had not happened, or it only that HAD happened.  What affect does the fact that we have a large moon orbiting our planet, certainly a chance event, have on the development of life on earth?  Certainly the moon did have an effect on the path evolution took just from its affect on tides.  

So it's not hard to figure out Gould's logic behind his statement.  

Gluteus - why do you think the probability of life originating naturally is impossible?  With each passing year new research is taking us closer to understanding how life did originate naturally.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:41 AM on May 24, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

but what if intelligence was needed for the genetic code



Sigh... Then someone intelligent would have done it.

There's no good reason to consider that "possibility" though.


There's no good reason not to. Why would you even think like that except by personal bias? Your choice of bias has nothing to do with the evidence.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 03:33 AM on May 24, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There's no good reason not to.

Plenty of reasons not to!  The best is, we know of no higher intelligence than man.  There is absolutely zero evidence of any intelligence greater than ours.  That's not bias, that's being objective.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:13 AM on May 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And there has never been any evidence supporting anything supernatural.

There's no bias.

You believe in something positive: a supernatural intelligence did it (and boasted about it in your sacred book).

Of course, you could also say that we believe in something positive: natural processes did it all.

But we do find evidence for that.

NATURAL PROCESSES EVERYTWHERE!

So what bias are you talking about?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:20 AM on May 24, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 01:41 AM on May 24, 2009 :

Gluteus - why do you think the probability of life originating naturally is impossible?  With each passing year new research is taking us closer to understanding how life did originate naturally.


I think life as we know it , as amazingly complex as it is, needs intelligence and a creator, not coincidence upon coincidence and the statistics are staggering. Thousands of complex protein molecules are required to build a simple cell, probability indicates chance arrangements of these molecules outside the realm of possibility.The proper arrangement of amino acids to form protein molecules is only one small requirement for life.

The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a print shop argues that information and complex systems cannot come about by chance, but can only be the product of an intelligent designer.

Sir Fred Hoyle (1982) calculated “the chance of a random shuffling of amino acids producing a workable set of enzymes” to be less than 10^40000.



 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 11:27 AM on May 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think life as we know it , as amazingly complex as it is, needs intelligence and a creator,
Yeah, we know. You believe many things with no justification.

not coincidence upon coincidence
I'd consistently beat you at poker. It would be no coincidence. I'd receive random cards, and beat you.

Just think!

The same guys win at the poker tournaments year after year! Getting random cards!! Don't you even ask yourself why?

"Because they're intelligent", will you say?

What does that matter? Lester and you claim that any process with a random element will be random.

The probability of life originating from accident... blah blah blah
We don't care. Because nobody says that.

You demonstrate that the process that we describe is random, and THEN you can talk about that. Otherwise it's completely irrelevant.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:54 PM on May 24, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gluteus -
I think life as we know it , as amazingly complex as it is, needs intelligence and a creator, not coincidence upon coincidence and the statistics are staggering. Thousands of complex protein molecules are required to build a simple cell, probability indicates chance arrangements of these molecules outside the realm of possibility.The proper arrangement of amino acids to form protein molecules is only one small requirement for life.


Using probability to argue against evolution (or abiogenesis) is a flawed strategy to use.  Pointing out that a particular protein, let alone a complete set of proteins, being produced by the random chance combination of amino acids has an infinitesimal chance of happening ignores several important factors.

1.  You are using probability after the fact.  Who said that the proteins that make up a human being are the ONLY ones that could work?  There could be an enormous number of different possibilities.  Looking at different species we see that there are indeed other possibilities in protein combinations.  In fact, if we look at the different proteins that make up different species we see strong evidence that SUPPORTS evolution!  Consider reading this - if you dare.  It in fact debunks some of the arguments posed by Fred Hoyle regarding the probability of evolution.  The author is David H. Bailey - a mathematician and computer scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Labratory.

An excellent article:

Evolution and Probability

2.  Evolution is NOT a random process.  It is a process driven by a continuous feedback loop.  Simply put, things that work continue onward, things that don't work don't go anywhere.

3.  Molecular chemistry - not all amino acid sequences are equally stable.  Some sequences are more stable than others.  Evolution works with those more stable proteins.  Proteins evolve over time, and there are numerous possible proteins that can carry on similar functions - as noted in the article above.

4. Evolution (and abiogenesis) works in stages.  No researcher even considers that a complete modern single-celled organism sprang into existence.  Creationists presenting that idea are showing outright ignorance.  The development of life progressed in steps.  Likewise, evolution proceeds in steps.  Natural Selection is a feedback loop.  The path evolution takes depends on the complex  interactions between various species populations and the environment.  A feedback loop that is constantly leading to species refinement and change.  Change takes place with a multitude of factors interacting.  

And I whole-heartedly agree, life shows an astonishing variety and complexity.  But within that complexity is a pattern that shouts  EVOLUTION - if you are willing to see it.    
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:34 AM on May 25, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I want to add Orion's number two point, namely that evolution is not a "random" process.

Just to make sure you don't sprout out "intelligent design", I'm posting a link from Nasa, on a very interesting piece of equipment that was developped through an evolutionary process.

Nasa's new antenna

To keep it short, they develloped a mutation system that would keep beneficial results (as in, more reception) and through that evolve further and further untill a better antenna was made.

At current, Nasa has the best antenna in the world, and it looks like a bent paperclip. Yet there are some key points that you have to know:

1. The end result was not already available.
2. It was through a random process with selection based on improvement.

It is a perfect example to show that there need not be a specific goal that is known, in order for evolution to work, and that is the same in organisms.

It is simply improvement based on the environment, if a mutation improves an organism in a specific environment, then it will keep that inprovement through natural selection.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 02:48 AM on May 25, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Zucadragon - very interesting article, though I get the impression we have a long ways to go to matching nature's success applying evolutionary process to virtual applications.  But it is a start, and the NASA example shows that the process does have an application.

I would like to add to my comment about evolution working as a continuous feedback loop.  The continuous feedback loop, of course, is the process of Natural Selection acting on random mutations.  

How many times have we heard from Creationists that evolution is impossible because it is like imagining a 747 jumbo jet being randomly built from a junkyard in a windstorm, or a million monkeys at typewriters producing the complete works of Shakespeare?  These are utterly poor and awful analogies, of course.  And examples such as these demonstrate a complete ignorance of how evolution works.  Again, evolution is not a random process.  It is a process that acts in a continuous feedback loop via the process of Natural Selection.  



 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:50 PM on May 25, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 11:27 AM on May 24, 2009 :
Sir Fred Hoyle (1982) calculated “the chance of a random shuffling of amino acids producing a workable set of enzymes” to be less than 10^40000.


No, he didn't say that, go look it up.  Somebody is spreading lies and you are buying them.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:54 PM on May 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Great post, orion.

Interesting article, Zucadragon. Well, the subject is. But it's very easy for creationists to attack Evolution using it.

It says that the process doesn't add new information, and that intelligent guidance is needed, i think it even said that it wasn't better than random guessing or something.

It was poorly written.

I'm sure that the guy who wrote it doesn't have a clue about what he means by "information".

The best configuration for something IS new "information" (whatever this uninformed person means by "information").

So, the first major limitation is that evolutionary searches need to be intelligently configured in a problem-specific way if they are to outperform random trail and error.
Trail and error?
Trail???

I hope it was a typo.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:07 PM on May 25, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The article was a bit flunky, lemme see about grabbing a better one, this one was a quick google search.

In general though, the principle of what is done is very interesting, because it was the use of random changes, and although a specific goal was set in "namely, improved reception of a specific bandwidth".. The shape and the "how" it would achieve this was completely random.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 06:33 AM on May 26, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, yeah, it's pretty clear. And it was interesting through the poor uninformed opinion of the writer.

The application of evolutionary principles to design software (i also mean instructions to command robots or other pieces of machinery) and hardware (including any piece of machinery) seems promising.

But of course we have to set a goal! We need to define the parameters of success!!

Nature does that normally. Those who are better at reproducing get the prize.

We don't want to put virtual antennae to compete, eat and mate. We don't even want many of them in the same virtual environment!

Instead of just getting better at catching signals they could develop a way to block them for their competitors.

We humans can add the most amazing ingredient to Evolution: foresight.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:48 AM on May 26, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 9:48 PM on May 23, 2009 :
So you devalue the critique of Dr Bergman, well noted biologist.



Yes, in part because Bergman is NOT a 'well noted biologist'.


Bergman, like most creationists with real degrees, got his degree for the sole purpose of lending weight to his creationist claims.
He has no actual scientific publications whatsoever, just YEC tripe and opinion pieces.

Why do creationists always feel the need to embellish the credentials and relevance of their heros?

 

Do you ever plan to address anything I've written?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:43 PM on May 26, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 11:27 AM on May 24, 2009 :


Sir Fred Hoyle (1982) calculated “the chance of a random shuffling of amino acids producing a workable set of enzymes” to be less than 10^40000.






Is there any relevance to that bit of mathemagic?

Hoyle, of course, also said that creationism is "claptrap".


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:47 PM on May 26, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 2:43 PM on May 26, 2009 :
Quote from gluteus_maximus at 9:48 PM on May 23, 2009 :
So you devalue the critique of Dr Bergman, well noted biologist.



Yes, in part because Bergman is NOT a 'well noted biologist'.


Bergman, like most creationists with real degrees, got his degree for the sole purpose of lending weight to his creationist claims.
He has no actual scientific publications whatsoever, just YEC tripe and opinion pieces.

Why do creationists always feel the need to embellish the credentials and relevance of their heros?

 

Do you ever plan to address anything I've written?


Derwood - so you would put Jerry Bergman in the same camp as Jonathan Wells, Kurt Wise, Duane Gish, William Dembski, etc ?

In the case of Kurt Wise, he actually studied under Stephen Gould (I believe) and didn't he get his doctorate in paleontology?  He got his PhD in a field that has its foundation in evolution, and he admitted that he did not agree to any of it before, or after, his schooling.  

And Jon Wells admitted that his sole purpose to getting an advanced degree in Biology was so that he would have more sway with the public in attacking evolution, and promoting Creationism.

And Michael Behe's own department at Lehigh University goes to lengths to point out that his (Behe's) views on ID do not reflect the views of the rest of the department faculty - which stoutly support TOE.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 4:41 PM on May 26, 2009 | IP
Mariel60

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's pointless to debate if science is wrong about this or that.  
It doesn't matter.  
The only people who think that Genesis is a book of science are the creationists, who do not represent all Christians.
The Bible was never meant to be read literally.  Genesis was composed as a poem or song -- not science!  
Bickering about this or that won't turn Genesis into something it was never meant to be in the first place!
These same people who can't accept evolution today, are just like the people who couldn't accept a heliocentric universe in the middle ages.
It's really silly.
Their whole argument is countered really well in www.songofgenesis.org


-------
Mariel
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 10:51 AM on May 27, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Genesis was composed as a poem or song -- not science!
That's true. But then you say that the biblical account of events is in harmony with science.

NOT!



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:00 AM on May 27, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 12:34 AM on May 25, 2009 :
Gluteus -

An excellent article:

Evolution and Probability

2.  Evolution is NOT a random process.  It is a process driven by a continuous feedback loop.  Simply put, things that work continue onward, things that don't work don't go anywhere.



I read the article and it addresses a couple things. One being about Snowflakes ending up with a particular pattern and the highly unlikely chance that it did. But since it's after the fact, the chance is now 100%. Just like winning the lottery. Do you buy that argument? There is no coding for snowflakes to form in other words they are patterns, not designs which have an INTENT behind them. Randomness is not intelligent design.







(Edited by gluteus_maximus 5/28/2009 at 8:11 PM).
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:11 PM on May 28, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am hearing that an aspect of evolution is not based on random mutations and others say it is. My understanding that it is based on random mutations + natural selection. Here's some text I picked up on indicating an assertion: as follows.... form the random mutation generatorMAN

What is Random Mutation?

Mutation is the idea that when DNA copies, every once in a while there is a copying error and most of the time it's bad.  But according to
Darwinian theory sometimes it's good.  Most of the time it's bad so those die off, some of the time it's good so the antelope evolves into a
giraffe.  

That's what's being claimed, so that you have big long string of DNA with a billion or two billion or three billion letters, and if you have
enough of these getting copied and enough copying errors eventually improvements find their way into a species.  And if it needs to reach a taller tree than it grows a longer neck over a millions of years.
That's what is being claimed.  

So I made a random mutation generator, www.RandomMutation.com.  Can random mutation write a better ad?  Here's my ad, so now I'm going to mutate it.  If you go to random mutation.com it's there and you can play
with it.  It's really fun to play with.  So after one mutation can you see the mutant letter?

Simple Self Defense

For Ordinary People

Easy Personal Protect0on Training

www.tftgroup.com

The mutant letter is in the word 'protection,' and it has a 0 instead of
an i.  



After five mutations it looks like this:

Simple Self Def4nse

For Ordinary Peopla

Easy Personal Protect0ov Traininf

www.tftgroup.com



After ten mutations it looks like this:

Simple SPlf Def4nse

For Ordinary Geopla

Emsy Personal Protect0ov Traininf

ww8.tftgroup.com



After fifty mutations it looks like this:

3iCpBxgfelf dezensqo

a3r OrdinausRmeopRe

BbsyM7ersonel NjiLeStBon0Tnaaning

wwwJEdtgroup63Om 5

By 50 mutations you can't even recognize it anymore.  The information
has been almost completely destroyed.

$1000 Challenge

Now I would bet anybody $1000, try using my random mutation generator to write better Google ads and I'll pay you the thousand dollars if you can actually win.  Let's see if your ad goes up in the rankings or down in the rankings.  

By the way this is not a silly little analogy.  This is an exact analogy. Because it's the mutation of language subjected to a natural selection process. If somebody is looking for Green Nike Tennis Shoes and they see an ad that says 'Green Nike Tennis Shoes' and they click on
it, that's natural selection at work.

If they type in 'Green Nike Tennis Shoes' and they see an ad that says 'Red Wagons' and they don't click on it, that is also natural selection
at work.  

There is a parallel to this in biology, Theodesius Dobzhanski's fruit fly radiation experiments.  He did decades of experimentation starting in 1906; the hypothesis was if we take ultraviolet radiation and we bombard fruit flies with this, it will cause their DNA to mutate much faster than usual.  If we do this long enough we should eventually come up with some other species of fruit fly.  Some 'super fruit fly' or some
improvement.  

He got no new species.  

What did he get?  He got missing organs, deteriorations, sterility, reduced wings and legs, feet growing out of their mouths.  Not one
single improved fruit fly after decades of effort.  

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:18 PM on May 28, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I read the article and it addresses a couple things. One being about Snowflakes ending up with a particular pattern and the highly unlikely chance that it did. But since it's after the fact, the chance is now 100%. Just like winning the lottery. Do you buy that argument?
It's called "reality".

We've shown you the sharpshooter fallacy.

So why do you insist?

A hole in one in a golf court is amazing. But it's dumb to marvel at its landing on some particular leaf of grass.

It had to land somewhere!

These are the odds:
Landing on a specific leaf of grass ___ 1/1.000.000.-
Landing somewhere ___ 1/1.-

You marvel at the latter, and you don't even realize.

There is no coding for snowflakes to form in other words they are patterns, not designs which have an INTENT behind them.
Prove that you make sense to yourself (at least). Answer this:
Do you see INTENT in a rabbit warren?
Do you see INTENT in venom carrying hollow fangs?

If you don't know the difference between intent or its lack, why do you even mention it?

Do you see intent in the shape of the Earth? Is that intelligent design?

If you can't answer these simple questions, you should be ashamed to use such a concept.

Randomness is not intelligent design.
Of course. No need to mention it.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:07 PM on May 28, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And your copypaste doesn't even deserve an answer.

You, gluteus, deserve no more answers. You don't learn, and you don't want to. And you don't understand your own concepts. And you don't answer. You're just wasting our time while copypasting crap you don't understand.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:12 PM on May 28, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

C'mon wisp, you can do better then that, you seem defeated.

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 9:19 PM on May 28, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I replied to the first. I asked you some questions. You don't know how to answer them.

Your copypaste is very easy to reply, but you won't understand the reply either.

So why don't you start by demonstrating you understand something?

Answer those questions and we'll see from there.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 06:40 AM on May 29, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And it's "better THAN that".


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 06:47 AM on May 29, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 8:18 PM on May 28, 2009 :
I am hearing that an aspect of evolution is not based on random mutations and others say it is. My understanding that it is based on random mutations + natural selection. Here's some text I picked up on indicating an assertion: as follows.... form the random mutation generatorMAN

What is Random Mutation?

Mutation is the idea that when DNA copies, every once in a while there is a copying error and most of the time it's bad.  But according to
Darwinian theory sometimes it's good.  Most of the time it's bad so those die off, some of the time it's good so the antelope evolves into a
giraffe.  

That's what's being claimed, so that you have big long string of DNA with a billion or two billion or three billion letters, and if you have
enough of these getting copied and enough copying errors eventually improvements find their way into a species.  And if it needs to reach a taller tree than it grows a longer neck over a millions of years.
That's what is being claimed.  

So I made a random mutation generator, www.RandomMutation.com.  Can random mutation write a better ad?  Here's my ad, so now I'm going to mutate it.  If you go to random mutation.com it's there and you can play
with it.  It's really fun to play with.  So after one mutation can you see the mutant letter?

Simple Self Defense

For Ordinary People

Easy Personal Protect0on Training

www.tftgroup.com

The mutant letter is in the word 'protection,' and it has a 0 instead of
an i.  



After five mutations it looks like this:

Simple Self Def4nse

For Ordinary Peopla

Easy Personal Protect0ov Traininf

www.tftgroup.com



After ten mutations it looks like this:

Simple SPlf Def4nse

For Ordinary Geopla

Emsy Personal Protect0ov Traininf

ww8.tftgroup.com



After fifty mutations it looks like this:

3iCpBxgfelf dezensqo

a3r OrdinausRmeopRe

BbsyM7ersonel NjiLeStBon0Tnaaning

wwwJEdtgroup63Om 5

By 50 mutations you can't even recognize it anymore.  The information
has been almost completely destroyed.

$1000 Challenge

Now I would bet anybody $1000, try using my random mutation generator to write better Google ads and I'll pay you the thousand dollars if you can actually win.  Let's see if your ad goes up in the rankings or down in the rankings.  

By the way this is not a silly little analogy.  This is an exact analogy. Because it's the mutation of language subjected to a natural selection process. If somebody is looking for Green Nike Tennis Shoes and they see an ad that says 'Green Nike Tennis Shoes' and they click on
it, that's natural selection at work.

If they type in 'Green Nike Tennis Shoes' and they see an ad that says 'Red Wagons' and they don't click on it, that is also natural selection
at work.  

There is a parallel to this in biology, Theodesius Dobzhanski's fruit fly radiation experiments.  He did decades of experimentation starting in 1906; the hypothesis was if we take ultraviolet radiation and we bombard fruit flies with this, it will cause their DNA to mutate much faster than usual.  If we do this long enough we should eventually come up with some other species of fruit fly.  Some 'super fruit fly' or some
improvement.  

He got no new species.  

What did he get?  He got missing organs, deteriorations, sterility, reduced wings and legs, feet growing out of their mouths.  Not one
single improved fruit fly after decades of effort.  





Actually, you're missing something your example. What you have is just "random mutation".. You say you want to have a "better advertisement" but there is no way for the system to know if it is better or worse off.

There is no "natural selection" in other words.. In the real world, the environment is the selecter, if a particular mutation gives it an advantage, it will be selected, or has a higher chance of being selected and surviving.

Your "1000$ dollar challenge" is in that aspect completely boguys, because there is no code in your generator that selects for beneficial changes.. So you see, your 1000 dollar challenge is bogus because you're asking for a result that is impossible with the current criteria that you provide.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 09:59 AM on May 29, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Indeed.

It tries to disprove mutation+selection by removing selection from the equation (not meant as a verse).

It also lacks multiple trial and error.

It lacks replication.

It lacks a feedback with an environment.

It also starts from something unevolvable.

So very dumb...


(Edited by wisp 5/29/2009 at 10:20 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:16 AM on May 29, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ugh!  Exactly correct, so you have a random generator.  So What?  As Dragon points out, it lacks a Selection component in the software.  

I think Wisp pointed to several software examples in various threads that not only had the random generator, but also the Selection portion too.  

Without some sort of feedback/selection loop (simulating competition for resources, for instance) you have nothing but a random generator.  

There have been numerous examples presented in this thread that show mutations and selection working together in an evolutionary process - both at the molecular and species level.

Also, Gluteus, you fail to comment on the example of the hemoglobin molecule in the article on 'Evolution and Probability'.  The article pointed out that there are a variety of hemoglobin molecules.  There isn't just 'one' functional protein that can accomplish the task of oxygen transport.  There are many.  

Someone who points out the 141 amino acid chain that makes up human hemoglobin and then says "Aha, the probability of this exact 141 sequence of amino acids coming together in a random process is so infinitesimally tiny as to be all but impossible." misses understanding the whole process of evolution.  That person also misses the possibility that there could be numerous possible solutions, as there are numerous possible amino acid sequences that can make different proteins that provide the same function.

More importantly, don't you find it curious that the hemoglobin molecules parallels the cladistic relationship among species?  Hmmmm?

But wait... if you look at it from an evolutionary stand point, it suddenly makes perfect sense - the more closely related two species are, the more identical the hemoglobin molecules of the two species.  The more distant apart two species are on the evolutionary time-scale, the more different the two hemoglobin molecules are.  

Its facts like this that make such a compelling argument for evolution.  TOE explains these relationships beautifully.  Something Creationism fails to do.  

As Richard Dawkins points out, even without taking the fossil record into account, the genetic and molecular evidence for evolution is tremendous.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:07 PM on May 29, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, yes. http://www.swimbots.com for example. Very little program that mimics evolution through mating (mixing DNA), and competition for food in a water-like 2D environment.

What the little bugs can achieve in such a small virtual environment, with such little time, in your little PC, is astounding.

http://www.darwinbots.com/
That is interesting too. It adds predators, which is an interesting evolutionary boost.

Darwinbots in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVoGKkzNXKk

Predators, parasites and sex. Those are the best evolutionary boosts around. And we're at the verge of a new one: foresight.
Only humans (so far) are able to provide that.

If anyone is interested in evolving something more complex (with a more serious approach) in their computers you can receive a more sophisticated program that some guy gives for free in exchange for some computing time. PM me for the link.

Here are some cool virtually evolved creatures.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCXzcPNsqGA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_8tNGKm87U

Worm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-qOBi2tAnI

You should also check the program Polyworld.
___
Oh, i forgot to clarify what i meant by "unevolbable".

Evolution happens by baby steps.

What little step could make gluteus' copypasted phrase any better?

What could provide a differential survival rate?

In nature, when there's the need, things tend to improve. And this tendency is also a limitation.

Things cannot leap forward (in the usual sense), but they can't even walk backwards (if they do in some aspect it's because some pressure has been released).

The nautilus' pinhole camera has reached a point where it can't evolve anymore (that i know of). A dead end. In order to improve it would first need to go backwards, and that can't be done.

What gluteus is asking is a weird leap sideways, seemingly. And without selection!

Ludicrous.

Here's something easily evolvable: close "distance" to a specific color:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9e2Rs-pQ_o&NR=1

How can creationists not be aware that their attacks are so very easy to understand for us?

If they can think of anything against Evolution, evolutionist must have seen it first.

Actually every argument from design has been dismissed by Darwin beforehand. He knew what they would say.

By the way, nice post, orion.
Did you know that Dawkins likes orion too?
Well, what's not to like about orion, right?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:09 PM on May 29, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What it shows is that the random factor only serves to destroy progress. Even with natural selection, the randomness of mutations serves to undermine progress. Unless you would say that when DNA copies it's usually good and a good evolution occurs?
This begats an interesting point about DNA. I assume you are familiar with DNA deoxyribonucleic acid). Is DNA a pattern or is it a design to you?  Is it more like a snowflake or a more of a thought out code?
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 11:18 AM on May 30, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What it shows is that the random factor only serves to destroy progress.
Without a selecting factor? Well yeah. Of course.
Even with natural selection, the randomness of mutations serves to undermine progress.
When people beat you at poker... Is it magic?

How does randomness consistently favor them and not you?

Unless you would say that when DNA copies it's usually good and a good evolution occurs?
Of course not.

Are you really that ignorant or do you like using strawmen?

Good mutations are rare, but not prohibitively so.

They are rare, but they can dominate within a few generations. Like a good idea.

This begats an interesting point about DNA.
No, gluteus. You've never said anything interesting in this forum, and i bet you never will.
I assume you are familiar with DNA deoxyribonucleic acid).
I'm sure you're not.
Is DNA a pattern or is it a design to you?
When reality doesn't help, get lost in words.
Is it more like a snowflake or a more of a thought out code?
None.

Now, your turn to answer:

Prove that you make sense to yourself (at least). Answer this:
Do you see INTENT in a rabbit warren?
Do you see INTENT in venom carrying hollow fangs?

If you don't know the difference between intent or its lack, why do you even mention it?

Do you see intent in the shape of the Earth? Is that intelligent design?

If you can't answer these simple questions, you should be ashamed to use such a concept.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:22 PM on May 30, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:




-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:37 PM on May 30, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you devalue the critique of Dr Bergman, well noted biologist.
That guy is NOT a well noted biologist (unless you mean "noted by creationists").

It's YOU who try to devalue what ALL WELL NOTED BIOLOGISTS IN THE WORLD say.

But let us leave "appeal to authority" aside, and discuss facts. Or go away!

As i've said before, since facts don't support your delusions, you get lost in words that you don't even understand (information, chance, design, intent, meaning, entropy, pattern, etc).

Leave words alone and just get lost.


(Edited by wisp 5/30/2009 at 2:18 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:18 PM on May 30, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 11:18 AM on May 30, 2009 :
What it shows is that the random factor only serves to destroy progress.


In your example, yes, but your example doesn't take in all factors now, does it...

It doesn't take in the factor of natural selection, and that is why, as an example, it fails.

(Edited by Zucadragon 5/31/2009 at 3:42 PM).
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 3:37 PM on May 31, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Will brush off Wisp's usual insults and Large voluminous littany of questions. I only ask a quest or 2 per post respectfully.

Regarding DNA.
"Is it more like a snowflake or a more of a thought out code? "
None.

None? what is DNA if it's not a code for something it maps to?

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:59 PM on May 31, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

what is DNA if it's not a code for something it maps to?

It's not a code, it's just chemicals reacting.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:50 AM on June 1, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Will brush off Wisp's usual insults
?
and Large voluminous littany of questions.
?
Prove that you make sense to yourself (at least). Answer this:
Do you see INTENT in a rabbit warren?
Do you see INTENT in venom carrying hollow fangs?
I only ask a quest or 2 per post
You have a short attention span.
respectfully.
When you ask the same questions over and over again ignoring the answers, that's not respect.
None? what is DNA if it's not a code for something it maps to?
An acid.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:27 AM on June 1, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 10:27 AM on June 1, 2009 :Answer this:
Do you see INTENT in a rabbit warren?
Do you see INTENT in venom carrying hollow fangs?[/color]
I only ask a quest or 2 per post
You have a short attention span.
respectfully.
When you ask the same questions over and over again ignoring the answers, that's not respect.
None? what is DNA if it's not a code for something it maps to?
An acid.



What is "venom carrying hollow fangs"?
And a rabbit warren, is that some kind of den for rabbits? Has this been discussed?

So DNA is just acid? So you don't much reckon that DNA is a code?

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

The ordering of base pairs in DNA defines the code. A strand of DNA in a skin cell that falls from your body contains a plan for a human being. Where did the code/plan come from? Was it naturally occuring?
Snowflakes contain no coded information because they symbolically represent nothing (no plan, no idea,  no  instructions) other than itself, and because there is no encoding / decoding mechanism and no system of symbols.


 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 9:32 PM on June 3, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Man... Forum codes are not that hard...

Open quotation, close quotation. Open open, close close, check before posting, edit if you screwed.
Easy!

What is "venom carrying hollow fangs"?
Fangs like the snake's. They are hollow.They carry venom. Thus "venom carrying hollow fangs". Perhaps it's my poor English...

Feel free to correct me if i make mistakes.

And a rabbit warren, is that some kind of den for rabbits?
Well yeah... The only kind they make... Are they not called "warrens"???

Let me check my dictionary...

Warren: Noun.
1. A series of connected underground tunnels occupied by rabbits.

I was right!

You're playing with my head!

Has this been discussed?
I can't get any creationist to discuss it, no. I claim that it's because you don't know what you're talking about when you use obscure terms like "information", or "intent", or "code", or any of those.

So DNA is just acid?
Well, not "just". It's also a molecule.

So you don't much reckon that DNA is a code?
It depends on the definition of code that you will never provide.

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
If you say so.

But you never demonstrated that you have any clue on what "information" is, so...

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
It depends on your definition of "code" (and, again, "information"). You're hereby partially defining it as something created by a conscious mind.

Do rabbit warrens contain information?

3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
Hahahaha!


Man, you seem to think you just used logic.
You did not.
You just partially defined. And expected for reality to adapt to your partial definitions.

A strand of DNA in a skin cell that falls from your body contains a plan for a human being.
And that plan falls from my body?

What a failure...

Snowflakes contain no coded information because they symbolically represent nothing (no plan, no idea,  no  instructions) other than itself, and because there is no encoding / decoding mechanism and no system of symbols.
But i asked about a rabbit warren and venom carrying hollow fangs.

Are they too confusing for you?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 04:40 AM on June 4, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hum... I can picture your definition of "code".

Code: That which includes DNA and excludes Nature.

Too bad that the thing thus defined does not exist.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 04:43 AM on June 4, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

DND has coded information because it has a decoder that comes along, understands what is written there, transports the information to where it can be read and translates the code into proteins which fold into specific shapes that interact with other specific shapes to perform certain functions along with all the other functions required to interact regularly and meaningfully in order that we might live and breathe and move and think and excrete and secrete and imagine and so on -so many interactions, all so necessary. If there's no code that you can see in DNA than you are profoundly (but, fortunately not irreversibly) blind.    


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:51 AM on June 8, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

DND has coded information because it has a decoder that comes along,

we explained to you why DNA isn't a code, you ignored our responses.  It's just chemicals reacting.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:05 PM on June 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A long post awaits you in the thread "Information", Lester.

I'm not reading this post of yours till you address it.

I'm tired of your fresh starts after long silences.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:24 PM on June 8, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 12:24 PM on June 8, 2009 :
A long post awaits you in the thread "Information", Lester.

I'm not reading this post of yours till you address it.

I'm tired of your fresh starts after long silences.


Perhaps we're tired of your incessant, ubiquitous, know it all rants.



 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 9:07 PM on June 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You answer if you see intent in a rabbit warren and in hollow fangs (the kind that carry venom).

That wasn't long, was it?
Your short attention span shouldn't be a problem.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:56 PM on June 8, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp
I'm tired of your fresh starts after long silences.


Sorry Wisp but really if I could I would be here 24/7, but I've had too much on my plate and there really are some things more important than this -though only marginally of course.
I'm hoping after next week I can be more consistent so expect more silence and fresh starts until then. In the meantime and while I have a breathing space, over to information to see what I must reply to....

Gluteus
Perhaps we're tired of your incessant, ubiquitous, know it all rants.


Yes, the 'know it all' part is a bit trying, pride and all. It seems a pity that God's getting none of the glory for Wisp's 'superior intelligence', it's a pity that evolution has to take aaall the credit. I think old Wisp would actually appreciate God's intelligence if he could just get over himself - but all in good time. In the interim I just have to take the time to encourage you GM, I would have been disappointed if Wisp had managed to psychologically force you from the forum, you seem to be his pet hate project and I'm really happy to see you hanging in there. I just have to keep coming back to see how its going with you and Wisp and make sure you're still slogging it out!



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:47 AM on June 9, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:47 AM on June 9, 2009 :
Wisp
I'm tired of your fresh starts after long silences.


Sorry Wisp but really if I could I would be here 24/7, but I've had too much on my plate and there really are some things more important than this -though only marginally of course.
I'm hoping after next week I can be more consistent so expect more silence and fresh starts until then. In the meantime and while I have a breathing space, over to information to see what I must reply to....

Gluteus
Perhaps we're tired of your incessant, ubiquitous, know it all rants.


Yes, the 'know it all' part is a bit trying, pride and all. It seems a pity that God's getting none of the glory for Wisp's 'superior intelligence', it's a pity that evolution has to take aaall the credit. I think old Wisp would actually appreciate God's intelligence if he could just get over himself - but all in good time. In the interim I just have to take the time to encourage you GM, I would have been disappointed if Wisp had managed to psychologically force you from the forum, you seem to be his pet hate project and I'm really happy to see you hanging in there. I just have to keep coming back to see how its going with you and Wisp and make sure you're still slogging it out!




You do realize that you're making yourself out to be rather silly, aren't you ?

This father figure kinda stuff, looking after other creationists, it doesn't really help your case much when in reality, you don't have any science to show that supports creationism or is even half way decent in refuting any sector in the theory of evolution.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 08:32 AM on June 9, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 14 15 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by:
ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.