Dissecting ID

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
461

[quote]throttle132 wrote:
Floortom wrote:

In addition, I still have yet to hear the evidence of barriers to change above the species level. If you accept speciation, and some creationists even accept evolutionary change in HIGHER taxa as I have already shown, then please provide some evidence of why this mechanism would suddenly stop at a fixed point. There is not the slightest bit of evidence that it requires anything but so-called microevolution. Please, for the love of baby Jesus show me, or explain to me, this barrier. How does it work? Is it a common genetic component? Do all living things exhibit this barrier? Please explain.

Glad you wrote this classic piece of unscientific thinking. The hypothesis of evolution assumes no barriers of change at higher taxa levels exist, “assumes”, mind you. It can not reach beyond the level of assumption beeeeeeeecause it has never been observed to happen. It cannot be tested. This is where your “faith” comes into play.

The “evidence” of barriers is exactly that - there is no evidence of change at higher taxa level (above genus). It’s antithetical.

But now, you unreasonably and unscientifically lay out the challenge to creationists to prove that the hypothetical barrier does NOT exist.

Sorry, Tom, but the burden of responsibility to prove the lack of the barrier exists and thereby validate your hypothesis falls on YOU. You have committed a serious error here.
[/quote]

Dude,

I am writing this, knowing you won?t get it.

DNA is digital information. Except for zero and one, it is A,C,G, or T.

Genes do not care for individuals. They do not care for species. They don?t care for mammals, fish, birds, whatthefuckever…

All they “care” about is existing, in some way. If their genetic information builds an organism that can survive, fine. If not, that organism dies, the genes cease to exist.

That has led to genes that know how to build a body that survives. What a homo sapiens calls that body is of no interest to the genes.

It is not necessary to prove to you that those barriers do not exist, because they only exist in your mind anyway.

Ironically, those fundamental ideas of how things work, are psychological adaptations the homo sapiens aquired in the course of it?s evolution.

So you think your idea of macroevolution cannot happen? Tiny, little baby-steps CAN happen, but they will never amount to a mile?

Digital information CAN change but not beyond an area you feel comfortable with?

462

http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/./1/.1129058165447.Ape_to_Ass_(Large).jpg

Faith. Let’s talk about faith.

There are some who wish to persuade us that the biological life form on the left inexplicably eeeeeeeeeeevolved into the biolgical life form on the right.

Nooooooowwwwww, who must possess the most faith here? The evolutionist or the creationist?

463

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
BH6 wrote:
This is a great thread to read and ponder. It has been fun to follow. A warning though…If you f#ckers end up beating out the Ass Worship Thread with your number of posts, we are going to start a different website for you to argue on. This isn’t theology-nation. Lets go lift weights and talk about chicks.

Semper Fidelis

Well, occasionally one needs to contemplate ideas much deeper than T&A.

Occasionally, but not very often!
[/quote]

Cannot we contemplate them both simultaneously? See above photo.

:wink:

464

[quote]throttle132 wrote:
Faith. Let’s talk about faith.

There are some who wish to persuade us that the biological life form on the left inexplicably eeeeeeeeeeevolved into the biolgical life form on the right.

Nooooooowwwwww, who must possess the most faith here? The evolutionist or the creationist?[/quote]

look at the left picture and tell me that you don?t see much of yourself in it.

465

[quote]orion wrote:
throttle132 wrote:
Floortom wrote:

In addition, I still have yet to hear the evidence of barriers to change above the species level. If you accept speciation, and some creationists even accept evolutionary change in HIGHER taxa as I have already shown, then please provide some evidence of why this mechanism would suddenly stop at a fixed point. There is not the slightest bit of evidence that it requires anything but so-called microevolution. Please, for the love of baby Jesus show me, or explain to me, this barrier. How does it work? Is it a common genetic component? Do all living things exhibit this barrier? Please explain.

Glad you wrote this classic piece of unscientific thinking. The hypothesis of evolution assumes no barriers of change at higher taxa levels exist, “assumes”, mind you. It can not reach beyond the level of assumption beeeeeeeecause it has never been observed to happen. It cannot be tested. This is where your “faith” comes into play.

The “evidence” of barriers is exactly that - there is no evidence of change at higher taxa level (above genus). It’s antithetical.

But now, you unreasonably and unscientifically lay out the challenge to creationists to prove that the hypothetical barrier does NOT exist.

Sorry, Tom, but the burden of responsibility to prove the lack of the barrier exists and thereby validate your hypothesis falls on YOU. You have committed a serious error here.

Dude,

I am writing this, knowing you won?t get it.

DNA is digital information. Except for zero and one, it is A,C,G, or T.

Genes do not care for individuals. They do not care for species. They don?t care for mammals, fish, birds, whatthefuckever…

All they “care” about is existing, in some way. If their genetic information builds an organism that can survive, fine. If not, that organism dies, the genes cease to exist.

That has led to genes that know how to build a body that survives. What a homo sapiens calls that body is of no interest to the genes.

It is not necessary to prove to you that those barriers do not exist, because they only exist in your mind anyway.

Ironically, those fundamental ideas of how things work, are psychological adaptations the homo sapiens aquired in the course of it?s evolution.

So you think your idea of macroevolution cannot happen? Tiny, little baby-steps CAN happen, but they will never amount to a mile?

Digital information CAN change but not beyond an area you feel comfortable with?

[/quote]

Dude,

I am writing this, knowing you won’t get it.

The small incremental steps idea makes for a nice hypothesis but scientifically it can’t move beyond there and it even hangs tenuously at the hypothesis level.

It has only been observed and tested at the species and genus level. So it remains speculation that it occurs elsewhere.

The fossil record doesn’t help you here either because it shows millions of diverse life forms but no indisputable transitions. The evolution hypothesis warrants gazillions of these transitions but contrary to popular belief, they don’t exist hence the earlier Gould quotes.

I’m sorry, but you can’t claim the scientific high ground here if you want to be intellectually honest, that is.

466

[quote]orion wrote:
throttle132 wrote:
Faith. Let’s talk about faith.

There are some who wish to persuade us that the biological life form on the left inexplicably eeeeeeeeeeevolved into the biolgical life form on the right.

Nooooooowwwwww, who must possess the most faith here? The evolutionist or the creationist?

look at the left picture and tell me that you don?t see much of yourself in it.[/quote]

Oh man, what a low blow! LOL

I looked closely… into the future…and saw myself in the one on the right.

468

[quote]orion wrote:

Dude,

I am writing this, knowing you won?t get it.

DNA is digital information. Except for zero and one, it is A,C,G, or T.

Genes do not care for individuals. They do not care for species. They don?t care for mammals, fish, birds, whatthefuckever…

All they “care” about is existing, in some way. If their genetic information builds an organism that can survive, fine. If not, that organism dies, the genes cease to exist.

That has led to genes that know how to build a body that survives. What a homo sapiens calls that body is of no interest to the genes.

It is not necessary to prove to you that those barriers do not exist, because they only exist in your mind anyway.

Ironically, those fundamental ideas of how things work, are psychological adaptations the homo sapiens aquired in the course of it?s evolution.

So you think your idea of macroevolution cannot happen? Tiny, little baby-steps CAN happen, but they will never amount to a mile?

Digital information CAN change but not beyond an area you feel comfortable with?
[/quote]

I’m sorry but it really sounds like you are confused or don’t know what the @#$% you are talking about.

Think about this for a moment;

You are arguing about the theory of a limit (or lack thereof) to genetic adaptation when neither you nor any scientist living can understand or decipher the human genome. That is like arguing about how a car stops when you don’t even know how it runs.

So you think that this genome, which just might be the most complex system in the known universe, evolved over billions of years, from non-biological material, just by chance? Bro, go talk with a mathematician and see what the odds are on that. It would be a 1 in (a number so big it wouldn?t fit on this page) chance.

I hope you are starting to see how silly this really is.

ps - Throttle, post more “Evolutionary” marvels, I need to clear my head!

469

[quote]throttle132 wrote:
orion wrote:
throttle132 wrote:
Faith. Let’s talk about faith.

There are some who wish to persuade us that the biological life form on the left inexplicably eeeeeeeeeeevolved into the biolgical life form on the right.

Nooooooowwwwww, who must possess the most faith here? The evolutionist or the creationist?

look at the left picture and tell me that you don?t see much of yourself in it.

Oh man, what a low blow! LOL

I looked closely… into the future…and saw myself in the one on the right.
[/quote]

I?m not trying to be smart here, which one you can identify more with?

I know who you would like to nail, genetically programmed that you are…

I?m also not comparing you to an ape. The thing is, I really meant what I asked. You cannot relate to the left picture? You do not know what that creature feels? Really?

You do not know that the right picture is an ideal fantasy? Where do these feelings come from?

470

[quote]pushharder wrote:
throttle132 wrote:
Oh man, what a low blow! LOL

But it is par for course and indicative of the tactics used by the evolutionists on this thread.[/quote]

and again, this was not meant as an insult.

If I want to insult you, there will be no question marks, no room for interpretation.

The “kids” remark was meant to be condescending. The “do you recognize yourself in her/him” was not.

I seriously want to know that.

474

[quote]pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:
throttle132 wrote:
orion wrote:
throttle132 wrote:
Faith. Let’s talk about faith.

There are some who wish to persuade us that the biological life form on the left inexplicably eeeeeeeeeeevolved into the biolgical life form on the right.

Nooooooowwwwww, who must possess the most faith here? The evolutionist or the creationist?

look at the left picture and tell me that you don?t see much of yourself in it.

Oh man, what a low blow! LOL

I looked closely… into the future…and saw myself in the one on the right.

I?m not trying to be smart here, which one you can identify more with?

I know who you would like to nail, genetically programmed that you are…

I?m also not comparing you to an ape. The thing is, I really meant what I asked. You cannot relate to the left picture? You do not know what that creature feels? Really?

You do not know that the right picture is an ideal fantasy? Where do these feelings come from?

I can also relate to the primate photo like I can this fish…see above post for details.[/quote]

so, you do not feel closer to an orang-utan than to a fish?

Language is definitely not the problem.

?t is also not a kumba-ya sort of thing.

It is about explanations that make sense vs ithastobetruebecauseiwanna…

476

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Yeah, “feel closer”. Now there’s a scientific concept for you.

And no, the fish and the ape do the same thing for me.
[/quote]

Holy willful self-deception batman!

Yeah, because a fish is as equally similar in form to humans as a chimpanzee…

477

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:

You are arguing about the theory of a limit (or lack thereof) to genetic adaptation when neither you nor any scientist living can understand or decipher the human genome.

[/quote]

LMFAO! Ummm…no. Oh the scientific ignorance is unbearable.

To Throttle: All you would have to do to show that your version of super-duper macro evolution is not possible is to provide evidence of a mechanism that would make numerous pile-on mutations impossible. It’s falsifiable, you and your fundie friends just cant find evidence of it. So you have to resort to some lame retreat of “speciation and no higher!”

Captain Logic, the differences between the chimp genome and the human genome are 10 times smaller than those between the rat and the mouse. Apparently, we are no closer to chimps than to fish though…LOL
Interesting article on that: Newly completed chimp genome helps scientists learn more about human DNA - The Source - Washington University in St. Louis

Here’s another good article:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002450329_danny24.html

[i]Bob Davidson is a scientist ? a doctor, and for 28 years a nephrology professor at the University of Washington medical school.

He’s also a devout Christian who believes we’re here because of God. It was these twin devotions to science and religion that first attracted him to Seattle’s Discovery Institute. That’s the think tank that this summer has pushed “intelligent design” ? a replacement theory for evolution ? all the way to the lips of President Bush and into the national conversation.

Davidson says he was seeking a place where people "believe in a Creator and also believe in science.

“I thought it was refreshing,” he says.

Not anymore. He’s concluded the institute is an affront to both science and religion.

“When I joined I didn’t think they were about bashing evolution. It’s pseudo-science, at best … What they’re doing is instigating a conflict between science and religion.”

I got Davidson’s name off a list of 400 people with scientific degrees, provided by the Discovery Institute, who are said to doubt the “central tenets of Darwin’s theory of evolution.” Davidson, at 78 a UW professor emeritus, says he shouldn’t be on the list because he believes “the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming.”

He’s only one scientist, one opinion in our ongoing debate about evolution and faith.

But I bring you Davidson’s views because I suspect he is a bellwether for the Discovery Institute and intelligent design, as more scientists learn about them. He was attracted to an institute that embraced both science and religion, yet he found its critique of existing science wrong and its new theory empty.

“I’m kind of embarrassed that I ever got involved with this,” Davidson says.

He was shocked, he says, when he saw the Discovery Institute was calling evolution a “theory in crisis.”

“It’s laughable: There have been millions of experiments over more than a century that support evolution,” he says. “There’s always questions being asked about parts of the theory, as there are with any theory, but there’s no real scientific controversy about it.”

Davidson began to believe the institute is an “elaborate, clever marketing program” to tear down evolution for religious reasons. He read its writings on intelligent design ? the notion that some of life is so complex it must have been designed ? and found them lacking in scientific merit.

Then Davidson, who attends First Presbyterian Church in Bellevue, heard a sermon in which the pastor argued it’s foolish to try to use science to understand God.

Science is about measuring things, and God is immeasurable, the pastor said.

“It just clicked with me that this whole movement is wrongheaded on all counts,” Davidson said. "It’s a misuse of science, and a misuse of religion.

“Why can’t we just keep the two separate?”

That’s a good question, especially coming from someone who believes strongly in both.[/i]

I wonder if this guy realizes that not believing in a 6,000 year old earth, the coexistence of diosaurs and humans, the historical fact of Noah’s Ark, and Jonah living in a whale for one week will send him straight to hell?

478

For those who couldn’t tell, my last two posts were created by a random complaint generator, I just plugged throttle’s name and some key words into it and it spit out the rest. It’s gibberish because I really don’t care if one or two people on this forum feel the need to justify their faith by attacking real science. The world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, the planet, um, I mean disc, is 6,000 years old and Moses rode dinosaurs to his day job before he became a prophet. The Babylonian and Egyptian cultures that predate any mention of the Judeo-Christian God by more than 3,000 years (making human culture older than the disc apparently) are all figments of the imagination… oh yeah, I forgot, all 3 of the Abrahamic religions are identical and every true Christian/Muslim/Jew should be bading together to make sure these things are taught in our public schools.

The massive cut and paste campaign has finally broken my will to try and have a rational conversation about this subject. I can’t enter into any kind of dialogue with someone who thinks the Bible is a technical manual.

479

[quote]Floortom wrote:

Captain Logic, the differences between the chimp genome and the human genome are 10 times smaller than those between the rat and the mouse. Apparently, we are no closer to chimps than to fish though…LOL
Interesting article on that: Newly completed chimp genome helps scientists learn more about human DNA - The Source - Washington University in St. Louis

[/quote]

Aye, I’m aware, but I’m glad pushharder made his feelings about fish and chimpanzees known, it sums up in one perfect sentence the creationist attitude on this thread:

(Hands over ears) NONONONONONONONO…

480

Xvim

Can you link me to that random complaint generator? That sounds awesome.