Questioning Darwin

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Questioning Darwin

#481  Postby Rumraket » Feb 25, 2014 10:45 pm

questioner121 wrote:
bert wrote:Cali spent a while on it and created a picture for you, questioner121.

bert wrote:
questioner121 wrote:An alternative to common ancestry is common design. This fits the observations and data far better.


No, it doesn't.
Remember vitamin C (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e0Ic03c ... re=related)? The designer would have put the faulty gene (with the chunk missing) in gorilla's, chimps and humans. Doesn't demonstrate much intelligence.

The ERVs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbbh1P6DW5I) are the clincher. (Make sure you understand that video).


Did you understand the video? Any comments?

Bert


It's evidence of common design.

Why would the designer put a broken vitamin-C gene into individual organisms and then subsequently mutate it, particularly such that a phylogenetic inferences produces a hierarchical arrangement congruent with the one inferred from comparative anatomy?

Why is your designer trying to make it look like evolution happened, and since that is what it looks like, why do you even infer design at all?

Allow me to sum up your position:
guidedmutations.gif
guidedmutations.gif (43.99 KiB) Viewed 979 times
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13218
Age: 41

Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#482  Postby Rumraket » Feb 25, 2014 10:48 pm

questioner121 wrote:
Rumraket wrote:

No it doesn't. What part of probabilistic reasoning and building observationally falsifiable models - is escaping your comprehension here?


http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/do ... etic-trees

Woese argues that the earliest history of life may show multiple early lineages which swapped genes extensively, making reconstruction of the early tree of life difficult. This is very different from the strictly non-overlapping trees Explore Evolution suggests as an alternative to universal common ancestry. Woese argues that these multiple lineages converged into a single population from which modern life, and would absolutely reject the claim that molecular data cannot discern the pattern of common ancestry linking all primates, or the relationship between primates, carnivores, and whales, or indeed the common ancestry of all multicellular organisms.

The above is from a pro common ancestry group. "Woese argues that these multiple lineages converged into a single population from which modern life" - so now multiple lineages converged into a single population? The data isn't clear hence this guy is having to make a wild guess. If this is true then it should be possible today for different lineages to converge unless the non believers are going to put in another un-backed claim to explain why.

The references I gave already takes account of the work you cite. Which means you gave an irrelevant reference you didn't understand. :roll:
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13218
Age: 41

Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#483  Postby questioner121 » Feb 25, 2014 10:53 pm

Bribase wrote:
questioner121 wrote:
bert wrote:Cali spent a while on it and created a picture for you, questioner121.

bert wrote:

No, it doesn't.
Remember vitamin C (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e0Ic03c ... re=related)? The designer would have put the faulty gene (with the chunk missing) in gorilla's, chimps and humans. Doesn't demonstrate much intelligence.

The ERVs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbbh1P6DW5I) are the clincher. (Make sure you understand that video).


Did you understand the video? Any comments?

Bert


It's evidence of common design.


Meaning you dont understand the videos.


The vitamin C one. Any reasons why the lack of that trait would dominate a population? Would you not expect some members of the population to retain that trait or maybe for it to return? Shouldn't some of the populations of today have that trait?
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#484  Postby questioner121 » Feb 25, 2014 10:57 pm

Rumraket wrote:
questioner121 wrote:
Rumraket wrote:

No it doesn't. What part of probabilistic reasoning and building observationally falsifiable models - is escaping your comprehension here?


http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/do ... etic-trees

Woese argues that the earliest history of life may show multiple early lineages which swapped genes extensively, making reconstruction of the early tree of life difficult. This is very different from the strictly non-overlapping trees Explore Evolution suggests as an alternative to universal common ancestry. Woese argues that these multiple lineages converged into a single population from which modern life, and would absolutely reject the claim that molecular data cannot discern the pattern of common ancestry linking all primates, or the relationship between primates, carnivores, and whales, or indeed the common ancestry of all multicellular organisms.

The above is from a pro common ancestry group. "Woese argues that these multiple lineages converged into a single population from which modern life" - so now multiple lineages converged into a single population? The data isn't clear hence this guy is having to make a wild guess. If this is true then it should be possible today for different lineages to converge unless the non believers are going to put in another un-backed claim to explain why.

The references I gave already takes account of the work you cite. Which means you gave an irrelevant reference you didn't understand. :roll:


Are you talking about the mathematical models?
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#485  Postby Rumraket » Feb 25, 2014 11:05 pm

questioner121 wrote:
Bribase wrote:
questioner121 wrote:
bert wrote:Cali spent a while on it and created a picture for you, questioner121.



Did you understand the video? Any comments?

Bert


It's evidence of common design.


Meaning you dont understand the videos.


The vitamin C one. Any reasons why the lack of that trait would dominate a population? Would you not expect some members of the population to retain that trait or maybe for it to return? Shouldn't some of the populations of today have that trait?

Why would your designer design an organism with a gene for making vitamin C, then break the gene with mutations, so the organism cannot synthesize it's own vitamin C any more?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13218
Age: 41

Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#486  Postby Rumraket » Feb 25, 2014 11:06 pm

questioner121 wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
questioner121 wrote:
Rumraket wrote:

No it doesn't. What part of probabilistic reasoning and building observationally falsifiable models - is escaping your comprehension here?


http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/do ... etic-trees

Woese argues that the earliest history of life may show multiple early lineages which swapped genes extensively, making reconstruction of the early tree of life difficult. This is very different from the strictly non-overlapping trees Explore Evolution suggests as an alternative to universal common ancestry. Woese argues that these multiple lineages converged into a single population from which modern life, and would absolutely reject the claim that molecular data cannot discern the pattern of common ancestry linking all primates, or the relationship between primates, carnivores, and whales, or indeed the common ancestry of all multicellular organisms.

The above is from a pro common ancestry group. "Woese argues that these multiple lineages converged into a single population from which modern life" - so now multiple lineages converged into a single population? The data isn't clear hence this guy is having to make a wild guess. If this is true then it should be possible today for different lineages to converge unless the non believers are going to put in another un-backed claim to explain why.

The references I gave already takes account of the work you cite. Which means you gave an irrelevant reference you didn't understand. :roll:


Are you talking about the mathematical models?

I'm talking about the two references I gave that you have given multiple irrelevant and wrong, dismissive responses to. You're still not dealing with the evidence.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13218
Age: 41

Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#487  Postby Locke » Feb 25, 2014 11:07 pm

questioner121 wrote:The abundance of data that is used to support common ancestry is based off observations from closely related species. This is then being combined with other sets of data with observations from closely related species to "confirm" common ancestry. The missing data is for one species right through to a very different species, such as from primate to human, reptile to bird, etc is simply not there.
BiochVorl_2012-03-30_GenT_V.pdf (Seite 7 von 27).jpg
BiochVorl_2012-03-30_GenT_V.pdf (Seite 7 von 27).jpg (85.87 KiB) Viewed 975 times


Two pretty unclose species sharing pretty similar genes. Proof of common ancestry through conservation of genetic trades? Impossible.
User avatar
Locke
 
Posts: 24

Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#488  Postby Rumraket » Feb 25, 2014 11:12 pm

Rumraket wrote:
questioner121 wrote:The vitamin C one. Any reasons why the lack of that trait would dominate a population? Would you not expect some members of the population to retain that trait or maybe for it to return? Shouldn't some of the populations of today have that trait?

Why would your designer design an organism with a gene for making vitamin C, then break the gene with mutations, so the organism cannot synthesize it's own vitamin C any more?

Why would your designer, when designing a new organism, take this already broken vitamin-C gene and put in the new organism too, but shuffle some of the mutations around and introduce new ones, such that it looks like both broken vitamin-C genes derive from a common ancestor gene?

Why would he do this for multiple species? Keep taking the broken gene and put into additional organisms many times, keep making new mutations in them, and keep doing it such that it looks like they all evolved from a common ancestral gene?

What is the purpose of all these broken vitamin C genes? Why does the designer keep mutating them even when they are already broken? Why is he intentionally producing a nested hierarchical arrangement of mutations in this gene that agrees with the phylogeny we infer from comparative anatomy and the fossil record?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13218
Age: 41

Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#489  Postby Calilasseia » Feb 25, 2014 11:16 pm

questioner121 wrote:
bert wrote:Cali spent a while on it and created a picture for you, questioner121.

bert wrote:
questioner121 wrote:An alternative to common ancestry is common design. This fits the observations and data far better.


No, it doesn't.
Remember vitamin C (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e0Ic03c ... re=related)? The designer would have put the faulty gene (with the chunk missing) in gorilla's, chimps and humans. Doesn't demonstrate much intelligence.

The ERVs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbbh1P6DW5I) are the clincher. (Make sure you understand that video).


Did you understand the video? Any comments?

Bert


It's evidence of common design.


Bullshit. First of all, even insulin doesn't exhibit "common design", because the genes are not identical in most vertebrate lineages. Second, you haven't a clue what genuine evidence for "design" consists of.

EDIT: And as others have pointed out here, why would your asserted "designer" waste effort designing broken genes? Or, for that matter, waste effort littering genomes with dead remnants of viruses, in patterns resembling exactly the patterns that would be expected to arise via evolutionary processes?
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22139
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#490  Postby questioner121 » Feb 25, 2014 11:45 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Why would the designer put a broken vitamin-C gene into individual organisms and then subsequently mutate it, particularly such that a phylogenetic inferences produces a hierarchical arrangement congruent with the one inferred from comparative anatomy?

Why is your designer trying to make it look like evolution happened, and since that is what it looks like, why do you even infer design at all?


How do you know it's broken? Have you tried fixing and seeing if it works? It looks like evolution to you because of the way you are analysing it and thinking about it. You're not being objective and unbiased, you're filling the gaps with biased assumptions.

Why do I infer design? If you look at each of the animals they have similar traits. Chimps have hands, feet, similar eyes, similar shape, etc. so for me it's not surprising the DNA is similar. The DNA is information which if you manipulate will result in predictable outcomes. The whole world is created in such a way where we can manipulate things and see pretty predictable results. If it weren't for that life would be a headache and it would difficult. Just because different animals have the same traits doesn't mean the design has to be exactly the same, it just has to fulfil it's purpose. For example if you look at all the car manufacturers who make cars. There a variety of models from different manufacturers but each component is not exactly the same design but it does fulful the same purpose to a degree.
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#491  Postby questioner121 » Feb 26, 2014 12:08 am

Calilasseia wrote:
Bullshit. First of all, even insulin doesn't exhibit "common design", because the genes are not identical in most vertebrate lineages. Second, you haven't a clue what genuine evidence for "design" consists of.

EDIT: And as others have pointed out here, why would your asserted "designer" waste effort designing broken genes? Or, for that matter, waste effort littering genomes with dead remnants of viruses, in patterns resembling exactly the patterns that would be expected to arise via evolutionary processes?


Why would the genes have to be identical? The design may be different to take into account of physiological factors. However the function is the same because the living organism "works" in a similar way.

Do you only see one type of house? One type of car? One type of mobile phone? No, they are different yet they are for the same purpose and each one is built up of components which have different designs.

You're putting yourself in the mind of a Creator who you don't have much knowledge about. Only the Creator can know why they do such and such thing, the creation can only wonder.
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#492  Postby Onyx8 » Feb 26, 2014 12:23 am

Then wonder more and assert less.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 65
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#493  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Feb 26, 2014 12:37 am

questioner121 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Bullshit. First of all, even insulin doesn't exhibit "common design", because the genes are not identical in most vertebrate lineages. Second, you haven't a clue what genuine evidence for "design" consists of.

EDIT: And as others have pointed out here, why would your asserted "designer" waste effort designing broken genes? Or, for that matter, waste effort littering genomes with dead remnants of viruses, in patterns resembling exactly the patterns that would be expected to arise via evolutionary processes?


Why would the genes have to be identical? The design may be different to take into account of physiological factors. However the function is the same because the living organism "works" in a similar way.

Do you only see one type of house? One type of car? One type of mobile phone? No, they are different yet they are for the same purpose and each one is built up of components which have different designs.

You're putting yourself in the mind of a Creator who you don't have much knowledge about. Only the Creator can know why they do such and such thing, the creation can only wonder.


Look, you obviously believe some things to be true. Fine. If they really are true they should stand up to severe tests-right? So, try and prove yourself wrong. Try to look at biology, evolution and science in general with an open mind. The problem with god, even if he exists, is that he cannot be observed. But nature, or more strictly, natural phenomena can be observed, hypotheses of observations tested, and so on. Do this not for me, for your enemies or friends, but for yourself. Go look.
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 66

Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#494  Postby Shrunk » Feb 26, 2014 1:03 am

[url][/url]
questioner121 wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Why would the designer put a broken vitamin-C gene into individual organisms and then subsequently mutate it, particularly such that a phylogenetic inferences produces a hierarchical arrangement congruent with the one inferred from comparative anatomy?

Why is your designer trying to make it look like evolution happened, and since that is what it looks like, why do you even infer design at all?


How do you know it's broken? Have you tried fixing and seeing if it works?


You know it's broken the same way you would know this is a broken bicycle: Because you can compare it to the majority of bicycles which are intact and functional. You don't have to fix it to know it is broken.

Image

Why do I infer design? If you look at each of the animals they have similar traits. Chimps have hands, feet, similar eyes, similar shape, etc. so for me it's not surprising the DNA is similar. The DNA is information which if you manipulate will result in predictable outcomes. The whole world is created in such a way where we can manipulate things and see pretty predictable results. If it weren't for that life would be a headache and it would difficult. Just because different animals have the same traits doesn't mean the design has to be exactly the same, it just has to fulfil it's purpose. For example if you look at all the car manufacturers who make cars. There a variety of models from different manufacturers but each component is not exactly the same design but it does fulful the same purpose to a degree.


So do car designers deliberately put broken carburetors that serve no function in their designs?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#495  Postby Calilasseia » Feb 26, 2014 1:30 am

questioner121 wrote:
Rumraket wrote:Why would the designer put a broken vitamin-C gene into individual organisms and then subsequently mutate it, particularly such that a phylogenetic inferences produces a hierarchical arrangement congruent with the one inferred from comparative anatomy?

Why is your designer trying to make it look like evolution happened, and since that is what it looks like, why do you even infer design at all?


How do you know it's broken?


Heard of scurvy, have you? Oh, wait, this is a disease caused by deficiency of vitamin C in the human diet. It used to affect sailors on long voyages until the Royal Navy came up with the idea of supplying citrus fruits, in the form of limes, to its sailors, which is the origin of the American nickname "Limey" for British people. This is one piece of evidence that the gene is broken, because if it wasn't, vitamin C deficiency wouldn't be an issue, because we would be able to synthesise it.

As for the gene itself, we know it's broken because it has a stop codon just three nucleotides distant from the start codon, whilst working gulonolactase genes in every other vertebrate lineage don't have a stop codon until something like 1300 nucleotides from the start codon. The mouse GULO gene codes for a protein containing 440 amino acids (given in full here), as does the GULO gene from the Cloudy Catshark Scylorhinus torazame (given in full here). Indeed, every working GULO gene codes for a protein comprising around 440 amino acids. The human version isn't even expressed because of that premature stop codon.

questioner121 wrote:Have you tried fixing and seeing if it works?


Oh wait, scientists have conducted the relevant experiments, both with respect to disabling working GULO genes in other organisms, and replacing broken GULO genes with working ones. One such experiment was the subject of this Master's degree thesis, which consisted of determining if it was possible to deliver a working GULO gene to guinea pigs (which also have a broken GULO gene) via somatic integration using a transgenic retrovirus. Another paper, covering the restoration of working GULO action to transgenic mice with the GULO gene knocked out, is this one. Another paper, covering experiments aimed at recovering GULO function in cultured human cells, is this one.

Look, once and for all, drop the specious notions that [1] we haven't encountered apologetic fabrications like yours before, or [2] the scientists haven't done the work.

questioner121 wrote:It looks like evolution to you because of the way you are analysing it and thinking about it. You're not being objective and unbiased, you're filling the gaps with biased assumptions.


Wow, the fucking chutzpah on display here.

Excuse me, but the reason he considers the processes responsible to be evolutionary processes, is because huge fucking mountains of scientific evidence say so. Some of that evidence he's brought here, in the form of scientific papers you manifestly never bothered to read. On the other hand, all that you have brought here, is blind assertions to the effect that your pet magic man was responsible, without an atom of evidence for this fantasy entity. And you have the bare arsed cheek to accuse Rumraket of "not being objective and unbiased", and "filling the gaps with biased assumptions"? Your discoursive duplicity is duly noted.

questioner121 wrote:Why do I infer design?


You don't. You merely assume it, because you want your fantasy magic man to be real.

questioner121 wrote:If you look at each of the animals they have similar traits.


Oh, right, you want to peddle the duplicitous apologetic fabrication, that similiar traits can't be cited as evidence for common ancestry, despite the hard evidence for inheritance, but that similar traits can be cited as purported "evidence" that your imaginary magic man poofed things into existence, despite zero evidence for your magic man. Your discoursive dishonesty and blatant double standard is duly noted.

questioner121 wrote:Chimps have hands, feet, similar eyes, similar shape, etc. so for me it's not surprising the DNA is similar.


But despite the hard evidence for organisms inheriting traits from reproductive ancestors, you dismiss shared ancestry of humans and chimpanzees with your duplicitous "assumptions" apologetics, whilst trying to peddle a far more blatant assumption that your fantasy magic man did it all, despite zero evidence for your fantasy magic man. Double standard once again duly noted.

questioner121 wrote:The DNA is information which if you manipulate will result in predictable outcomes.


Oh wait, you tried in the past to dismiss evolutionary postulates, by asserting that nature was UNpredictable, in this post. Here are your words therefrom:

Otherwise inference from the current data is ridiculous to confirm common ancestry beyond reasonable doubt especially given the understanding of nature we have which is hugely complex and in many situations quite unpredictable.


More evidence that you're making shit up as you go along. Where have we seen this before? Oh that's right, it's standard creationist operating procedure.

questioner121 wrote:The whole world is created in such a way where we can manipulate things and see pretty predictable results.


Make your mind up. Which is it? Is nature predictable, as you're now asserting, or unpredictable, as you asserted in this previous post? Only this blatant attempt to have your apologetic cake and eat it simultaneously doesn't wash here.

questioner121 wrote:If it weren't for that life would be a headache and it would difficult.


Biology is obviously a headache for you and your attachment to mythology.

questioner121 wrote: Just because different animals have the same traits doesn't mean the design has to be exactly the same, it just has to fulfil it's purpose.


Yet according to your specious apologetics, evolutionary processes purportedly can't do the same, despite the mountains of evidence illustrating that they can. I'll deliver the killer blow to this bullshit in a moment. Have patience.

questioner121 wrote:For example if you look at all the car manufacturers who make cars. There a variety of models from different manufacturers but each component is not exactly the same design but it does fulful the same purpose to a degree.


Cars aren't self replicating entities. Therefore your analogy fails.

questioner121 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Bullshit. First of all, even insulin doesn't exhibit "common design", because the genes are not identical in most vertebrate lineages. Second, you haven't a clue what genuine evidence for "design" consists of.

EDIT: And as others have pointed out here, why would your asserted "designer" waste effort designing broken genes? Or, for that matter, waste effort littering genomes with dead remnants of viruses, in patterns resembling exactly the patterns that would be expected to arise via evolutionary processes?


Why would the genes have to be identical?


Well since we have a large body of evidence that, for example, bovine insulin from cows works perfectly well in humans (in case you're wondering, it was harvested for many years to treat diabetics, prior to the advent of genetic engineering, and the production of transgenic bacteria that could manufacture human insulin), why shouldn't one gene be sufficient?

questioner121 wrote:The design may be different to take into account of physiological factors. However the function is the same because the living organism "works" in a similar way.


More biased assumptions on your part. Oh wait, we have zero evidence for your magic man and any tinkering on the part thereof. On the other hand, we have a large amount of evidence for genes being inherited from reproductive ancestors, then acquiring modifications later. Yet you dismiss the perfectly proper consideration of this evidence by speciously labelling it "biased assumptions", despite having ZERO evidence for YOUR assumptions. Double standard duly noted once more.

questioner121 wrote:Do you only see one type of house? One type of car? One type of mobile phone?


None of these are self replicating entites, therefore the analogy fails.

questioner121 wrote: No, they are different yet they are for the same purpose and each one is built up of components which have different designs.


Oh wait, there's a good deal more commonality between several brands of mobile phone I could mention, than there is between insulin genes. Because those mobile phones all use the same CPU chip. From here, we learn this:

According to ARM Holdings, in 2010 alone, producers of chips based on ARM architectures reported shipments of 6.1 billion ARM-based processors, representing 95% of smartphones, 35% of digital televisions and set-top boxes and 10% of mobile computers. It is the most widely used 32-bit instruction set architecture in terms of quantity produced.


Oh look, the same CPU architecture is found in iPhones, Samsung Galaxy phones, Sony Experia phones, Nokia phones ... getting the message here?

questioner121 wrote:You're putting yourself in the mind of a Creator who you don't have much knowledge about.


Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Carabid beetles with fused elytra? You want to tell me that this fucking kludge was "designed" by your magic man?

questioner121 wrote:Only the Creator can know why they do such and such thing, the creation can only wonder.


Yet in the next breath, you launch into all manner of apologetic fabrications telling us all how you know all about how your magic "creator" did this, or at least, asserting this. Once again, double standard duly noted.

But of course, what really destroys your apologetics here, is that scientists are using evolutionary processes to "design" useful entities in the laboratory. Which at a stroke destroys your assertion that they're purportedly not up to the job. It's going to be such fun watching you try and wriggle out of this with more specious apologetic gymnastics.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22139
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#496  Postby TMB » Feb 26, 2014 4:35 am

questioner121,

You might easily argue that a supernatural and omnipotent designer could set up a process like evolution by natural selection, warts and all, broken genes etc and put it all down to 'working in mysterious ways' and silence all logical criticism. In other words all the evidence and logic for evolution could be laid at the door of a creator. However, there is no evidence for a creator and plenty of evidence to suggest it is a social fabrication to address human existential anxiety> There is also an embarrassing history of theists from ancient times, whose ideas have been disproved and discarded as society has changed and as science has answered questions. In every case religion has been shown to be illogical and factually invalid, and it just gets reinvented in another form. You have no chance of rebutting the detail that is being offered by many posters, especially the stuff from Cali, your lack of logic and knowledge of evolution shows in almost every post. Yet you are still able to subvert your critical faculties time and again to retain the integrity of the original premise. Like, the answer is always God, what is the question?

The same approach applies to all of the proponents of intelligent design and creationism, and the sheer lack of rational support seems overwhelming. Yet still they strive to find rational support for an illogical, faith based position. Why dont you dispense with any pretense of reason and simply say that belief itself is enough, no facts are required and leave at that? At least that way you might retain some shreds of dignity in this awful waste of brain power.

I am attempting to read a book called "The case for a creator" by Lee Strobel and from the getgo it is a blatant attempt to sell the idea that I am sure will ultimately fail from a factual point. There are many dull and some false science papers but by and large they deal in facts and are not peddling snake oil. Lee Strobel comes across as someone who knows he speaks with forked tongue but he is going to sell it anyway. After all who said humans need to tell the truth to others? Its only to ourselves and our vested groups that we want to know reality.
Last edited by TMB on Feb 26, 2014 4:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
TMB
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#497  Postby Onyx8 » Feb 26, 2014 4:40 am

On labor he walked home with $550 on my car alone.


Get a brain back-up first. That shit can remove neurons let alone connections between.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 65
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#498  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Feb 26, 2014 4:47 am

Onyx8 wrote:
On labor he walked home with $550 on my car alone.


Get a brain back-up first. That shit can remove neurons let alone connections between.

Um..what????
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 66

Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#499  Postby Onyx8 » Feb 26, 2014 4:52 am

Darwinsbulldog wrote:
Onyx8 wrote:
On labor he walked home with $550 on my car alone.


Get a brain back-up first. That shit can remove neurons let alone connections between.

Um..what????



I need a brain back-up, wrong thread. Mixed c&p. :oops:
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 65
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#500  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Feb 26, 2014 5:02 am

Onyx8 wrote:
Darwinsbulldog wrote:
Onyx8 wrote:
On labor he walked home with $550 on my car alone.


Get a brain back-up first. That shit can remove neurons let alone connections between.

Um..what????


I need a brain back-up, wrong thread. Mixed c&p. :oops:

First rule of moderation: do not have more than 12 windows/tabs open at the same time! :thumbup:
:dopey:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 66

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest