Attenborough speaks out

Some chew toys at the Telegraph

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Ironclad, Onyx8

Re: Attenborough speaks out

#81  Postby Atheistoclast » Sep 20, 2011 1:00 pm

Brunitski wrote:
Atheistoclast wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Indeed, developmental embryologists the world over will be pissing themselves if they read that ...


Except that developmental biologists don't know the answer - morphogenesis remains the biggest unsolved mystery of biology. They do know the stages of development and they observe all the various stages and processes in detail but they have no clue as to why a zygote divides into different cells and why particular organs form and so on. After all, there is nothing in DNA that encodes the structures and body plans of an organism, only the proteins and RNAs that are used in its make-up and operation. Moreover, evolutionists are equally clueless as to how there is so much diversity of form when there is so much genetic homology between even "distantly related" species. Put it this way. Giraffes and whales are supposed to be close relatives and thus share very similar DNA. But their anatomy is markedly different. The evo-devo crowd would have you believe that it is all a matter of the timing of gene expression - now that is pure comedy! :lol: :lol: :lol: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Fuuuuuuck!

You hit every branch of the stupid tree when you fell out of it didn't you? Are you seriously going to say what you just said ON THIS FORUM, with out even googling?

Hox gene much?

Far. fucking. out.


It seems I have really upset the atheists this time! Hox genes work by activating (switching on) the genes required at developmental stages by binding to transcriptional regulatory regions - they don't encode the form of segment structures. Moreover, they are among the most conserved families in the genome such that they can be swapped between species in transgenesis experiments. As such, they don't explain the morphological differences between taxa.
Nothing in biology makes sense when you include evolution.
User avatar
Atheistoclast
Banned User
 
Name: Joe
Posts: 1709

Country: UK
Iran (ir)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Attenborough speaks out

#82  Postby Brunitski » Sep 20, 2011 1:14 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:
Brunitski wrote:
Atheistoclast wrote:

Except that developmental biologists don't know the answer - morphogenesis remains the biggest unsolved mystery of biology. They do know the stages of development and they observe all the various stages and processes in detail but they have no clue as to why a zygote divides into different cells and why particular organs form and so on. After all, there is nothing in DNA that encodes the structures and body plans of an organism, only the proteins and RNAs that are used in its make-up and operation. Moreover, evolutionists are equally clueless as to how there is so much diversity of form when there is so much genetic homology between even "distantly related" species. Put it this way. Giraffes and whales are supposed to be close relatives and thus share very similar DNA. But their anatomy is markedly different. The evo-devo crowd would have you believe that it is all a matter of the timing of gene expression - now that is pure comedy! :lol: :lol: :lol: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Fuuuuuuck!

You hit every branch of the stupid tree when you fell out of it didn't you? Are you seriously going to say what you just said ON THIS FORUM, with out even googling?

Hox gene much?

Far. fucking. out.


It seems I have really upset the atheists this time! Hox genes work by activating (switching on) the genes required at developmental stages by binding to transcriptional regulatory regions - they don't encode the form of segment structures. Moreover, they are among the most conserved families in the genome such that they can be swapped between species in transgenesis experiments. As such, they don't explain the morphological differences between taxa.

Upset?! I don't know about anyone else, but the only thing you have induced in me is pantwetting!
User avatar
Brunitski
 
Posts: 184

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Attenborough speaks out

#83  Postby Rumraket » Sep 20, 2011 1:22 pm

Atheistoclst wrote:Who created you? You didn't evolve, did you? You were formed in your mother's womb. But who fashioned you? Who pieced you together cell by cell? It certainly wasn't your mother - she didn't know how to make your spleen and your pancreas or your heart and brain. Think about that.

What a profoundly stupid and loaded question. You might as well have asked who makes crystals grow and who determines their shapes?
There is no who...
"When inventing a god, the most important thing is to claim it is invisible, inaudible and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise, people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing." - Anonymous
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 9431
Age: 33
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: Attenborough speaks out

#84  Postby Dogmatic Pyrrhonist » Sep 20, 2011 1:24 pm

Brunitski wrote:
Upset?! I don't know about anyone else, but the only thing you have induced in me is pantwetting!

I YOLed. (Yawned out loud). :yawn2:
Dogmatic Pyrrhonist
AKA https://plus.google.com/u/0/105518842266362138077/about (google has decided my name isn't a 'real' name)

Image
User avatar
Dogmatic Pyrrhonist
 
Posts: 712
Age: 42
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Attenborough speaks out

#85  Postby Agrippina » Sep 20, 2011 1:25 pm

Brunitski wrote:
Atheistoclast wrote:
Brunitski wrote:

Fuuuuuuck!

You hit every branch of the stupid tree when you fell out of it didn't you? Are you seriously going to say what you just said ON THIS FORUM, with out even googling?

Hox gene much?

Far. fucking. out.


It seems I have really upset the atheists this time! Hox genes work by activating (switching on) the genes required at developmental stages by binding to transcriptional regulatory regions - they don't encode the form of segment structures. Moreover, they are among the most conserved families in the genome such that they can be swapped between species in transgenesis experiments. As such, they don't explain the morphological differences between taxa.

Upset?! I don't know about anyone else, but the only thing you have induced in me is pantwetting!


Something like that.
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 33385
Age: 103
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Attenborough speaks out

#86  Postby monkeyboy » Sep 20, 2011 1:28 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Atheistoclst wrote:Who created you? You didn't evolve, did you? You were formed in your mother's womb. But who fashioned you? Who pieced you together cell by cell? It certainly wasn't your mother - she didn't know how to make your spleen and your pancreas or your heart and brain. Think about that.

What a profoundly stupid and loaded question. You might as well have asked who makes crystals grow and who determines their shapes?
There is no who...

Just a hint........who likes a good crystal, especially jewels? Pirates, his chosen people. Hmmm? Are you getting it yet? Atheistoclast has, he's just being coy about it. Get yer eye patches out!! It all makes perfect sense if you think about it with a bit of grog down yer neck.
The Bible is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
Mark Twain
User avatar
monkeyboy
 
Posts: 1968
Male

England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Attenborough speaks out

#87  Postby jaygray » Sep 20, 2011 1:37 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:It seems I have really upset the atheists this time!


You couldn't upset anyone if it was the most 'upsetting-ist' day in your life, and you had a nuclear-powered upsetting machine. You have however made me laugh so hard that I see stars... :clap: :beer:
Last edited by jaygray on Sep 20, 2011 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
'Now, there are some who would like to rewrite history - revisionist historians is what I like to call them.' - George W. Bush
User avatar
jaygray
 
Posts: 702
Age: 56
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Attenborough speaks out

#88  Postby Atheistoclast » Sep 20, 2011 1:38 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Atheistoclst wrote:Who created you? You didn't evolve, did you? You were formed in your mother's womb. But who fashioned you? Who pieced you together cell by cell? It certainly wasn't your mother - she didn't know how to make your spleen and your pancreas or your heart and brain. Think about that.

What a profoundly stupid and loaded question. You might as well have asked who makes crystals grow and who determines their shapes?
There is no who...


That's right. Embryogenesis is as uncomplicated and natural as the formation of snowflakes and crystalline structures. :lol: it is like baking a cake with the recipe provided by DNA. I wish you lot would spend more time learning some science rather than professing your hatred of religion and contempt for creationism.
Last edited by Atheistoclast on Sep 20, 2011 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing in biology makes sense when you include evolution.
User avatar
Atheistoclast
Banned User
 
Name: Joe
Posts: 1709

Country: UK
Iran (ir)
Print view this post

Re: Attenborough speaks out

#89  Postby Rumraket » Sep 20, 2011 1:40 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Atheistoclst wrote:Who created you? You didn't evolve, did you? You were formed in your mother's womb. But who fashioned you? Who pieced you together cell by cell? It certainly wasn't your mother - she didn't know how to make your spleen and your pancreas or your heart and brain. Think about that.

What a profoundly stupid and loaded question. You might as well have asked who makes crystals grow and who determines their shapes?
There is no who...


That's right. Embryogenesis is as uncomplicated and natural as the formation of snowflakes and crystalline structures. :lol:

Are you saying it's unnatural? :rofl:
"When inventing a god, the most important thing is to claim it is invisible, inaudible and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise, people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing." - Anonymous
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 9431
Age: 33
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: Attenborough speaks out

#90  Postby Atheistoclast » Sep 20, 2011 1:44 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Atheistoclast wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
What a profoundly stupid and loaded question. You might as well have asked who makes crystals grow and who determines their shapes?
There is no who...


That's right. Embryogenesis is as uncomplicated and natural as the formation of snowflakes and crystalline structures. :lol:

Are you saying it's unnatural? :rofl:


I'm saying it is not explicable merely in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry. It is only "natural" in that it is observable and repeatable. But it is not natural in the sense that the formation of crystals is a natural process.
Nothing in biology makes sense when you include evolution.
User avatar
Atheistoclast
Banned User
 
Name: Joe
Posts: 1709

Country: UK
Iran (ir)
Print view this post

Re: Attenborough speaks out

#91  Postby Ihavenofingerprints » Sep 20, 2011 1:46 pm

Do you mildly understand any of the fields of science that you are making claims about? Namely biology?
User avatar
Ihavenofingerprints
 
Posts: 6673
Age: 21
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Attenborough speaks out

#92  Postby Rumraket » Sep 20, 2011 1:46 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Atheistoclast wrote:

That's right. Embryogenesis is as uncomplicated and natural as the formation of snowflakes and crystalline structures. :lol:

Are you saying it's unnatural? :rofl:


I'm saying it is not explicable merely in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry. It is only "natural" in that it is observable and repeatable. But it is not natural in the sense that the formation of crystals is a natural process.

Got any evidence to back up this blind assertion? You're effectively saying that embryonic development is violating thermodynamics and electron orbital theory. There are some nice men in Stockholm who'd like a word with you about that if you can show it... :whistle:
"When inventing a god, the most important thing is to claim it is invisible, inaudible and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise, people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing." - Anonymous
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 9431
Age: 33
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: Attenborough speaks out

#93  Postby Fallible » Sep 20, 2011 1:48 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Atheistoclast wrote:

That's right. Embryogenesis is as uncomplicated and natural as the formation of snowflakes and crystalline structures. :lol:

Are you saying it's unnatural? :rofl:


I'm saying it is not explicable merely in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry. It is only "natural" in that it is observable and repeatable. But it is not natural in the sense that the formation of crystals is a natural process.


Therefore God. I see.
Image
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 29859
Age: 41
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Attenborough speaks out

#94  Postby monkeyboy » Sep 20, 2011 1:49 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Atheistoclast wrote:

That's right. Embryogenesis is as uncomplicated and natural as the formation of snowflakes and crystalline structures. :lol:

Are you saying it's unnatural? :rofl:


I'm saying it is not explicable merely in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry. It is only "natural" in that it is observable and repeatable. But it is not natural in the sense that the formation of crystals is a natural process.



So let me get this straight, in clear and unambiguous language. Going back to me, since I was that baby in the womb. Did I grow and develop in mum's womb as part of a natural process or not? I'm confused now and my mum's going nuts.
The Bible is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
Mark Twain
User avatar
monkeyboy
 
Posts: 1968
Male

England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Attenborough speaks out

#95  Postby Atheistoclast » Sep 20, 2011 2:02 pm

monkeyboy wrote:
Atheistoclast wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Are you saying it's unnatural? :rofl:


I'm saying it is not explicable merely in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry. It is only "natural" in that it is observable and repeatable. But it is not natural in the sense that the formation of crystals is a natural process.



So let me get this straight, in clear and unambiguous language. Going back to me, since I was that baby in the womb. Did I grow and develop in mum's womb as part of a natural process or not? I'm confused now and my mum's going nuts.


Your mother played a very limited role other than to act as the vehicle for your creation. The genes from her and your papa provided the information for the production of the proteins that make up 50% of your body and which are necessary for its development and operation. But the direction and organization in the formation of you as a zygote through to an embryo and baby was controlled by a divine agency. Let us throw away our copies of the "Selfish Gene" and open up our Bibles:

For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. Psalm 139:13


So you see, creationism does not entail believing that species were poofed into existence 6000 years ago but that each and every one of us has been specially created by God. When you realize this, you will stop thinking of Jehovah as a fascist cunt who kills homosexuals and the like, but rather as the One to whom you owe your life and happiness.
Nothing in biology makes sense when you include evolution.
User avatar
Atheistoclast
Banned User
 
Name: Joe
Posts: 1709

Country: UK
Iran (ir)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Attenborough speaks out

#96  Postby Paul G » Sep 20, 2011 2:06 pm

OMG it's in teh Bible!!!!!!
User avatar
Paul G
 
Name: Beef Joint
Posts: 9836
Age: 31
Male

England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Attenborough speaks out

#97  Postby Rumraket » Sep 20, 2011 2:07 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:
monkeyboy wrote:
Atheistoclast wrote:

I'm saying it is not explicable merely in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry. It is only "natural" in that it is observable and repeatable. But it is not natural in the sense that the formation of crystals is a natural process.



So let me get this straight, in clear and unambiguous language. Going back to me, since I was that baby in the womb. Did I grow and develop in mum's womb as part of a natural process or not? I'm confused now and my mum's going nuts.


Your mother played a very limited role other than to act as the vehicle for your creation. The genes from her and your papa provided the information for the production of the proteins that make up 50% of your body and which are necessary for its development and operation. But the direction and organization in the formation of you as a zygote through to an embryo and baby was controlled by a divine agency. Let us throw away our copies of the "Selfish Gene" and open up our Bibles:

Really? Then what's the role of regulatory sequence? To look pretty?

For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. Psalm 139:13

:crazy:

So you see, creationism does not entail believing that species were poofed into existence 6000 years ago but that each and every one of us has been specially created by God. When you realize this, you will stop thinking of Jehovah as a fascist cunt who kills homosexuals and the like, but rather as the One to whom you owe your life and happiness.

Image
Image

He's not doing a very good job, is he?
"When inventing a god, the most important thing is to claim it is invisible, inaudible and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise, people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing." - Anonymous
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 9431
Age: 33
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: Attenborough speaks out

#98  Postby Pulsar » Sep 20, 2011 2:14 pm

Paula wrote:Maybe we should chip in and get Atheistoclast a present :cheers:

http://richarddawkins.net/

I think he knows that site very well. Atheistoclast aka Reza aka Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr had a multitude of accounts on richarddawkins.net: http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2010/11/darwinism-and-junk-dna.html?showComment=1290096566518#c8586661799459663914
He's been posting on countless skeptics forums.
Science is a dialogue between the free play of ideas — theorizing — and the harsh constraints of empiricism — experimental data. Theories are a lever, data are a fulcrum, and between them we can move the world. - Sean Carroll
User avatar
Pulsar
 
Posts: 3210
Age: 37
Male

Country: Belgium
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: Attenborough speaks out

#99  Postby jaygray » Sep 20, 2011 2:20 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:
Your mother played a very limited role other than to act as the vehicle for your creation. The genes from her and your papa provided the information for the production of the proteins that make up 50% of your body and which are necessary for its development and operation. But the direction and organization in the formation of you as a zygote through to an embryo and baby was controlled by a divine agency. Let us throw away our copies of the "Selfish Gene" and open up our Bibles:

For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. Psalm 139:13


Better still, let us discard your wibble and look up section 1.5 of the FUA:

Members of rationalskepticism.org agree to: Not Preach


Here endeth the lesson. :priest:
'Now, there are some who would like to rewrite history - revisionist historians is what I like to call them.' - George W. Bush
User avatar
jaygray
 
Posts: 702
Age: 56
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Attenborough speaks out

#100  Postby Atheistoclast » Sep 20, 2011 2:30 pm

Rumraket wrote:
He's not doing a very good job, is he?


That is because, if the genetic instructions are corrupted by mutation, the divine power does not intervene to correct them.

Remember that disease and deformity are because of our original sin. Mutations are mistakes and the Greek word for "sin" in the NT is literally "mistake". All of our imperfections are because of mutation and degenerative evolution.
Nothing in biology makes sense when you include evolution.
User avatar
Atheistoclast
Banned User
 
Name: Joe
Posts: 1709

Country: UK
Iran (ir)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 0 guests