Re: ID only or where is your science ? ID pos evidence only
- Tyke: Oh, so now I'm going into the "lake of fire" like all the others
who dare to point out facts to you? Do you really think you gain
credibility by damning people? You sound like a loon, but there are
enough Materialist fallacies in your rantings for me to respond for now.
Dave: >> You're looking at diploid animals and ignoring the large
> mutations that fails to conceive at all.Tyke: False. Haploid gametes appear by all samplings to have the same
mutation rates as in live births and hatches.
Dave:>> Cites? I am very suspicious of creationist evaluations of
> probability. Most of you, from Dembski on down either don't knowthe math or are willing to lie about it.
Tyke: You have a regular habit of calling everything a "lie" if it
doesn't conform to your pre-conceived Materialist twist on Christian
religion. I have given you dozens of references by the world's top
mathematicians, all of whom soundly refute all things Darwin. So,
since you claim to "know the math" how about YOU present a citation or
perhaps a book, paper or expert mathematician willing to agree to your
reverse logic? (Not holding my breath for that one)
A conference of 600 of the world's top experts produced a document
called "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian interpretation of
Evolution". Were they all "lying"? They certainly weren't creationists
and few were Christian or religious.
Dave: >> You do realize that you are imbuing ordinary genetics with
the gift of prophecy here, don't you?
Tyke: No. Ordinary genetics show present-time need-based modification
akin to all other biological reactions to environment such as
goosebumps or adrenaline immersions, which operate when needed, but
not beforehand in a predictive way.
For example experimental observations continue to show a complete
absence of resistance to disease among populations that have never
been exposed to a given disease, yet such genetic modifications are
predictably widespread (beyond lineage bounds) within one generation
after exposure. Too late to help the parent generation who do not have
the resistance genetically, and indicating lack of predictive ability.
Evidence of clearly predictive intelligence is more in the fringes of
the study, contrary to Creationists who espouse front-loading. I
neither refute nor accept the concept of front-loading, but say that
more evidence is needed for clear answers.
That said, to an extent all intelligent action is technically
predictive. If a rock is about to fall on me I may raise my hand to
stop it, but I didn't predict the rock was falling until I saw it.
Still, technically I predicted it would continue falling in that same
direction and predicted that my hand would block it if I moved it,
etc. All intelligent action has a predictive nature, but based on
knowledge, deduction or trial and error, not "prophesy".
Arguments for front-loading are not solid enough to yet be a tenet of
ID evolutionary science.
Dave:> Actually, enough generations of animals, and the observed rates
of morphological chang WILL prodice such structures.
Tyke: Yes, they absolutely WILL produce the structures, but in a
single generation, not gradually, a la Darwin's flawed gradualism
clams. SJ Gould was closer to the reality shown by evidence with his
"punctuated equilibrium" concepts. The changes are sudden and in
complete cohesive immediately functional units.
In other words, evidence shows that no animal ever got loose bones and
then generations later gained tendons connecting them to curiously
usable muscles. Bones, ligaments and tendons appear simultaneously and
in fully formed units in both fossil and contemporary evidence.
Gradual or sudden, however, the fact that the structures ARE produced
should not be seen as proof that they are produced by random accident
rather than an intelligent life force. Quite the contrary.
Mathematically no complex functional structures should ever be
produced in any living thing ever, even with quintillions of attempts.
The number of attempts that would be required are numbers only a
computer can produce and only in scientific notation. Yet Darwinists
think they happen millions of times again and again in just millions
or billions of tries.
Dave: > That is, as long
> as the necessary genetic isolation and natural selection both occur.Tyke: No, as I have explained to you at length, so-called "selection"
is irrelevant to the production of any physiology. Selection is a
negative force that can only inhibit evolution but the morphology is
completed before selection can do anything. Further, the only
"anything" selection can do is to get rid of a physiological form. It
can not create anything at all.
Dave: > Genetic errors are random but rare.
Tyke: That depends on your definition of "genetic errors". There is a
difference between true genetic "error" and standard genetic editing.
Genetic modifications are neither rare nor random, however there ARE
rare exceptions where a genetic change does appear to be random.
Dave: > Using nothing but NEW genetic variation, it is possible to
> differentiate fruit flies to the same morphogical degree thatTyke: This is true except oddly for the word that you chose to
> separates humans from gorillas--in just 20 generations.
emphasize with capitals. The genetic variation is actually all within
the gene pool and has a back and forth range of possible genetic
codes, not a true natural linear progression. In other words, as soon
as artificial selection ends, the species gravitates back to its
original genomic range. It was this observation in Darwin's own pigeon
artifical selection experiments that caused him to doubt his own
theory late in his life.
Any species that has a genomic range of about one percent could also
be differentiated in the same percentage of codines as humans to apes.
Dave: > Of course NATURAL selection is rarely that draconian, and
Tyke: Ugg, Darwinists, ya gotta love em.
Selection, whether natural or artificial, can not create a fly,
gorilla or human. The creature must be born and you can select only
from those flies or other creatures that are born/hatched.
Try to select a fruit fly from among your human children. You can't do
it. Try to select a unicorn from any creature. Again, unless the
creature is born, it can NOT ever be selected. What created the
creature, therefore, is genetics, not death to the unselected.
If I eat all m&m's except that I save the brown ones, my selection of
brown m&m's did not create the brown ones. The only thing that can
create a new physiological form is GENETICS. Selection can do nothing
creative at all. I suggest you stop using this useless word because it
is getting you confused about cause and effect.
Dave: > It is the NOISE of random mutation that allows the filter of
the environment to subract everything that doesn't work.
Tyke: I thought you agreed mutations are not random.
What you fail to grasp is that subtraction is not addition.
Moreover, you need to provide evidence of a proliferation of things
that "don't work". Simply claiming "selection" does not exempt you
from proving that randomness exists or that anything was supposedly
de-selected because it didn't work. You need to show examples on a
very large scale to keep up with the examples of changes that DO work.
Nearly all extinctions that we have seen show nothing that could be
considered a defect as compared to modern, evolved creatures.
Extinctions generally are in mass extinction events caused by severe
climactic or catastrophic circumstances and they affect all levels of
the food chain from fittest to least fit.
The storyline of a creature that was just fine at one point having an
offspring with an upgrade and suddenly the rest of the clan dies off,
just is not ever seen or is sparse at best. It is pure fiction in
Darwin's mind only and we have documented enough extinctions to
dismiss it at this point. The whole concept just never happens, sorry.
Dave:> It is the reproduction of vastly more than replacement numbers
that enables that selection to find enough material.
Tyke: The numbers are what they are and mathematicians have been clear
about the failures of Darwinism as a cause of evolution. Even if it
did explain anything regarding reproduction, origins of life,
animation of matter or consciousness - and it doesn't - all experts
have already roundly rejected it as an impossible creation mechanism.
Dave:> I never said genetic CHANGE wasn't random. I said genetics
aren't random. They are chemistry and chemistry obeys fixed laws of
Tyke: Lol. Do you know anything about biology? NOTHING in living
things works solely upon fixed laws of nature. Least of all genetics.
If fixed laws of chemistry were our only mechanism, then organic
chemistry would be the same as any other chemistry and the dead would
walk. Matter has to animate for any and all of life's functions.
Please understand this if you don't understand anything else about
life: Living things are alive because they animate matter to force
chemical reactions to take place or to be retained (prevented from
happening) and they do so against all laws of nature. And they do so
in clear accordance with a sustenance of life as an intelligent goal.
None of it is "automatic" and none of it can happen in an inorganic
laboratory setting even if the exact same materials are present in the
exact same forms. The Kreb cycle? Won't happen. Photosynthesis? Won't
happen. Genetic transcription? It won't happen except in a living
thing because all of these functions defy laws of physics.
Dave: >> Your god is too limited, being, apparently, only able to act
by means of special miracles and not sovereign unless performing them.
More of a magician than a creator, really.
Tyke: God, magic, creator, miracles special or otherwise - these are
all your terms that come from your religious upbringing, not
scientific fact. I would hardly evoke "special miracles" and I will
let you fret about sovereignty.
The reality is that the intelligence causing life does show clear
signs of limitations (if even just in the fact that we die).
Your statements here are a clear indication of your inability to look
at the discussion from a scientific light, instead preferring to fall
back on religion. Thats your prerogative, but don't then falsely claim
that facts are on your side. They aren't. Even you say that the
evidence doesn't support what you claim is true. Then why do you
believe it? And why should anyone follow you off the same cliff?
Dave: >> It cannot happen because you SAY it cannot? I don't get it.
Are you claiming to BE God?
Tyke: No, Dave, it is all about what the evidence shows. Nearly all
mathematicians reject Darwinism as a completely foolhardy and hopeless
attempt to create something from nothing, order from chaos and life
from death. Things don't just spring to life and animate, and matter
shouldn't obey encoded information without motive force causing the
movement and formation of matter. I really don't care about your fire
and brimstone threats. I care about truth and you don't.
Dave: >> Before you criticize a science, you should take the trouble
to learn something about it--from people who do NOT have an agenda of
keeping you ignorant.
Tyke: Materialism by its very definition is not a science. It is cult
religion wholly unsupported by scientific fact.
I avoid agenda advocates, such as the Disco Institute or NCSE.
> > Tyke: Your religious babbling does not constitute science.Dave:> I never said it did. It constitutes sound theology as compared
to the heretical kind that you people keep trying to wedge into the
> schools. Keep it in your so-called "churches."Tyke: Theology is mythology. It is make-pretend comfort to some and a
way to grab power over the insecure for others. If theocracy is your
gig, go ahead and play like your unsupported beliefs mean something,
but to intermix any of it with factual evidence is intellectually
dishonest and misleading.
I do not like bad-mouthing anyone's religion, but you need a healthy
dose of ridicule to get through that dome of yours that you have no
right to force your religious beliefs on anyone.
What I want in a science class is science and I do not consider
Materialism a science. It is a religious ideology that just doesn't
jive with the evidence at all. We need to start peeling back the
misinformation going on in academia.
Dave: > When you get tired of empty rhetoric such as these arguments
from personal incredulity, and when you get tired of theological
heretics leading you into the pit of hell, come back and we'll talk.
Tyke: Wow. I'll ignore our flakey damnation spittle, but I do want to
clarify that intelligent guidance does not rely on personal
incredulity of anyone - although if credulity is an issue you might
want to check your ego as you proclaim what 90% of the population
doesn't believe, or perhaps attain a little evidence.
For those severely lacking in common sense and mathematical acuity,
there are mathematicians who have laid this out pretty darn plainly.
Anyone who thinks complex interdependent functional systems flopped
together by accident is an idiot with no backing.
Dave: >> YOU aare not a mathematician who has studied evolution.
Tyke: Actually that is precisely what I am. (And you're not.) My
majors in college were math and biology and I chose the former as a
professional field. I can tell that you do not have this expertise.
Dave: > Hoyle? You mean Fred "it's a big bang" Hoyle? What did HE
know about biological evolution?
Tyke: Ummm, he is one of the world's most reknowned
scientist/mathematicians ever... knighted by the Queen for his
breakthrough methodology in calculating planetary movements and
primary identifier of the Big Bang, a term he coined and the greatest
accomplishment in astronomy ever. Yeah, that's him. He, like all
scientist/mathematicians, laughed at Darwinism and wrote a book
spelling out why it is utterly impossible.
Dave: The LACK of evidence is not evidence of lack.
Tyke: Actually it can be once you get to a point where there SHOULD be
some evidence. Lack of a live or dead pegasus body does constitute
strong evidence that none exist because we should have seen one by
now. Yes, your lack of evidence IS evidence against you.
Lack of evidence is also not a particularly strong point to argue
from. Especially when ALL evidence proves intelligent design and none
at all leads to Darwinism. People think that there is some mound of
evidence for Darwinism because it is equated with evolution itself,
but in fact it is noteworthy that evidence consistently and convincing
goes in the opposite direction of Darwin every time.
Dave: >Then, YOU should be an atheist, because you have demonstrated
that you lack ANY evidence at all of God's existence.
Tyke: I would call myself agnostic. If there is proof, I will believe
something. A man writing something in a book or telling me on the
internet that I have a lake of fire just doesn't constitute fact.
ID admits that the evidence shows intelligent guidance in evolution.
While some people call this proof of God I disagree. We know something
intelligent is at work. Does this intelligence fit YOUR religious
model and not someone else's or no religious model at all? We admit we
don't know. Perhaps you should learn to admit what you don't know.
Dave:> I, at least, have some non-scientific evidence to proceed on.
Tyke: There is no such thing as non-scientific evidence. If there is
evidence, it is science. No evidence (Materialism) means no science.
At least you admit to being non-scientific and lacking evidence.
Dave: > Are you sure you WANT to spend eternity in a lake of fire?
Tyke: Your sanity is highly in question, Dave.
- On 15 Nov 2008 at 6:32, tykemorris wrote:
>Tyke is a liar and a son of the father of lies. He stands condemned
> Evolution is a scientific theory. Darwinism is a mathematical theory
> rejected by all mathematicians who have expressed an opinion on
to hell for his obdurate refusal to repend his sins and accpet Jesus
as his saviour.
He lies when he says he is not a creationist. This "Wistar
conference" argument was quote mined and massaged into the outright
lie he presents here by and for creationists. If it walks and quacks
like a duck...