Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: ID only or where is your science ? ID pos evidence only

Expand Messages
  • tykemorris
    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
    Message 1 of 50 , Nov 1 1:43 AM
      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
      number of
      > 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 know
      the 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 that
      > separates humans from gorillas--in just 20 generations.

      Tyke: This is true except oddly for the word that you chose to
      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
      takes longer.

      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
      nature.

      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.
    • Dave Oldridge
      ... Tyke is a liar and a son of the father of lies. He stands condemned to hell for his obdurate refusal to repend his sins and accpet Jesus as his saviour.
      Message 50 of 50 , Nov 16 1:08 AM
        On 15 Nov 2008 at 6:32, tykemorris wrote:

        >
        > Evolution is a scientific theory. Darwinism is a mathematical theory
        > rejected by all mathematicians who have expressed an opinion on
        > it.

        Tyke is a liar and a son of the father of lies. He stands condemned
        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...


        --

        Dave Oldridge
        ICQ 454777283
        VA7CZ
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.