Evolution problems

[CID1990]

Did I say we made electrons in the lab? Here is what I said:



Boy, what you said now looks exactly like what I said.

You are so hell bent on trying to turn this into a God debate, your Atheist bitterness is showing...like always. Sit back, relax and take a deep breath, actually do some research on the subject of evolution, and it will all be okay.

It is like Pwns said. If we could make a big beaker and reproduce new species, we would, but we don't have that luxury. Hell, you didn't even bother to read my post that Chitdog didn't bother to read either.

60599 generations in the lab and still E Coli. Only able to use citrate. See the difference

At least when I don't make sense it is from drinking. What is your excuse?

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not an Atheist...
You denying that this is about God is a Lie...
You're lying Mr. Christian
Ponder that for a moment

Why lie..?

Its the same veiled bullsh1t klam pulls daily

same methods different ideology

he doesnt come out and say "God" but damned if the old coot isnt hovering just outside the campfire light

[SeattleGriz]

Did I say we made electrons in the lab? Here is what I said:



Boy, what you said now looks exactly like what I said.

You are so hell bent on trying to turn this into a God debate, your Atheist bitterness is showing...like always. Sit back, relax and take a deep breath, actually do some research on the subject of evolution, and it will all be okay.

It is like Pwns said. If we could make a big beaker and reproduce new species, we would, but we don't have that luxury. Hell, you didn't even bother to read my post that Chitdog didn't bother to read either.

60599 generations in the lab and still E Coli. Only able to use citrate. See the difference

At least when I don't make sense it is from drinking. What is your excuse?

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not an Atheist...
You denying that this is about God is a Lie...
You're lying Mr. Christian
Ponder that for a moment

Why lie..?

I'm not a Creationist, but you still haven't grasped that fact. You've only repeated it ad nasuem. One shot and you object How predictable.

As to this argument at a basic level being premised around God stating He made all life on Earth, you are correct, but this thread isn't about God. It is about the theory of evolution and neo-darwinists, and atheists like yourself, excusing a square peg in the round hole mentality.

Gaps in a theory that cannot be verified, but are filled with an evolution of the gaps mentality.

How about you give me some rebuttals to the articles I have posted?

[SeattleGriz]

I'm not an Atheist...
You denying that this is about God is a Lie...
You're lying Mr. Christian
Ponder that for a moment

Why lie..?

Its the same veiled bullsh1t klam pulls daily

same methods different ideology

he doesnt come out and say "God" but damned if the old coot isnt hovering just outside the campfire light

I have come out from day one and said I believed it is God. Also said it could be a natural law we don't yet understand. The universe is finely tuned, so is it so hard to believe we are fine tuned in some way yet undiscovered? If you only could grasp the enormity of the odds life is where we are with only mutation and natural selection.

You two really need to practice your D1B/Capn Cat routine, because it aint even close. If you took a class from them, get a refund.

[kalm]

I'm not an Atheist...
You denying that this is about God is a Lie...
You're lying Mr. Christian
Ponder that for a moment

Why lie..?

Its the same veiled bullsh1t klam pulls daily

same methods different ideology

he doesnt come out and say "God" but damned if the old coot isnt hovering just outside the campfire light

Do I have to do with this debate?

Cid, I enjoy your posts. Sorry I seemed to have gotten stuck in your craw of late.

Peace, brother, and don't get too obsessive!

[CID1990]

Its the same veiled bullsh1t klam pulls daily

same methods different ideology

he doesnt come out and say "God" but damned if the old coot isnt hovering just outside the campfire light

I have come out from day one and said I believed it is God.

thats all you have to say right there

any attempt to apply science beyond that point is founded on magic, hocus pocus, the fvcking tooth fairy

[SeattleGriz]

I have come out from day one and said I believed it is God.

thats all you have to say right there

any attempt to apply science beyond that point is founded on magic, hocus pocus, the fvcking tooth fairy

What do you mean, "that is all I have to say right there"? I've BEEN saying it from the start.

[D1B]

We all get it...
If Evolution is the answer then somehow it diminishes your ability to believe in your God
In light of that you and Cornelius will defend creationism (for obvious reasons)

But: Why not just modify the criteria and adjust "Your God"..?
Forget about the Bible and Jesus and all that crap for a few minutes
and ponder the notion that if the Bible were being written today (right now) what would God look like?

What is the God of Now?
No fairy tales - no mythology - but RIGHT NOW considering all the things we know about the earth right now and everything we know about the Universe right now...

What does THAT God look like..?

Once again, thank you for the thought out reply.

Okay, on to what you are saying. If Evolution is the answer, it in NO WAY diminishes what I believe, for I am a theistic evolutionist. Evolution on my part, is PART of His intelligent design. I know that is totally weak, but you seem to think I am at loggerheads with evolution, when I am not. I simply believe the theory is incomplete.

If a theory is to hold it's weight, it should be able to take input and produce reliable output, but that is not what we get. We currently get good input, shit output. You say, "give it time", when if that response was given outside of the evolution community, it would be called "God of the gaps".

I keep saying that ID's best hope is bioinformatics, and they are making inroads, but in the meantime, they should not be criticized for pointing out bullshit.

Why do you big guns of evolution refuse to get in debates. Because they have no answers, and when they do, they are held to a stalemate.

How do you know god is male?

[CID1990]

thats all you have to say right there

any attempt to apply science beyond that point is founded on magic, hocus pocus, the fvcking tooth fairy

What do you mean, "that is all I have to say right there"? I've BEEN saying it from the start.

now look who isnt comprehending

you dont stop there

[houndawg]

I'm not an Atheist...
You denying that this is about God is a Lie...
You're lying Mr. Christian
Ponder that for a moment

Why lie..?

I'm not a Creationist, but you still haven't grasped that fact. You've only repeated it ad nasuem. One shot and you object How predictable.

As to this argument at a basic level being premised around God stating He made all life on Earth, you are correct, but this thread isn't about God. It is about the theory of evolution and neo-darwinists, and atheists like yourself, excusing a square peg in the round hole mentality.

Gaps in a theory that cannot be verified, but are filled with an evolution of the gaps mentality.

How about you give me some rebuttals to the articles I have posted?

How about you come up with a theory that fits the facts better than the current one?

[SeattleGriz]

I'm not a Creationist, but you still haven't grasped that fact. You've only repeated it ad nasuem. One shot and you object How predictable.

As to this argument at a basic level being premised around God stating He made all life on Earth, you are correct, but this thread isn't about God. It is about the theory of evolution and neo-darwinists, and atheists like yourself, excusing a square peg in the round hole mentality.

Gaps in a theory that cannot be verified, but are filled with an evolution of the gaps mentality.

How about you give me some rebuttals to the articles I have posted?

How about you come up with a theory that fits the facts better than the current one?

I have been. I have been saying that an intelligent agent or an undiscovered natural law is the missing piece to evolution (fossil record, junk DNA and convergent evolution to name three).

ID researchers are trying to prove their case by performing research where evolution keeps giving poor results.

It is too bad there wasn't more money for ID research.

You do realize there are evolutionists that believe the theory is missing something as well?

[CID1990]

How about you come up with a theory that fits the facts better than the current one?

I have been. I have been saying that an intelligent agent or an undiscovered natural law is the missing piece to evolution (fossil record, junk DNA and convergent evolution to name three).

ID researchers are trying to prove their case by performing research where evolution keeps giving poor results.

It is too bad there wasn't more money for ID research.

You do realize there are evolutionists that believe the theory is missing something as well?

what is the difference between you and a dyed in the wool Lynchburg creationist?

outside of you claiming to nit be a creationist?

where do you two differ?

patiently waiting

[houndawg]

How about you come up with a theory that fits the facts better than the current one?

I have been. I have been saying that an intelligent agent or an undiscovered natural law is the missing piece to evolution (fossil record, junk DNA and convergent evolution to name three).

ID researchers are trying to prove their case by performing research where evolution keeps giving poor results.

It is too bad there wasn't more money for ID research.

You do realize there are evolutionists that believe the theory is missing something as well?

Yes. I just find it too big of a leap, not to mention intellectually lazy to fill in these gaps withs "some intelligent agent or undiscovered law". Too deus ex machina for me. I think that the creationist argument could be better argued from the entropy perspective. Frank Tippler thinks the universe is a computer program. I think he's probably wrong but at least he's going a little further than "some intelligent agent".

[SeattleGriz]

I have been. I have been saying that an intelligent agent or an undiscovered natural law is the missing piece to evolution (fossil record, junk DNA and convergent evolution to name three).

ID researchers are trying to prove their case by performing research where evolution keeps giving poor results.

It is too bad there wasn't more money for ID research.

You do realize there are evolutionists that believe the theory is missing something as well?

what is the difference between you and a dyed in the wool Lynchburg creationist?

outside of you claiming to nit be a creationist?

where do you two differ?

patiently waiting

I'm a theistic evolutionist, the same as Francis Collins. Evolution is real, but it was set in motion by God.

I don't have any problem with science - I actually love science. If I believe in an all powerful God who made me in His image, then why wouldn't I want to know the truth?

[houndawg]

what is the difference between you and a dyed in the wool Lynchburg creationist?

outside of you claiming to nit be a creationist?

where do you two differ?

patiently waiting

I'm a theistic evolutionist, the same as Francis Collins. Evolution is real, but it was set in motion by God.

I don't have any problem with science - I actually love science. If I believe in an all powerful God who made me in His image, then why wouldn't I want to know the truth?

Because if you're wrong you won't see any point in existence?

[SeattleGriz]

I'm a theistic evolutionist, the same as Francis Collins. Evolution is real, but it was set in motion by God.

I don't have any problem with science - I actually love science. If I believe in an all powerful God who made me in His image, then why wouldn't I want to know the truth?

Because if you're wrong you won't see any point in existence?

No, I will just be wrong. By the way, Francis Collins rejects ID, just so we are clear.

[CID1990]

what is the difference between you and a dyed in the wool Lynchburg creationist?

outside of you claiming to nit be a creationist?

where do you two differ?

patiently waiting

Evolution is real, but it was set in motion by God.

good to see you finally take a position!


now wheres your supporting evidence?

divert utilizing a "where's YOURS" canard in 3.... 2.... 1......

[SeattleGriz]

Evolution is real, but it was set in motion by God.

good to see you finally take a position!


now wheres your supporting evidence?

divert utilizing a "where's YOURS" canard in 3.... 2.... 1......

I stated I was as such in post #6, and I already gave supporting evidence in my reply to houndawg a couple of posts ago. Functional DNA, large gaps in the fossil record without graduation and convergent evolution all support an intelligent agent.

[Vidav]

Even if evolution is found to be wrong, God will never be found to be right because it's just plain silly. Seriously. Look in another direction instead, SG. Find a new theory if you think evolution is wrong. Just stop looking for an answer in fairy tales.

[Skjellyfetti]

Functional DNA, large gaps in the fossil record without graduation and convergent evolution all support an intelligent agent.

Scientifically? How?

[SeattleGriz]

Even if evolution is found to be wrong, God will never be found to be right because it's just plain silly. Seriously. Look in another direction instead, SG. Fine a new theory if you think evolution is wrong. Just stop looking for an answer in fairy tales.

You do realize the mathematical odds of life spontaneously generating from nothing to all we have are impossible dont you? Nice try. Next!

[Vidav]

Even if evolution is found to be wrong, God will never be found to be right because it's just plain silly. Seriously. Look in another direction instead, SG. Find a new theory if you think evolution is wrong. Just stop looking for an answer in fairy tales.

Nice try. Next!

Seriously, why not look elsewhere?

[SeattleGriz]

Nice try. Next!

Seriously, why not look elsewhere?

This is the best explanation, taken from Wikipedia:

The watchmaker analogy made famous by William Paley in his book Natural Theology. Paley, arguing more than fifty years before Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, held that the complexity of living organisms was evidence of the existence of a divine creator by drawing a parallel with the way in which the existence of a watch compels belief in an intelligent watchmaker.

Life and it's complexities are the watch.

When I was in college and even today, I am astonished at how complex we are. I am left with no other choice but to believe in a higher power.

So many things about our biochemistry leave you with your mouth open, especially when you find it only take one tiny little change to make it turn to shit.

[Skjellyfetti]

Paley was a theologian... and that's theology... not science.

You have such a strict definition of science when it suits you... and an incredibly loose definition of science when it suits you.

Sorry, making a metaphor to a watch isn't science.

[SeattleGriz]

Functional DNA, large gaps in the fossil record without graduation and convergent evolution all support an intelligent agent.

Scientifically? How?

I don't have time for all three, but can talk about functional DNA now. If you want, I will explain the others later, but not tonight - getting ready for bed.

So, if we are the culmination of thousands of years of evolution, our DNA should have tons of errors and tons of genes that are no longer functional. Our DNA would collect a ton of "junk DNA" and would serve no purpose. I would also like to add that evolutionists have been using the term "junk DNA" as a pejorative term. It was supposed to be a slap in the face for those who didn't believe in evolution. Many said, your God is so stupid, for there is no way He would put so much Junk in the DNA.

Junk DNA is all the DNA that is not functional - pretty much just sits there and doesn't do a whole lot.

Well, everyday they are finding new functions for this junk DNA, and if you read my link about Moran and his tantrum, it is about how he didn't like the new findings saying something like 80% was functional. He stated that they have the definition of functional wrong.

It is a huge pissing match and I personally feel many are holding onto a very narrow definition of functional. If you find junk DNA that has a role in certain diseases, wouldn't you consider that as having a function? Much of the "junk DNA's" job is not to be "functional" in the traditional way, but to help regulate where, when and how genes are expressed. Bolded be cause I took that quote from the following article.

This article states only 8% of our DNA is useful and the other 92% is crap.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014 ... al-baggage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The above statements are a far cry from the ENCODE project (link below) - remember, different definitions of "functional":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENCODE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The vast majority (80.4%) of the human genome participates in at least one biochemical RNA and/or chromatin associated event in at least one cell type. Much of the genome lies close to a regulatory event: 95% of the genome lies within 8kb of a DNA-protein interaction (as assayed by bound ChIP-seq motifs or DNaseI footprints), and 99% is within 1.7kb of at least one of the biochemical events measured by ENCODE.

[SeattleGriz]

Paley was a theologian... and that's theology... not science.

You have such a strict definition of science when it suits you... and an incredibly loose definition of science when it suits you.

Sorry, making a metaphor to a watch isn't science.

It's empirical and that is why some who don't believe in God are willing to believe in an intelligent agent. Like I have said, it could be some natural law that causes the order I am talking about.

As to loose definitions, that is my beef with evolution. The sort of loose definitions are not tolerated anywhere outside of it's belief system. How many times have you read, just in this thread alone, well the prediction was wrong, but we'll get there in regards to evolution?