Top Ten Favorite Creationist Arguments, Parts I and II

[youngterrier]

Oh, and by the way, if you think the flagellum came together randomly one day (all 40 proteins) all at once, you're displaying evolutionary ignorance once again.

Them coming together randomly over time is more conceivable? Explain to us how that happened from protein #1 to #40. Don't know? Looks as if it is the same standstill as Miller and Behe have.

As for them coming together in one day, it might be possible, and in my opinion, more believable than slowly building it one protein at a time. My unsubstantiated guess would require a huge influx of DNA information for it to happen. Almost like getting the whole flagella blueprint all at once. Bacteria are known for being able to take in DNA that isn't theirs and incorporating it their own. But then that raises the next question. What had the blueprint in the first place and how did it get to a 40 protein complex?

I don't think we will have an answer for many, many years.

This guy is onto some really interesting thoughts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-s ... 80685.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's talking about DNA's ability of natural genetic engineering. DNA's ability to essentially change our DNA to respond to environmental pressures. This is the sort of stuff that could cause a huge change in a species.

You are seriously not intelligent.

Do you know how old the earth is? one proteins comes together with another protein, then time passes, and for one reason or another, another protein gets incorporated. Evolution happens gradually over time. That includes proteins, bacteria, etc.

You don't understand evolution as continue to pick and choose parts of it and label the parts you want to use as part of your theory.

[SeattleGriz]

Them coming together randomly over time is more conceivable? Explain to us how that happened from protein #1 to #40. Don't know? Looks as if it is the same standstill as Miller and Behe have.

As for them coming together in one day, it might be possible, and in my opinion, more believable than slowly building it one protein at a time. My unsubstantiated guess would require a huge influx of DNA information for it to happen. Almost like getting the whole flagella blueprint all at once. Bacteria are known for being able to take in DNA that isn't theirs and incorporating it their own. But then that raises the next question. What had the blueprint in the first place and how did it get to a 40 protein complex?

I don't think we will have an answer for many, many years.

This guy is onto some really interesting thoughts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-s ... 80685.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's talking about DNA's ability of natural genetic engineering. DNA's ability to essentially change our DNA to respond to environmental pressures. This is the sort of stuff that could cause a huge change in a species.

You are seriously not intelligent.

Do you know how old the earth is? one proteins comes together with another protein, then time passes, and for one reason or another, another protein gets incorporated. Evolution happens gradually over time. That includes proteins, bacteria, etc.

You don't understand evolution as continue to pick and choose parts of it and label the parts you want to use as part of your theory.

I propose a method in which it is possible and I am not intelligent, but you suggest the evolution of the gaps idea of, "give it enough time and it happened", and you are the intellectual? No wonder you win so many arguments in your head.

[SeattleGriz]

Them coming together randomly over time is more conceivable? Explain to us how that happened from protein #1 to #40. Don't know? Looks as if it is the same standstill as Miller and Behe have.

As for them coming together in one day, it might be possible, and in my opinion, more believable than slowly building it one protein at a time. My unsubstantiated guess would require a huge influx of DNA information for it to happen. Almost like getting the whole flagella blueprint all at once. Bacteria are known for being able to take in DNA that isn't theirs and incorporating it their own. But then that raises the next question. What had the blueprint in the first place and how did it get to a 40 protein complex?

I don't think we will have an answer for many, many years.

This guy is onto some really interesting thoughts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-s ... 80685.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's talking about DNA's ability of natural genetic engineering. DNA's ability to essentially change our DNA to respond to environmental pressures. This is the sort of stuff that could cause a huge change in a species.

Translation: DNA's ability to evolve.

YES! But here is the rub. Mutation and natural selection are supposed to be blind. This is the cell thinking and knowing what to do, for lack of a better description. This flies in the face of the Darwinian theory. That is why you are seeing more and more evolutionists say their theory needs to be tweaked for it is outdated and just not matching up with current science. Maybe this is the intelligent force that is causing massive changes and introduction of new species. We never knew it, but maybe each cell has an intelligence and knows what it needs to do to live and adapt.

[youngterrier]

You are seriously not intelligent.

Do you know how old the earth is? one proteins comes together with another protein, then time passes, and for one reason or another, another protein gets incorporated. Evolution happens gradually over time. That includes proteins, bacteria, etc.

You don't understand evolution as continue to pick and choose parts of it and label the parts you want to use as part of your theory.

I propose a method in which it is possible and I am not intelligent, but you suggest the evolution of the gaps idea of, "give it enough time and it happened", and you are the intellectual? No wonder you win so many arguments in your head.

Well considering they have recreated the evolution of some bacteria and proteins in the lab, none of which was "All at once," I would say, that in fact I am being more intellectual than you are, seeing as I'm using "facts"

[youngterrier]

Translation: DNA's ability to evolve.

YES! But here is the rub. Mutation and natural selection are supposed to be blind. This is the cell thinking and knowing what to do, for lack of a better description. This flies in the face of the Darwinian theory. That is why you are seeing more and more evolutionists say their theory needs to be tweaked for it is outdated and just not matching up with current science. Maybe this is the intelligent force that is causing massive changes and introduction of new species. We never knew it, but maybe each cell has an intelligence and knows what it needs to do to live and adapt.

No no no no no no no no

My God, so much stupid. I can't even....ugh

mutations and natural selections may be blind, but the changes would not stick around if they couldn't survive in their environment..

In a way, natural selection "takes away" from the gene pool in the same way a sculptor "takes away" from rock to make a statue. Mutations, which are random (and extremely common), add to the sculpture if you will.

If the DNA did not respond to environmental pressures, it would go instinct, so naturally the ones that do respond in the proper way via mutations appear to respond to the environments, I won't say perfectly, but enough to survive.

Your argument is basically saying "because team A beat team B, the game was designed for team A, even though one of them had to win anyway." If team A didn't win in the first place, and neither did team B, there would be no team to observe, and if both won, there would be nothing special about it. The way natural selection/mutation works is that both team A and B compete for survival, the one that mutates or adapts to their environment survives, giving off the appearance that it was "designed" when in actuality it couldn't have happened any other way. Natural selection comes in by kicking out the team doesn't adapt/mutate accordingly.

[SeattleGriz]

This will only take about 15 minutes of your time: Note, the person who makes these videos has a post-grad degree in microbiology. On a side note, I would recommend this youtube user when talking about this flagellum shit.

These are good videos on the background of the Discovery Institute. It's really telling as to what the intentions of these people are.

[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]

I watched them both and the guy didn't tell me a whole lot I didn't already know. As much as you would like to believe I am blindly following the DI, I did my research and knew what they were about. Hell, just google searching "evolutionary flaws" turns up DI links. If that isn't a give away...

This biggest dig, is the lack of peer reviewed papers if DI wants to be considered legitimate.

I don't worry about their roots, for I think real science will win out. I am in 100% agreeance they need to conduct proper science. Even if you think they have sinister intentions, do you really believe they are going to take over the scientific field and banish evolution? I don't think so.

To add one last bit. You be pretty darn sure they have a very difficult time finding solid scientists due to the lack of those criticizing evolution and those that fear being labeled a nut. They have a tough row to hoe.

[SeattleGriz]

I propose a method in which it is possible and I am not intelligent, but you suggest the evolution of the gaps idea of, "give it enough time and it happened", and you are the intellectual? No wonder you win so many arguments in your head.

Well considering they have recreated the evolution of some bacteria and proteins in the lab, none of which was "All at once," I would say, that in fact I am being more intellectual than you are, seeing as I'm using "facts"

I would have to see those experiments to comment.

[youngterrier]

This will only take about 15 minutes of your time: Note, the person who makes these videos has a post-grad degree in microbiology. On a side note, I would recommend this youtube user when talking about this flagellum shit.

These are good videos on the background of the Discovery Institute. It's really telling as to what the intentions of these people are.

[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]

I watched them both and the guy didn't tell me a whole lot I didn't already know. As much as you would like to believe I am blindly following the DI, I did my research and knew what they were about. Hell, just google searching "evolutionary flaws" turns up DI links. If that isn't a give away...

This biggest dig, is the lack of peer reviewed papers if DI wants to be considered legitimate.

I don't worry about their roots, for I think real science will win out. I am in 100% agreeance they need to conduct proper science. Even if you think they have sinister intentions, do you really believe they are going to take over the scientific field and banish evolution? I don't think so.

To add one last bit. You be pretty darn sure they have a very difficult time finding solid scientists due to the lack of those criticizing evolution and those that fear being labeled a nut. They have a tough row to hoe.

Or it could be because they are grasping for straws? I'm not worried about them "banishing evolution" but I worry about the misleading of people who honestly don't know any better. That's how people get hurt. In the same way ignorance on germ theory could lead to parents neglecting to give their child vaccines and their children suffering, other such occurrences can occur with any science denial. Eugenics and social darwinism come to mind as ideas that supposedly implemented darwinistic principles, but anyone who understands any of the concepts also understand that that was a load of bullshit. But still, people got hurt.

Here's a few videos on the discovery institute and ID in the form of a playlist:
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

they even have a tidbit on junk DNA

[SeattleGriz]

YES! But here is the rub. Mutation and natural selection are supposed to be blind. This is the cell thinking and knowing what to do, for lack of a better description. This flies in the face of the Darwinian theory. That is why you are seeing more and more evolutionists say their theory needs to be tweaked for it is outdated and just not matching up with current science. Maybe this is the intelligent force that is causing massive changes and introduction of new species. We never knew it, but maybe each cell has an intelligence and knows what it needs to do to live and adapt.

No no no no no no no no

My God, so much stupid. I can't even....ugh

mutations and natural selections may be blind, but the changes would not stick around if they couldn't survive in their environment..

In a way, natural selection "takes away" from the gene pool in the same way a sculptor "takes away" from rock to make a statue. Mutations, which are random (and extremely common), add to the sculpture if you will.

If the DNA did not respond to environmental pressures, it would go instinct, so naturally the ones that do respond in the proper way via mutations appear to respond to the environments, I won't say perfectly, but enough to survive.

Your argument is basically saying "because team A beat team B, the game was designed for team A, even though one of them had to win anyway." If team A didn't win in the first place, and neither did team B, there would be no team to observe, and if both won, there would be nothing special about it. The way natural selection/mutation works is that both team A and B compete for survival, the one that mutates or adapts to their environment survives, giving off the appearance that it was "designed" when in actuality it couldn't have happened any other way. Natural selection comes in by kicking out the team doesn't adapt/mutate accordingly.

You're not getting what I am saying. You should read some of the guys stuff - he's an evolutionist. The cell is making changes to RNA and DNA through methylation and hydroxylation which is regulating how many proteins the DNA is making. It is doing this crap real time, immediately and doing it massively. Time is not a factor in this.

Like I said, it's like the cell has a brain. Amazing stuff. It is adaption, but not of the traditional natural selection variety.

[youngterrier]

Well considering they have recreated the evolution of some bacteria and proteins in the lab, none of which was "All at once," I would say, that in fact I am being more intellectual than you are, seeing as I'm using "facts"

I would have to see those experiments to comment.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/01/re ... olves.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[youngterrier]

No no no no no no no no

My God, so much stupid. I can't even....ugh

mutations and natural selections may be blind, but the changes would not stick around if they couldn't survive in their environment..

In a way, natural selection "takes away" from the gene pool in the same way a sculptor "takes away" from rock to make a statue. Mutations, which are random (and extremely common), add to the sculpture if you will.

If the DNA did not respond to environmental pressures, it would go instinct, so naturally the ones that do respond in the proper way via mutations appear to respond to the environments, I won't say perfectly, but enough to survive.

Your argument is basically saying "because team A beat team B, the game was designed for team A, even though one of them had to win anyway." If team A didn't win in the first place, and neither did team B, there would be no team to observe, and if both won, there would be nothing special about it. The way natural selection/mutation works is that both team A and B compete for survival, the one that mutates or adapts to their environment survives, giving off the appearance that it was "designed" when in actuality it couldn't have happened any other way. Natural selection comes in by kicking out the team doesn't adapt/mutate accordingly.

You're not getting what I am saying. You should read some of the guys stuff - he's an evolutionist. The cell is making changes to RNA and DNA through methylation and hydroxylation which is regulating how many proteins the DNA is making. It is doing this crap real time, immediately and doing it massively. Time is not a factor in this.

Like I said, it's like the cell has a brain. Amazing stuff. It is adaption, but not of the traditional natural selection variety.

Cells do have a brain, it's called a nucleus. To put it simple, if something in its process requires it function in such a way it is probably due to evolution. If the cell didn't function as efficiently, it probably wouldn't have survived and thus it would not be around. It's still the result of natural selection and mutation, I'm sorry you can't get away from that. Just because it does its job perfectly doesn't mean it was designed. If it didn't do it's job perfectly, it would not be around to do it.

There is evolution on the cellular level just as there is on the macrolevel

[D1B]

You're not getting what I am saying. You should read some of the guys stuff - he's an evolutionist. The cell is making changes to RNA and DNA through methylation and hydroxylation which is regulating how many proteins the DNA is making. It is doing this crap real time, immediately and doing it massively. Time is not a factor in this.

Like I said, it's like the cell has a brain. Amazing stuff. It is adaption, but not of the traditional natural selection variety.

Cells do have a brain, it's called a nucleus. To put it simple, if something in its process requires it function in such a way it is probably due to evolution.
If the cell didn't function as efficiently, it probably wouldn't have survived and thus it would not be around. It's still the result of natural selection and mutation, I'm sorry you can't get away from that. Just because it does its job perfectly doesn't mean it was designed. If it didn't do it's job perfectly, it would not be around to do it.

There is evolution on the cellular level just as there is on the macrolevel

YT, don't waste your time with that fuckhead. Dude is lonely and retarded, just a fucking troll.

[JoltinJoe]

I'd like to hear what these peer-reviewed papers offer in support of the theory of ID. Something more than "the universe is too complex to have evolved as it has without guidance".

I sincerely doubt that anyone could employ the scientific method and prove that evolution is the product of an intelligent designer. Nonetheless, the "proofs" that evolution is not the work of an intelligent designer are equally fatuous.

Evolution is a credible scientific theory; intelligent design is really a matter of faith for discussion by philosophers and theologians. They both have a place for study in a college/high school curriculum, but ID is not really science and doesn't belong there.

[D1B]

I'd like to hear what these peer-reviewed papers offer in support of the theory of ID. Something more than "the universe is too complex to have evolved as it has without guidance".

I sincerely doubt that anyone could employ the scientific method and prove that evolution is the product of an intelligent designer. Nonetheless, the "proofs" that evolution is not the work of an intelligent designer are equally fatuous.

Evolution is a credible scientific theory; intelligent design is really a matter of faith for discussion by philosophers and theologians. They both have a place for study in a college/high school curriculum, but ID is not really science and doesn't belong there.

The proofs that the Christian designer is a complete fuck up are many and sound.

[kalm]

You're not getting what I am saying. You should read some of the guys stuff - he's an evolutionist. The cell is making changes to RNA and DNA through methylation and hydroxylation which is regulating how many proteins the DNA is making. It is doing this crap real time, immediately and doing it massively. Time is not a factor in this.

Like I said, it's like the cell has a brain. Amazing stuff. It is adaption, but not of the traditional natural selection variety.

Cells do have a brain, it's called a nucleus. To put it simple, if something in its process requires it function in such a way it is probably due to evolution. If the cell didn't function as efficiently, it probably wouldn't have survived and thus it would not be around. It's still the result of natural selection and mutation, I'm sorry you can't get away from that. Just because it does its job perfectly doesn't mean it was designed. If it didn't do it's job perfectly, it would not be around to do it.

There is evolution on the cellular level just as there is on the macrolevel

Who decides what's perfect? Define "perfect".

[JoltinJoe]

I sincerely doubt that anyone could employ the scientific method and prove that evolution is the product of an intelligent designer. Nonetheless, the "proofs" that evolution is not the work of an intelligent designer are equally fatuous.

Evolution is a credible scientific theory; intelligent design is really a matter of faith for discussion by philosophers and theologians. They both have a place for study in a college/high school curriculum, but ID is not really science and doesn't belong there.

The proofs that the Christian designer is a complete **** up are many and sound.

Yes.

He created you, for example.

[SeattleGriz]

I'd like to hear what these peer-reviewed papers offer in support of the theory of ID. Something more than "the universe is too complex to have evolved as it has without guidance".

I sincerely doubt that anyone could employ the scientific method and prove that evolution is the product of an intelligent designer. Nonetheless, the "proofs" that evolution is not the work of an intelligent designer are equally fatuous.

Evolution is a credible scientific theory; intelligent design is really a matter of faith for discussion by philosophers and theologians. They both have a place for study in a college/high school curriculum, but ID is not really science and doesn't belong there.

I agree. I haven't said anything other than Evolution isn't as "airtight" as many believe and ID needs to publish reproducible science if they are expecting to be included in the debate seriously. Right now ID only has the ability to point out the flaws in Evolution, but YT will counter that that has all been debunked...which is correct according to what he believes. Me, I obviously don't adhere to evolution as being infallible quite so much.

Like I have said, the field of bioinformatics is going to be the field the ID group makes any headway, if any. Won't be able to prove God, but might be able to show design features in the DNA.

[SeattleGriz]

I sincerely doubt that anyone could employ the scientific method and prove that evolution is the product of an intelligent designer. Nonetheless, the "proofs" that evolution is not the work of an intelligent designer are equally fatuous.

Evolution is a credible scientific theory; intelligent design is really a matter of faith for discussion by philosophers and theologians. They both have a place for study in a college/high school curriculum, but ID is not really science and doesn't belong there.

The proofs that the Christian designer is a complete fuck up are many and sound.

This is exactly the Junk DNA argument is speak of. Atheists have been saying for years all the useless DNA was proof that God couldn't have created man because God wouldn't put junk in the DNA. In fact it was supposed to prove evolution was the mode as how else would all the useless DNA get there except for picking up useless sequences of DNA as we evolved from a common ancestor. Well, as they now know, the term Junk DNA was incorrect. Pretty much all the DNA has a function so there is very little wasted DNA.

YT and I have gone round and round on this, and I think he is too young to know this is what they used to teach in biochem back in the 90's. Atheists shot their big mouths off, something you would know very well, and now that the science has proven they were wrong, they want to redefine the definition so they don't look so bad.

[JoltinJoe]

The proofs that the Christian designer is a complete **** up are many and sound.

This is exactly the Junk DNA argument is speak of. Atheists have been saying for years all the useless DNA was proof that God couldn't have created man because God wouldn't put junk in the DNA. In fact it was supposed to prove evolution was the mode as how else would all the useless DNA get there except for picking up useless sequences of DNA as we evolved from a common ancestor. Well, as they now know, the term Junk DNA was incorrect. Pretty much all the DNA has a function so there is very little wasted DNA.

YT and I have gone round and round on this, and I think he is too young to know this is what they used to teach in biochem back in the 90's. Atheists shot their big mouths off, something you would know very well, and now that the science has proven they were wrong, they want to redefine the definition so they don't look so bad.

YT is out of line.

[SeattleGriz]

This is exactly the Junk DNA argument is speak of. Atheists have been saying for years all the useless DNA was proof that God couldn't have created man because God wouldn't put junk in the DNA. In fact it was supposed to prove evolution was the mode as how else would all the useless DNA get there except for picking up useless sequences of DNA as we evolved from a common ancestor. Well, as they now know, the term Junk DNA was incorrect. Pretty much all the DNA has a function so there is very little wasted DNA.

YT and I have gone round and round on this, and I think he is too young to know this is what they used to teach in biochem back in the 90's. Atheists shot their big mouths off, something you would know very well, and now that the science has proven they were wrong, they want to redefine the definition so they don't look so bad.

YT is out of line.

Meh, he is passionate and stubborn, just like me.

Here is a big reason why I have been saying evolution is needing rework. I have been following epigenetics for a couple years now. Interesting article - read the whole thing please. I didn't want to quote the whole page.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/ ... enes-wrong" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yet epigenetics suggests this isn't the whole story. If what happens to you during your lifetime – living in a stress-inducing henhouse, say, or overeating in northern Sweden – can affect how your genes express themselves in future generations, the absolutely simple version of natural selection begins to look questionable. Rather than genes simply "offering up" a random smorgasbord of traits in each new generation, which then either prove suited or unsuited to the environment, it seems that the environment plays a role in creating those traits in future generations, if only in a short-term and reversible way. You begin to feel slightly sorry for the much-mocked pre-Darwinian zoologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, whose own version of evolution held, most famously, that giraffes have long necks because their ancestors were "obliged to browse on the leaves of trees and to make constant efforts to reach them". As a matter of natural history, he probably wasn't right about how giraffes' necks came to be so long. But Lamarck was scorned for a much more general apparent mistake: the idea that lifestyle might be able to influence heredity. "Today," notes David Shenk, "any high school student knows that genes are passed on unchanged from parent to child, and to the next generation and the next. Lifestyle cannot alter heredity. Except now it turns out that it can . . ."

Epigenetics is the most vivid reason why the popular understanding of evolution might need revising, but it's not the only one. We've learned that huge proportions of the human genome consist of viruses, or virus-like materials, raising the notion that they got there through infection – meaning that natural selection acts not just on random mutations, but on new stuff that's introduced from elsewhere. Relatedly, there is growing evidence, at the level of microbes, of genes being transferred not just vertically, from ancestors to parents to offspring, but also horizontally, between organisms. The researchers Carl Woese and Nigel Goldenfield conclude that, on average, a bacterium may have obtained 10% of its genes from other organisms in its environment.

To an outsider, this is mind-blowing: since most of the history of life on earth has been the history of micro-organisms, the evidence for horizontal transfer suggests that a mainly Darwinian account of evolution may be only the latest version, applicable to the most recent, much more complex forms of life. Perhaps, before that, most evolution was based on horizontal exchange. Which gives rise to a compelling philosophical puzzle: if a genome is what defines an organism, yet those organisms can swap genes freely, what does it even mean to draw a clear line between one organism and another? "It's natural to wonder," Goldenfield told New Scientist recently, "if the very concept of an organism in isolation is still valid at this level." In natural selection, we all know, the fittest win out over their rivals. But what if you can't establish clear boundaries between rivals in the first place?

[youngterrier]

This is exactly the Junk DNA argument is speak of. Atheists have been saying for years all the useless DNA was proof that God couldn't have created man because God wouldn't put junk in the DNA. In fact it was supposed to prove evolution was the mode as how else would all the useless DNA get there except for picking up useless sequences of DNA as we evolved from a common ancestor. Well, as they now know, the term Junk DNA was incorrect. Pretty much all the DNA has a function so there is very little wasted DNA.

YT and I have gone round and round on this, and I think he is too young to know this is what they used to teach in biochem back in the 90's. Atheists shot their big mouths off, something you would know very well, and now that the science has proven they were wrong, they want to redefine the definition so they don't look so bad.

YT is out of line.

to jj-oh please. To griz- you don't even understand what junk DNA is, as you have displayed over anf over again. ID is not science. It's claims about the "flaws" of evolution don't disprove evolution, but rather point out what biologists already know in terms of certain aspects of the theory. It's god of the gaps at its best.

[youngterrier]

Again, if you think that any biologist thinks that evolutionary theory as it stands can explain 100% of everything in biology, you prove your naivety. We don't know everything. But what is established as part of evolutionary theory will not likely be overturned any time soon. The answers to our questions are most certainly not intelligent design. There is no debate here

[D1B]

The proofs that the Christian designer is a complete **** up are many and sound.

Yes.

He created you, for example.

You defend pedophiles and support a crime sydicate that rapes children and discriminates against people.

[Ibanez]

WHy aren't we discussing aliens?

[Grizalltheway]

WHy aren't we discussing aliens?

I worship cthulhu, and I would advise the rest of you to do the same.