Creationists: Here's your chance

[The_Evelyonian]

Respond if you like, JB. I'm finished with this thread.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Ah..
So a quick short lived shallow "victory" is good enough for you?

Absolutely! And eat dessert first...ya never know when your time is up.

 

[Jollybear]

Evelyonian

I have patience, JB. It's simply that 55 pages of you repeating the same arguments over and over is beginning to wear my patience just a little thin.

Well no wonder I am repeating them because you either shrug them off or say they are not worth addressing. You have not answered a lot of what I said, so yea, I am going to repeat it. And if you say it’s not worth addressing, I ask you why, even that you have not answered. So it’s not you that should have your patience wearing thin, if anyone should have that, it should be me. But I am trying to be more than fair here and exercise compassion and patience. You know if I was to debate a flat earther, as crazy and pathetic as I think that belief is, I would not tell the person “well your belief is just nonsense, so it’s not worth addressing” I would actually break his belief apart with an argument, no matter how foolish his/her belief is. Because apparently it’s not foolish to that person who believes it, right? It’s all about helping the other person and not just being on an ego trip.

I'm going to try a new style with you and, hopefully, we'll get somewhere.

Hopefully, yes.

Space, light,

Ok, so the black and blue are space and light. Very well, thanks for clarifying that.

Both the blue and white are light, they're just on different parts of the spectrum.

Ok

The light in the center is a galaxy. The four points of light surrounding the galaxy are actually produced by a single quasar. The light "bends" around the galaxy due to the galaxy's gravitational field, creating the illusion of four separate lights.

Ok, I see the space, I see the blue light, the white light and the four sections of light, but where is the gravity now? I don’t “SEE” the gravity. So if I don’t “see” gravity how is it “tangible” evidence that you have?

Look, I'm sure that you take matters of religion very seriously. I don't. I see no reason to. God, to me, is nothing more than the figment of someone's imagination, just like the FSM, teapot, and unicorn. You may think that it's a dangerous gamble for me to ignore your god. I don't see it that way.

Why do you keep using this argument without answering my argument against it? Of course I am referring to the FSM, teapot and unicorn. I made two arguments against that mockery argument, why do you refuse to respond to that, yet like to keep using this argument?

Secondly, you don’t “KNOW” if my God is a figment of the imagination. So therefore you are making a gamble, and a dangerous one at that. Again, if I am right and you’re wrong, you’re in trouble, if your right and I am wrong, I wasted a commitment.

Look up "Playing Chess with pigeons"

I would rather not; could you just tell me what you meant?

As a reminder, here is what you said “and then flies back to its own flock to declare victory.”

If I told you that a little invisible, intangible elf who lives on my left shoulder told me that there was no god, would you see that as a rational argument? Would you see that as something worth even trying to debate or would you simply dismiss it as the nonsense that it is?

The thing is though, your words here are just made up to appear as nonsense. What I said was not something I was making up to make it appear as nonsense, so therefore it is WORTH addressing.

Secondly, it has a logical argument behind it, what I said.

Thirdly if you said a elf did speak to you and you were SERIOUS, then I would then take what you say SERIOUSLY, and attempt to address it. If you were just saying it as a mockery, I would be really ticked, being that I am taking this discussion seriously.

That's all I've been doing here. I've tried to respond to the things worth responding to and dismissed the nonsense as nonsense.

Your elf and my God do not have the same comparison, your comparing apples with oranges.

And once again, by just dismissing my argument as nonsense, is NOT MAKING or BUILDING an argument yourself. Make an argument. Dismantle my case. Otherwise you’re not really debating.

 

[Jollybear]

If light pierces darkness then why is there light rather than darkness?

Your comparing apples and oranges, stick to the case we are talking about.

Your question is set up wrong. You presuppose that something exists and then simply ask why it's there instead of nothing at all.

What’s wrong with the question? IF YOU ASSUME something came from NOTHING, then why is there something rather than nothing?

I think "How can something come from nothing?" might work better?

You got to be kidding me right? This is what I am asking, this is what I meant, just because I said it differently then you does not make any difference. Instead of picking at how I asked the question, could you just answer the question? Please? How can something come from nothing? Let’s hear this answer. If you say something comes from nothing just because it does. Then I will ask, why then is there something rather than nothing? Can you answer anything? If you’re going to cite a reference to support yourself and dampen my first cause argument, then account for the question by answering it.

Okay, let's assume for the moment that there was an actual trigger event (first cause). Why must that cause have been intelligent?

Because of “INFORMATION” and “COMPLEXITY” and because it is more plausible out of all the other views on the table because a mind would KNOW that eternity needs to be broken out of in order to BEGIN something, while static energy would not. Static energy could not break the cycle of eternity. Only intelligence can do that. And it would take an awful lot of intelligence to do such a feat. The first cause also cannot be “NOTHING” because from nothing, nothing comes. And the first cause cannot be mindless energy because again, it would take an eternal amount of time for all events to happen.


That’s why. Now if you respond to this, could you make an “argument” against my why?

Okay, let me address this "Cycle of Eternity" real quick.

A "cycle of eternity" is a contradiction in terms. A cycle, by definition, has a beginning and an ending point. Otherwise how could we judge where the cycle started anew? Eternity, on the other hand, has no beginning and no ending. Therefore, It isn't cyclical.

Cycle: an interval during which a recurring sequence of events occurs.

Eternity: time without end.

If eternity cannot end, it cannot be cyclical. There is no "Cycle of Eternity".

Forget about the word “cycle” who cares about that, I was not even thinking about defining the word cycle, for the sake of this discussion, I will throw that word away. Eternity has to be broken OUT of. There , I said “eternity has to be broken out of” instead of saying “the cycle of eternity has to be broken”. Basically I was defining cycle as eternal because it’s a circle, it keeps going round and round and never stops. Debate and make arguments against someone’s case based on how they use the word, otherwise your just nit picking at nothing and building straw men arguments. Again, who cares about the word “cycle”. I don’t care about that word. Could you answer the question on HOW could eternal mindless energy break OUT of eternity in order to BEGIN something? Again you’re just dancing around, did you watch the bugs bunny video?

Macro-evolution observed in the laboratory | Digital Bits Skeptic

These are bad examples because the moths are STILL moths, the bacteria are STILL bacteria, the grapefruit is STILL grapefruit and the E Coli are STILL E Coli.

This is not macro evolution, this is micro evolution because the organism is not gone from bacteria to lets say a bird, or a lizard, or the grape has not gone from that to a banana or a bug.

Show me something to where it changes into something TOTALLY different then I will doubt my belief.

At best these are only examples of micro evolution that you gave, nothing more than that.

Something that is infinite has no limits. You already stated that god has limits. Therefore, he is finite.

You misunderstood my point or you’re deliberately dancing around it. When I say God is infinite, I MEAN God is infinitely spacious and infinitely existent, that is having no beginning in his existence. THAT is what I mean by infinite. So, based on what I MEAN, can you address what I said?

 

[Jollybear]

Boredom mostly

Wow, you do this because you’re bored? I was hoping for a better answer then that. But I thank you none the less for your honesty. I don’t do this because I am bored, I do this to learn, to understand better the best arguments and questions to ask, and I do it because I take these issues seriously, they are the most important issues in our life. Again, I think you need to have more “concern” and not approach this with just “boredom”. I think maybe that answers the question to why you dismiss or ignore some of my questions/arguments because you’re not approaching this in a serious manner but rather a bored manner.

I am going to request something from you, can you at least FORCE yourself or exercise a seriousness as you approach this debate with me? I tend to like talking to people better who take the issues more seriously.

Because I don't feel that concern is warranted

Watch this, I am going to show you how your inconsistent. With your WORDS you claim you “don’t know” and that you take the “I don’t know” position on this issue. But with your PRACTICE or ACTIONS you act like you KNOW I am wrong, therefore show no concern. So which is it, you KNOW I am wrong, or you DON’T know I am wrong? If you KNOW, then how do you know? And if you don’t know, why do you then not show concern?

Can you take this question “seriously”?

This is why I hate academic scenarios. I can't plan for every eventuality.

I am not saying to make a plan, I am saying IF this happened to you that God put a mark on you, when would you start to realize, or how far would this have to go before you realize “God did it?”

Another reason for you to go on ignore.

No, it’s another reason for you to address the argument. I had said “I mean how far will atheists go before they realize that “this natural explanation” thing is just a display of having a CLOSED mind.”

If you assume there is no explanation except a “natural” NONE intelligent one, and you LIMIT yourself ONLY to that realm, then you’re having a closed mind. Why not rather seek the ACTUAL explanation, that means it COULD be natural, OR a higher transcendent intelligence. But why limit yourself ONLY to a natural explanation, why not seek the ACTUAL explanation? That displays an OPEN mind to seek the actual.

You responding to this just by saying “another reason for you to go on ignore” is really another reason for me to put YOU on ignore because you once again have not made an argument, but I am more gracious then that and I won’t put you on ignore, I won’t give you what you deserve.

There's no difference. If we could observe and explain something supernatural then it would no longer be supernatural.

Your right, I agree, and I also say it is NOT supernatural right NOW, it is the natural that we don’t yet understand fully, and so we call it supernatural. For instance, when God does a miracle, let’s say it is opening the red sea, is that supernatural? No, that is natural, because it is God’s hand holding back the waters, or God suspending a law for a little while. So it’s natural, not magical. If the waters did that by itself even though the laws did not change, that would not be supernatural nor natural, that would be magical and it would never happen, it is inconceivable. Just because I can conceive of it by saying it in this post does not mean it could ever happen, it just means one can think of the thought.

So let me re ask what I originally said, but I’ll put it slightly different “Isn’t science the quest for “TRUTH” or is it just a quest to FIND ONLY a MATERIALISTIC NONE intelligence explanation? What is it all about, finding a MATERIALISTIC NONE intelligence explanation, or finding THE ACTUAL explanation?”

So yea, there is a difference. One shows an open mind, the other does not.

Pot, meet kettle.

Pot meet kettle? What are you trying to say? I said to limit yourself to a none intelligent materialistic explanation is an obvious display of showing a closed mind.

What does that have to do with a pot and a kettle?

Oh yes, those who reject the obvious evidence. The evidence that is so obvious that you've been unable to post even a shred of it.

Yes, the evidence for God is just as OBVIOUS as the evidence for gravity, but both of these evidences are NOT TANGIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yet you accept gravity but not God. You reject God even though the evidence for him is the SAME KIND of evidence for gravity, but you accept gravity, WHY IS THAT?!!!

So yes, I have presented “SHREDS” of this evidence for God, yes I have. And you have not presented not a shred of “TANGIBLE” evidence for gravity, HAVE YOU? No you haven’t.

So why do you accept gravity, but not God? Looks like “cherry picking” what evidence you like to accept and not accept, even though the evidences are of the same kind (none tangible). And don’t come back and say that picture you showed me is tangible evidence for gravity because it’s not. I did not “SEE” gravity. Point to me which part in that picture SHOWS gravity? Not shows any EFFECTS, but shows ACTUAL gravity?

Me: What evidence?

God: the same kind of evidence that I also gave for gravity, that kind and philosophical plausibility and methods on how to experience me.

 

[Jollybear]

or

Me: Oh, so instead you're going to torture me for eternity just because my faith couldn't overcome my reason. You gave me reason and now you will condemn me for using it, is that it?

God: That’s right, I will punish you in hell because you perverted the reason I gave you by cherry picking to believe in the none tangible evidence for gravity, yet won’t believe the none tangible evidence for my existence. So why do you say you can believe in gravity, yet still claim to be reasonable but when it comes to me you reject me but still claim to be reasonable?
That shows an inconsistency by this cherry picking when the evidence is of the same kind.

How do they know that they weren't hallucinating? Trust me, when you understand how the brain works, you discover that personal experience is a very weak form of evidence.

How do I know you’re speaking to me right now? You see your question is meaningless. I gauss I could say because of how the brain works, you’re not really speaking to me? That’s foolish. They know they had a real experience with God because it was real to them, it was not a dream, a vision, or any of the sort, it was real, that is how they know. Just as real as any other everyday life experience.

Plus this thing with the brain, that you assumed. You told me if I understand how the brain works. Ok, so apparently you understand how it works, so let’s hear from you how the brain works and how it will make those experiences be hallucinations?

Except that gravity does have tangible evidence for it's existence.

No it doesn’t. Answer my question about that picture which I asked above.

Wrong. That is exactly what it is. I believe that the idea of a god is extremely implausible. For all intents and purposes, I know it. My faith cannot overcome that factor. I cannot choose to believe an implausibility.

For one, you don’t KNOW the idea of God is wrong. Secondly, you CAN MAKE yourself go against knowledge. You just CHOOSE it. It’s called free will.

Also do you think something from nothing is more plausible then God making something?

Oh, so just saying it makes it so. Hmm, "I believe in god." ......... didn't work.

No, you’re TWISTING what I said. I did not say “what you say makes it SO” I said “you can CHOOSE what to believe to be so”. You have free will. Yes you do. If you don’t think so, then make a good argument against free will.

You contradicted yourself.

"there I just said it. But my belief is not as powerful as my knowledge, for I KNOW I am not from mars."

"But I am just trying to show that one can choose whatever they want despite the evidence or knowledge."

No, I did not contradict myself. Your wrong. I was saying my knowledge is more powerful then my belief, but I can CHOOSE to suppress my knowledge by exercising belief. But in my case I choose NOT to do that, things I know, I will not suppress, things I don’t know but I think are plausible, I will choose to believe. But I can also choose if I so wanted to, I can choose to suppress knowledge, if I happen to do that, it would likely be a volitional thing, that is to say, I don’t like the knowledge, I am not comfortable with it, so I deny it. I could choose that if I wanted to.

Certainly makes talking it on blind faith a good deal more difficult.

No, your incorrect there. Just because something in the bible is DISPROVED in ONE area, does not mean it is disproved in ALL areas. And some areas, if not a lot, can be PROVEN or confirmed to be true by archeology and geography. So my point is that even if the bible was disproven in one area (which it’s not) that would not make believing in the rest BLIND FAITH, since some other areas could be PROVEN.

Try again.

God's motivations are irrelevant. His actions are what counts.

WRONG! Motivations EXIST, every human has motivations, they exist. God is an intelligence and he has motivations and purposes. Every court system takes into account the MOTIVES of the actions of an individual. If it was ALL about actions in a court system, imagine what that would look like? That would be INSANE. In other words if a person kills someone by accident, they go to jail ALL THE TIME, even though there MOTIVE was GOOD. That is what that would look like. No, motives are taken into account all the time. Motives are behind every action ever done. Me and you debating right now, we both have an agenda, we both have motives behind our debating here. Motives are in every action. And so you’re wrong, it’s not just about God’s “actions” it’s about his motives and purposes BEHIND those actions. Someone being killed by accident is a negative experience, but the person who did the kill may have good motives behind the action, the good motive is not a negative, it’s a positive.

So let me repeat what I said in light of what I just wrote here

“God does not care what you think of him or what he does, he is going to do it anyway because he is God and he is in charge. He is not affected by your feelings. He is very confident about himself and his wisdom. He is better and wiser than any of us are. So he don’t care what someone thinks to the contrary.

But, he DOES care that if you distrust him, this will cut you off from him and lead you to hell. He does care about that. So, what he wants is your trust, he cares about that. He cares for you, but not about your false ideas or false interpretations of what he does.

Actually it’s kind of similar to how I do things in every day life. I care about people, but I don’t care what they think about what I do or believe, I am going to do and believe what I want whether they like it or not.

You can’t please everybody, can you? So some people understand what God is doing and some don’t. You can’t please all, can you? So, he don’t. Simple”

But behind what he does, is GOOD motives. And so yes, motives are NOT (repeat NOT) irrelevant. Address the argument. Why is God wrong for not pleasing you when his intent is good and his wisdom is best in decision making that he does?

Make an argument and don’t just say “it’s irrelevant” that seems to be your most favorite tactic, not make arguments and just dismiss the ones given to you.

How? How is it there fault when they are following evidence that god put there?

Two reasons. First is because believing the earth is old is different than rejecting God’s existence and following his ways. Secondly, if they reject his creation story and the rest of his word because of the evidence of an old earth, that is there fault because THEY CHOICE to reject his word, he did not MAKE them choose that, so it’s THERE fault.

Yes, they chose to follow what they could actually see and prove rather than some ancient desert scribblings.

Can you not “SEE” “ancient desert scribbling”? yes. Also you can PROVE some of those “ancient desert scribbling” with LOTS of archeology and there artifacts and historic corroboration from comparing ancient texts with other ancient texts. Also you can prove it to yourself by experiencing the God these people wrote about.

 

[Jollybear]

It's a flawed analogy. You're building your cart with materials that were already there. God is supposed to have made the earth from nothing. Therefore its appearance of age is intentional, not simply a side-effect that couldn't be helped.

No your wrong again. God did not SUPPOSIDLY make the earth from NOTHING. He made the earth from within his own mind and then spoke it INTO being FROM his mind and from his word. So therefore God did not intentionally deceive. Plus, giving a maturity of appearance is not deception, it means he wanted trees to hurry up and be there to start the process off, instead of waiting for them to grow up for instance. So the first trees grown would probably have many tree rings, yet they were one day old. So, since God made it from within himself, and he is OLD, then he made the universe from that which was old, his mind and his word.

Plus again, even if he did make it from nothing, but gave it an appearance of age, STILL that would not be deception SINCE HE SAID HOW HE MADE IT.

So, he'll apologize that you misunderstood him, then torture you forever and ever. That's a real loving god right there.

Right, he will be sorry that you WILLFULLY misunderstood him. Then send you to hell, but the eternity part will depend on you and how you respond to this hell sentence.

So yes, God is loving still, but he is JUST and he WILL NOT throw away his justice for you or anyone else. He won’t even do it for those who get very close to him. Moses for example got very close to God, talked with him “face to face as a friend” yet God kept him out of the “promised land” and let him die in the desert because he did something wrong. God does not care who you are, if you break his laws, he is JUST and that always. He shows no favoritism at all. Of course the criminal does not LIKE jail, but the judge don’t care what he likes or dislikes, he is going to jail, that is justice. And it is not UNLOVING, it has nothing to do with love, it has everything to do with justice. Plus it would be UNLOVING if the judge lets the criminal go, for then he is free to harm other people.

Plus , if he is allowing you to stay alive right now, and if he created you, and if he came in the flesh to die for your sins against him to provide you with a plan of redemption, does that now show his love? But if you reject it, of course he is going to do justice. It’s like you want your cake and eat it to, you can’t have it that way.

No, it's just that what they could actually see and prove contradicted the ancient book, making it less plausible to them that the book was actually the words of a perfect god

First, they interpreted the data and concluded an old earth. Secondly even if the earth was old, they still choice to reject his word, thus taking a gamble = their fault. Plus, some people interpret his word as saying an old earth, so since they exist, they have no excuse to reject his word either way.

So, how to you decide which theories are right and which are wrong? I'm not using "you" in the rhetorical sense, I actually want to know how you, JB, make the call.

I make the call based on arguing the theories and looking at the data, as far as I can look at it that is, and then whatever side does not answer questions and build arguments, that side is wrong and the other side is right. You have not answered some stuff and you have not made arguments many times, thus you are wrong and I am right. That is how I know.

I scrutinize to the LAST DROP. And then if I am cornered COMPLETELY, then I will throw my belief away, but I will not throw it away lightly without a fight. If you are cornered completely and still don’t throw away your belief, that tells me your issue is volitional.

As I read one atheist say one time “I don’t believe there is a God, but even if there was one, I don’t WANT (volition) him butting into my life telling me what to do”.

That says it all right there.

Faith is a belief in something without evidence, or even in spite of it. That is not reasonable.

Based on your definition of faith here, you have faith that the God view is wrong and all the other views on origins are wrong, and you have faith that science will either eventually come to find another view, or that there is another view whether science finds it or not. You have FAITH that this is so DISPITE the evidence to the contrary.

You have faith that you’re not going to hell when you die. You have faith that gravity exists. You have faith that magnetism exists. You have faith that time exists. You have FAITH. Everyone has faith. Some faith is based on stupidity and some faith is based on reason and evidence, it’s called THEORY. The God view is a scientific theory, which is more plausible then the scientific theory that something came from nothing or that energy is eternal. A theory is based on evidence and reason. This is the kind of faith I am talking about, faith based on reason, not based in a vacuum.

Bull crap. The genetic code is much stronger evidence for macroevolution than any fossil. The evidence for evolution in the genetic code is more solid than the "evidence for dinosaur fossils".

Really, show me the evidence in the genetic code for macro evolution, I want DATA information as well and not just some article that ASSUMES there is evidence in the genetic code for macro evolution and then makes up this evidence and then argues a conclusion. I want the data. Skip right to the gold.

No, warning us ahead of time would have gone along the lines of,

"Just be careful, okay? I'm going to tell you right now that the earth looks old, but it isn't. I want you to know ahead of time so there's no confusion. I made it look old."

However, the bible doesn't contain this kind of warning. It simply says that the earth was created 6000 years ago but says nothing about any appearance of age.

True the bible does not contain the warning in that style, but it does not have to. It says how God did it. We can choose to believe him or not. If we choose not to, and we are wrong, it’s our fault.

So in an INDIRECT way, yes God gave a warning. Plus I am not arguing a young earth I am arguing a designed earth.

 

[Jollybear]

So, why make the earth look older than it really is? What purpose does it serve?

First off, you assume it LOOKS old. Secondly, even if it is old, here is the purpose it would serve, to JUMP START creation. Sort of like the concept “chicken or egg” first? How does the process get JUMP STARTED? Well obviously by the CHICKEN first. The chicken looks old, the egg looks young. Same with the universe, God jump starts it.

Because, if the dating methods are imperfect then it begs the question as to why they agree with such maddening consistency. The odds against all of the dating methods being universally flawed in such a way that they all point to an old earth are astronomical.

No, the dating methods themselves, the actual machines they use and the actual data itself is NOT flawed or bad. What is bad is the assumptions ATTACHED to these dating methods. It assumes God did not jump start creation.

So the odds of the assumptions being wrong? That is high. And if not high, it is equal to the assumptions against your assumptions.

Plus, this does not deal with the fact of the earth showing design. I am not debating a young earth, I am debating for a designed earth.

So, we have a book that says the earth is 6000 years old and a planet that is (or at least appears to be) 4.5 billion years old. Why trust the book?

Why trust your assumptions attached to dating methods?

Plus, the age of the earth has nothing to do with the DESIGN of the earth. How do you account for it’s design?

There's no evidence for a young earth outside of the book!

Wrong, plus I am not debating a young earth, I am trying to get you to account for the design of the earth.

I'll watch it when I have the time.

Did you watch the video yet of the debate? If not, will you? If so, can you tell me what you think of it? Tell me two things in particular. 1 did peter do a good job? If so, did Stephen do a good job? If not, where did he go wrong? Also if peter did a bad job, point where and what he could have done better? So comment on their debate skill and any problems you saw with the position of Stephen and what he said.

Video is here [youtube]tz-kqgyMNAk[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz-kqgyMNAk Watch all of them

Plus, if your “bored” you should have lots of time to watch this, right?

They are most fit by adaptation.

Your still begging the question, is adaptation there by intelligence or by chance?

I never called anything you said laughable. I called the article you posted laughable. That was not a knock at you, just the article.

It makes no difference; I believe the point of the article, so therefore you are saying what I believe is laughable. Ok, fine, but tell me why it’s laughable? Either way you did not make an argument. Make one. This is a debate….right? At least I thought it was anyway.

You continue to give me reasons to put you on ignore.

So instead of address what I just said, you say this? Is that the best you got? Please if not for the audience reading in, at least for the sake of your case of your own sake, make arguments. Please

You can do better than this, if you can write as fast as you do, then you can surely do better than this.

There's a difference between a cell being programmed and it having an intelligence.
A cell can carry out the instructions that its genetic code has programmed into it, but it has no awareness of doing this. Awareness is dependent on higher intelligence and micro machines are (AFAIK) incapable of that level of intelligence.

I was not saying micro machines are AWARE, I was saying they were programmed with intelligence to do tasks. Like a computer has intelligence to do tasks, but it’s not aware. But it’s intelligence is based on the programming on higher intelligence (us). You said that a cell is programmed by the genetic code to do stuff. Ok, so who put the genetic code in there? Programming and codes and information comes from INTILLIGENCE. This is not an argument from ignorance but an argument from knowledge.

The same way it works with everything else, mutation and natural selection

Really? So basically what your telling me is that micro machines and DNA information came about by mutation (accident or chance) and natural selection (whether that is intelligence or chance, you have not answered yet). Do I got it right?

ad hom.

Apparently you don’t understand FULLY what ad hom means. For some odd reason you just like to hijack the word and fly it around like a stick. Here is what it means: if I attack your motive while not knowing your motive and take my attention of your arguments, that is ad hom. Also if I KNOW for a fact your motive or a character flaw about you and pick at that and get my attention off your arguments, that also is ad hom. If however I state as a fact that your NOT MAKING actual arguments to STICK my attention ON, that is not ad hom, that is asking you to get on the ball and start debating man. Do an actual job here and build arguments.

By me saying you’re not making arguments, that is not ad hom, that is a fact, you’re not building arguments.

Start building them.

Read this article on how to debate http://www.truthtree.com/debates.shtml

So you think that the recurrent laryngeal nerve is good design?

Here is your answer http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1742

Plus, again, even if it was bad design, still, bad design is STILL design, how do you account for the complexity?

 

[Jollybear]

It's a flawed analogy. If god created these things then we aren't dealing with a design that was sabotaged. We're dealing with something that was lousy from the get-go.

Apparently you did not listen to what I said.

“For instance computers are designed, but if someone designs a virus to damage the computer, does that now make the computer which is damaged no longer designed? Of course not. Damage, or malfunction of a design, or even a poor design is STILL design.”

So yes, the good design can be misunderstood and thought of as bad when it’s truly not as further investigation can tell in time. Also good design can be sabotaged and re designed in a bad way. Also it can become bad, by malfunction of a good design. You’re not dealing with these three points, and it’s because it’s impossible to deal with it.

And you can back this claim up, yes?

No, I can’t, it’s a philosophical argument and it works on a philosophical bases. However, even if we are LEFT with complexity, how do you account for that? By claiming something simple evolved into something complex? Can you “back that up”? no, you can’t. But on a philosophical level, does it work? No because it’s not as plausible as mine.

Based on the everyday experience and knowledge that we have, we know the hallmarks of design and we know that good design can malfunction, we also know that good design can be hijacked and turned bad, based on these things we do know, it is a GOOD philosophical and plausible argument I have made. And you really have no way of countering it accept to say and which you have said “can you back it up?” or PROVE IT 100%, to which no view can be proven 100%. Plus we also know that information comes from MINDS.

Plus again, I will say again, even if it was bad design, still bad design is STILL DESIGN, how do you account for it?

Insults are where I draw the line, JB. Have a nice life.

Really, so you hold to a double standard then? Because you insulted God by calling him an idiot, yet when you get insulted you draw the line, heh, interesting. That is a double standard. Now if you come back and say “well JB I did not call you an idiot, just your God” still, it’s a double standard you just promoted. Plus, since this is your standard, then God should draw the line and say to you on judgment day “have a nice life since you called me an idiot”? right? Shouldn’t he though, since this is the standard we should go by according to you? So based on this you are admitting you DESERVE him to punish you, right or wrong?

Secondly if you call my God an idiot, your also calling me an idiot because I am closely knit to him. It’s like calling my wife an idiot and expecting me not to come back by saying “perhaps it’s the other way around; maybe it’s YOU that’s the idiot”? Right? Come on now.

And I need to have a nice life? Lol

 

[Jollybear]

Painted_Wolf

But, how do you know that an intelligent mind created DNA? How do you know DNA is information, by your definition?
What about RNA? or enzymes or proteins....

I know DNA is put there by an intelligence because it is language, language always comes from intelligence. I know DNA is language because it has the hallmarks of language. I can’t speak or read French, but if I saw it written on paper, I would realize that intelligence was behind it because it has the hallmarks of language. Likewise so does DNA have this hallmark.

So now, how do you account for DNA having the hallmark of language and how did it come about?

What? this doesn't make any sense. Either I've looked at something or I haven't.

Are you telling me that all the DNA in the body, scientists looked at every single scroll of it? If that is what you’re telling me, present some proof of that, I want to see that.

didn't I just answer this? Yes, we have looked at the whole thing.

Sorry, I want proof of that, got any proof of it? I will apologize if you have proof of it.

This guy hasn't been active in the scientific community for over a decade... He is woefully out of date.

The quote was from 1999, are you saying that everything from 1999 is no good to quote from? If so, I am going to ask you what year you get every bit of your information at then.

Also I want proof of how you know he is not doing any more science for the past decade from 1999 to 2010? Do you got that? Where are you getting that information from?

Is long hair a dominant, ressessive, homozygotic or heterozygotic trait? what about short hair?
If it's AA vs. Aa... then yes, it can be retained in the genome very easily... even if it isn't, hair length is likely polygenetic and thus it is one of many genes that interact and would likely be retained as part of the hair length complex of genes.

Your examples are not good for explaining genetics... they are very misinformed and terribly oversimplified.

Personally I have no clue what AA and Aa means. Your speaking way over my head. I prefer talking in every day street language if possible. I have noticed that not just evolutionist websites talk like this, but also answers in genesis talks like this too, which drives me nuts to be quite honest, and I hate reading articles like that. I like every day simple street language. Seriously, even if I was a DIGH heart scientist and had a career being a scientist, I would STILL speak in street language, I HATE when people talk over people’s heads. You know if I want to learn words, I will read the dictionary, but I am not interested in reading the dictionary, I am interested in having a discussion right now.

Anyway, even if two short haired bears have sex and produce a child bear with short hair, even if that short hair bear has the gene for long hair, then it would only be a STORED gene, so anytime the child bear has a baby down the road that has long hair, it’s not EVOLUTION, it would just be gene selection for that given offspring in order to adapt.

After all, the offspring can only receive a trait based on the information it has, and not based on the information it don’t have.

I want to say one more thing about street language. Sometimes, NOT all the time, I think that in some cases scientists talk over peoples heads just to try to appear to be very smart before people, so that people will think “oh, he must be very smart, so he must surely know what he is talking about, so therefore we will believe in him naively”. But I don’t work like that. To me, the hallmark of a truly intelligent person IN MY EYES, is someone who can take VERY COMPLEX subjects and make a KID understand them very easy and does not try to APPEAR smart either. Anyway I know that was off topic, but I just wanted and needed to say this because it’s something that angers me SO much when I read mountains of articles on the net, it just drives me up the wall.

Maybe it’s just that I am more of a hands on learner, perhaps, but still a truly intelligent person to me can take complex issues and speak them in simple street language.

Remember that I am a lay person and you’re going to college, keep that in mind. And also I personally don’t even TRY to remember words I don’t like.

I remember someone at work, he got a degree in geology, and he even told me he was reading this book one time by a professor, and after reading a few pages of the book, he threw the book at the wall he was that ticked off at how the professor was just speaking way over peoples heads. I mean, why do some folk have to be speaking over the head for? What’s this all about, appearing smart and using that to get people to naively believe your message, or BEING smart and trying to get people to understand your message and then welcoming questions and challenges if the person chooses? What is it really about, it should be about the second one. It’s not about a intellectual image, it’s about intellectualism.

Anyway, I am not saying this to accuse you, I am saying this because this is how I like to talk, with simple street language and I wish others to do it too.

I'm trying to explain why your examples don't work.
DNA is nothing like the english (or any other) language. It doesn't have syntax, or words or letters. Even if you scramble the codons of a gene you will still get a gene product. Unless the mutation causes a stop codon or removes the start codon. In which case the gene is still there, but silent until another mutation happens to reactivate the gene.

Here is a quote that puts it like this

DNA Language​

Human Language​

Nucleotide ​

Character ​

Codon ​

Letter ​

Gene ​

Word ​

Operon ​

Sentence ​

Regulon ​

Paragraph ​

And that is what some mutations do! They add toast! :

Well, proof?

 

[Jollybear]

But you did... when you change the codon AGC to ACG you are telling the cell to make something totally new.

Stop using your bad analogies and look at what is really happening... it's not that hard to understand if you actually try.

Your TELLING the cell to make something new? TELLING (information, language?)?

Can you read and speak DNA language? If so, what does AGC and ACG mean in English? If the cell is going to make something new, that does not mean perse that it’s a whole different animal.

Minor details... the important parts, structure and function are not guesswork.

Skin color, hair and so on are unimportant in the overall picture.

Structure and function are not guesswork, do you have proof of that, if so, provide it please?

I'm saying that there are no diseases known that can account for what we see in the fossil reccord... your request is therefore IMHO an attempt to find a way to justify ignorning the evidence.

Give me proof that what we see in the fossil record cannot be accounted for by some mutation and disease?

With all due respect... I don't think you know the facts. You're insistance of confusing language and genetics just demonstrates the point.

Well I could say you don’t know the facts but are just acting like you do.

Prove I don’t know the facts. Show me how DNA is not language?

There isn't one, that I have ever heard. That is why I used GCA to actually demonstrate what can happen.

So you have no metaphor for DNA? That you have HEARD? Interesting, if you truly understand your subject that well, surely you can come up with a good metaphor YOURSELF without having to use someone elses that you have to “hear” from. Are you trying to uphold an IMAGE of intelligence or are you trying to BE intelligent? Being intelligent is being able to come up with one to help me understand your point better.

DNA transciption is not like a photocopier... it doesn't exactly replicate the origional.

There are several kinds of mutations...

Point mutations like going from GCA to GGC These tend to be pretty harmless more often than not.
Inversion mutations ... GCA to ACG or GAC
Duplication mutations ... GCA to GCCA or GGCA or GCAA or GCAGCA
Delition mutation... GCAAT to GCAT these mutatations usually go allong with insertion mutations where you get... AAGGC to AAGACT

Some of these happen when two halves of a chromosome line up and bits get swapped from one to another...
Translocation is when part of one chromosome is removed and ends up stuck to a totally different chromosome. These tend to be harmful far more often than not.

This kind of mutation isn't caused by changes in the DNA... it is caused by errors in development usually due to a chemical that interferes with genes called HOX.

Ok, so a mutation is when the photo copy gets SMUGED, and that is why it is not exact replicate of the original?

This is not the kind of mutation we are talking about....

Just to make sure we understand each other... a lot of people who haven't studied the subject think all mutations are the same.

wa:do

Ok, you gave me a picture of a bad mutation, give me one of a good mutation now?

actually there are some that are quite good at both... like the lungfish.

Ok, and perhaps they were designed that way from scratch. And are even though they are good at both, are they better at breathing on land then JUST a land breather alone?

OH yes... LOTS! They were the dominant freshwater fish for a while, until modern fish called Telosts appeared. The fossil record of the lobe-finned fish includes some fish like Tiktaalik that are so very close to being tetropods/amphibians that it's hard to say what group they belong to.

So if there is lots of these modern fish, land/water breathers in the fossil record, then they were here from scratch.

Well not until somepoint in the amphibian-reptile split. Some amphibians still have gills. Reptiles are totally dependant on air.

And how do you know the reptiles split from the emphibian?

There may be many groups of fish trying to get into the area... but each group will find different ways of solving the problem.... One group, the Lobe-finned fish developed lungs and very muscular fins to "crawl" through debris and over land.

So if the other fish get there to get that food, that means the other fish die out. Right?

They will eventually... but more likely one of the liniage will become the predators themselves. Prey species tend to keep one step ahead of the predators... otherwise they are all lunch.

So if the predators follow them, then they are lunch and won’t evolve, right?

Not really... what would the predators have to eat until the prey show up? Predators follow prey otherwise they starve.

Ok, so if the predators follow this new mutated fish, then they don’t evolve, right?

 

[Jollybear]

This is basic microevolution... added up over time.

And still that is inferred.

Abiogenesis seems reasonable given what we know about chemistry. RNA is capable of self replication under the right circumstances and producing RNA requires heating and cooling nucleotides so they can stick together. RNA can both code for proitens, act as an enzyme and act as a transcription/duplication mechanism... very useful for starting life off with the minimum number of parts. All it needs is a lippid shell for a cell wall and the right environment.

Many of the details need to be worked out, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the hypothesis that I can see. I think it's an interesting area of research.

What came first the RNA or the proteins?

 

[Tristesse]

And still that is inferred.



What came first the RNA or the proteins?

Jolly bear, I don't know why you are discussing evolution, seeing as how this thread was supposed to be about providing evidence for creationism. The theory of evolution should be irrelevant to providing evidence for creationism. Because, even if we found out tomorrow that the theory of evolution was wrong, that doesn't prove some other hypothesis right. You actually have to provide evidence for your case, and not simply "poke" holes in an existing theory. Because, you can "poke" holes in any theory, including the theory of gravity, or relativity. So, forget about evolution, whats the evidence for "creationism?"

 

[Jollybear]

I have been presenting it the whole time on this thread. In short.

Information, complexity is evidence for creation and design. Their.

 

[painted wolf]

I know DNA is put there by an intelligence because it is language, language always comes from intelligence. I know DNA is language because it has the hallmarks of language. I can’t speak or read French, but if I saw it written on paper, I would realize that intelligence was behind it because it has the hallmarks of language. Likewise so does DNA have this hallmark.

So now, how do you account for DNA having the hallmark of language and how did it come about?

It doesn't.... you already admit you don't understand DNA... how can you say it is a language?

Lets take this example you gave and I'll tell you why you are mistaken.

DNA Language
Human Language
Nucleotide
Character
Codon
Letter
Gene
Word
Operon
Sentence
Regulon
Paragraph ​

First off... characters and letters are the same thing.
A nuclotide is a single molecule that among other functions forms the basic backbone of RNA and DNA. They are made up of three parts: a sugar, a nitrogen nucleobase and a phosphate region.
There are four nucleotides (in DNA) that come on one of two shapes: Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Guanine (G), Cytosine (C)
In RNA the T is replaced by Uracil (U)

A always pairs with T (or U in RNA) and G always pairs with C. This alone makes the word analogy useless. But lets continue shall we.

Codons are three nucleotide sequences that attract particular amino acids when a cell is using DNA/RNA to make proteins. There are only twenty amino acids used by living things on Earth out of more than a hundred possible. An amino acid is not made by a codon and many codons are redundant... thus AAA and AAG both attract the amino acid Lysine while ACU, ACC, ACA and ACG all attract Theronine. One codon tells the ribosome (the cellular piece that assembles proteins) to start working: AUG while three tell it to stop: UAA, UGA and UAG.
Again, this is nothing like a letter or language.
This is also why changing a single nuclotide in a codon is such a big deal.... you can totally change the function of the product.

Amino acids build proteins and depending on the number and types of amino acids they will have different shapes and do different things under different circumstances. Proteins can also do different jobs depending on where and how they are produced. For example a single protein can be an enzyme or a hormone or a neurotransmitter depending on what cell it is made in and where it goes.

A gene is a set of codons that (sometimes) complete a protein. It starts with the "start codon" and ends with one of the "end" codons. Genes can have more than one function (making a hormone vs. a neurotransmitter) or they can be linked in such a way that one will always work at the same time as another. Others essentially do nothing because their start or stop codon has been disabled and are called non-coding regions or "junk DNA" (this is actually the bulk of our genome).
Unlike words.

An Operon is a group of genes that work together to make a messenger RNA (mRNA). (notice this doesn't make a protein like a single gene does, they both make different things unlike language) They require three regulating parts to function: Promoter, Operator, and Terminator. Without any of these three functioning the Operon itself (which can be one or more genes long) does not work.
Operons only function under the right conditions otherwise they are repressed by a protein that binds to them and prevents them from working. Mutations can also change how Operons work.
Unlike a Sentence.

nothing prevents this sentence from working without a period at the end or a capitol letter at the front or any other punctuation

For example: lac Operon helps E.coli to digest Lactose. Without lactose around the Operon is shut off by a protein that binds to the Operator (called the lactose repressor protein). When the cell has Lactose inside it the repressor protein loosens and lets go and an enzyme called RNA Polymerase binds to it and makes an mRNA that goes to another part of the cell to make something else.
Very very unlike language.

A Regulon is a scattered group of genes and or operons that are switched on under the same circumstances. Unlike a paragraph the don't have to be anywhere near one another, nor do they have to make anything together.
For your language analogy to work, I would have to scatter random words and sentences, that have nothing to do with each other... other than you need to find and read them at the same time... through this post. They wont make sense except they all switch on under the same circumstances.
Another flaw is that only bacteria have regulons. For your analogy to keep working, only newspapers would have paragraphs.

The real problem with your language analogy... is that it tricks you into thinking you understand something that you have admitted you don't.

It tricks you into making false conclusions and saying things that don't make sense to anyone who actually knows about the subject.

The language analogy is a lie... but you understand language so it makes you feel comfortable and helps you accept things that you can't tell are false.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Are you telling me that all the DNA in the body, scientists looked at every single scroll of it? If that is what you’re telling me, present some proof of that, I want to see that.

Yes, it's called the Human Genome project.
It took 13 years to assemble but now anyone can look at any (or all) of the human genetic sequence.
Human Genome Project Information

The quote was from 1999, are you saying that everything from 1999 is no good to quote from? If so, I am going to ask you what year you get every bit of your information at then.

I'm saying that it is out of date... a quote saying that "nothing" has happened or "something" is impossible...from ten years ago is silly. That is like quoting someone from the 1940's saying space flight is impossible and scientists can't figure it out. Worse really given the extreme speed that genetics has advanced. Relying on decades old science leaves you behind and uninformed.

Also I want proof of how you know he is not doing any more science for the past decade from 1999 to 2010? Do you got that? Where are you getting that information from?

I was unable to find any scientific papers with his name on them when doing a simple search on Google Scholar or any other scientific paper search engine. If you can find one, I'll gladly change my mind.

Personally I have no clue what AA and Aa means. Your speaking way over my head.

I know... but it's to demonstrate that you are talking as if you understand a subject that you do not. You are claiming things as facts that are flat out wrong.
I'm sorry, I know it's not intentional on your part... but it is frustrating on mine.

Anyway, even if two short haired bears have sex and produce a child bear with short hair, even if that short hair bear has the gene for long hair, then it would only be a STORED gene, so anytime the child bear has a baby down the road that has long hair, it’s not EVOLUTION, it would just be gene selection for that given offspring in order to adapt.

I never suggested it would be evolution... Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. (an allele is an expressed trait, like hair length)
Change in a single individual or even a single generation is not evolution. Evolution takes more than one generation and it happens at population levels not individual ones.

I really try not to talk over any ones head... but, you need to get these false analogies out of yours. This is a complex subject and you need to start with the basics before you try to grasp the details. You simply can not expect to understand how genes work without understanding what a gene is or does. It is not a word, not part of a sentence or anything like it.

I can explain genetics to you.. but not if you refuse to listen to what I have to say and really want to try to learn.

Otherwise I'm just wasting my time.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Can you read and speak DNA language? If so, what does AGC and ACG mean in English? If the cell is going to make something new, that does not mean perse that it’s a whole different animal.

It doesn't "mean" anything in English. It's not a word.
ACG is one of several groups of three molecules that attract the molecule Theronine: HO2CCH(NH2)CH(OH)CH3
Which as a descriptive cartoon looks like this:

It is not a word any more than the molecule water is.

Structure and function are not guesswork, do you have proof of that, if so, provide it please?

Fracture Modes in Human Teeth -- Lee et al. 88 (3): 224 -- Journal of Dental Research

Give me proof that what we see in the fossil record cannot be accounted for by some mutation and disease?

Like I said.... smokescreen... why don't you provide some evidence that disease or mutation did it? You are the one claiming it as a possibility... I won't waste my time on your fools errand showing you every disease known to man.

Ok, you gave me a picture of a bad mutation, give me one of a good mutation now?

You obviously chose to ignore everything I said about the picture....
but, an example of a good mutation is lactose tolerance in some populations of adult humans.

So if there is lots of these modern fish, land/water breathers in the fossil record, then they were here from scratch.

You weren't paying attention again. I'm starting to think I'm wasting my time.

And how do you know the reptiles split from the emphibian?

Genetics, molecular analysis, cladistics, phylogenetics the fossil record....

So if the other fish get there to get that food, that means the other fish die out. Right?

Not always... not all of them eat the same things or in the same part of the water column or at the same times... They compete, but only when they directly compete will one species likely die out from it.

So if the predators follow them, then they are lunch and won’t evolve, right?

Not necessarily... those that have traits that allow them to stay a step ahead of the predators will reproduce and change the traits that the population has... traits that are adaptive will spread and the species will evolve over time.
Remember, individuals do not evolve... populations do.

Ok, so if the predators follow this new mutated fish, then they don’t evolve, right?

Where do you get this idea?
The predators will adapt to the new environment and evolve to fit into it just like the prey did... otherwise they wouldn't be able to follow.

What came first the RNA or the proteins?

seeing as RNA is needed to make a protein, but proteins are not needed to make RNA... RNA.

wa:do

 

[Jollybear]

I'm still working on my response for you, stay tunned, it's comming.

 

[painted wolf]

If you think it will be more helpful... I can explain some basic genetics concepts in plain language before you try to dive right into the advanced stuff.

I gave you a lot to digest so take whatever time you need. Like I said, if you want to cover the introductory stuff first let me know.

wa:do

 

[Jollybear]

You can explain some basic stuff in plain language and i will read it as well as continue to build my response to what you already said. So, yes that is fine.