Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
He posts mostly in a drive by fashion. PRATT's and arguments from ignorance appear to be all that he has.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution & Creationism are both Faith & Supernatural based
- Thread starter Patriottechsan
- Start date
He is amazingly confused over the concept that he supports. He does not even understand it as it was defined by Behe.
If you remove the Golgi apparatus or the nuclear membrane or start and stop codons, you would not have living cells. No one denies that. It makes no sense to deny it. It is also not irreducible complexity, since IR would have to show that no other possible hereditary molecules exist that could be intermediate to nucleic acid or that nucleic acids could function under simpler conditions.
He is a destination thinker. He talks about tractors as if they were conceived and rendered in an instant and not the result of many human achievements that occurred over time.
His capacity to create straw men is fecund, but not very imaginative or innovative. The quantity far exceeds the quality.
Patriottechsan
Member
You really expect me to surrender my Intellect. To know that it took man's intelligence to make all these great science discoveries. Esp concerning about all the functional complex systems within our bodies. Even to point of being able to describe each step & what order they occur. It took man's incredible use of intelligence to find out all of that.
Yet I'm to believe Nature which has no actual brain that can reason, design, etc is so much smarter than mankind it creates everything w/o this brain that took. such a brain to discover.
Nothing in reality shows that's possible. I'm to believe it just because some people said so.
Listen I've. been told there. is ocean front property next to the snow ski lodge in the Sahara desert for sale. I hear it's a great deal. You buying. Why would they lie?
Yet I'm to believe Nature which has no actual brain that can reason, design, etc is so much smarter than mankind it creates everything w/o this brain that took. such a brain to discover.
Nothing in reality shows that's possible. I'm to believe it just because some people said so.
Listen I've. been told there. is ocean front property next to the snow ski lodge in the Sahara desert for sale. I hear it's a great deal. You buying. Why would they lie?
Who would have thought that clock porn would be a good model illustrating evolution. My only complaint is a technical issue about some of the text disappearing before I could finish reading it.
From all I have seen, you surrendered your intellect a long time ago and decided to go with unsupported belief as your reasons for denying scientific inquiry.
Why is this an issue in relation to the validity of a scientific theory. No one is arguing that humans have not evolved intelligence and used that intelligence in a rational, logical manner to observe and discover the world around them.
You made a lot of claims. It is YOUR mission to support those claims. What you choose to believe is your business and clearly not based on anything in evidence.
False statement. You are the one that is telling us to believe just because you said so.
If you have a valid argument with evidence showing us that the theories of evolution, natural selection and common ancestry have no evidence, you are encouraged to provide it. Continually stating assertions, wielding insults and applying logical fallacies is not evidence in support of your assertions.
Now you are back to insulting us, since you clearly have nothing that can support your mission. You are back to posting to no one. Of course, I did not expect you to step up. That seems like it would take more courage than you have expressed on here.
Perhaps you should buy some of that property and retire there.
Of course you are correct and this sums it up. I should have stuck with my initial assessment that dealing with him was tiresome and I should not expect anything more than he has provided. Scant as it has been.
Talking to him is like trying to get a straight answer out of 15 year old caught sneaking into the house after midnight.
Ummm... so what? Why is the fact that men have made discoveries evidence for or against evolution?
This sentence makes no sense. It's very poor use of the English language. Maybe if you fix the punctuation and reword it.
Up to you what you believe.
Learn what the function of a full stop is. It's to indicate the end of a sentence. "Listen I've." is not a complete sentence, neither is "been told there.". Your attempts to sound superior over us heathen evolutionists would be more effective if you used correct punctuation.
I have been at this too long, maybe. I think I am gaining some fluency in gibberish.
I have had difficulty following some of the sentence structure of his posts and have seen that others have mentioned that as well. He has gotten some valuable constructive comments and advice, but like all the valuable advice he receives, disregard seems to his default response operation.
I can't really say too much, I butcher the English language regularly but hopefully my posts are at least readable for the most part.
I had noticed anything that jumps to mind.
I am not too concerned with spelling and language issues in general, since errors can easily occur for anyone, even with an editing feature. But it is difficult to ignore consistent problems that strongly effect the fluency of a post and limit, obscure or eliminate comprehension by others. Patriottechsan has a persistent problem with this among other problems. Sometimes it can be a device driven problem, but I recall one recent post from him that stood out and made me wonder if more than one person was posting under the same name, since it was much clearer and free of all the usual errors. I also wondered if it indicated that the errors were contrived. It was puzzling in its inconsistency with all his previous and subsequent posts.
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
Believe it. Natural forces created humans. Cognition is ubiquitous in nature as an adaptive mechanism with homologous and analogous patterns using different neural pathways to achieve similar results. Clear relationships of genetic patterns among similar life with variation within any form of life. It is all there if you have the intelligence to understand it. It is hard for many people to understand the science behind what is known - just try reading most articles in genetics for instance. But it is possible to have the intelligence to understand how the natural forces are the creative force that gives us the intelligence to understand we were the product of natures creative power.
So is it UT or Texas tech or both?
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Cool strawman - nobody that accepts evolution would posit something so silly.
How did a fully-formed adult human male get created from dust?
See above - it is YOUR beliefs in which something complex is created from nothing (or from dust).
Does God have a brain? A human brain?
What does that even mean - not working until finished?
Cool - I guess that is why no creationist has even tried to explain how dust gets turned into bio-organic molecules...This is your mission impossible. Tape burns up after you've read it.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Creationist Jeff Tomkins wrote an article in which he claimed to have done a comparison of human and chimp DNA and found that they are really only 70% similar.
He used the BLASTN program to do this. He told the program to 'cut up' the DNA sequences into 100-base long fragments, then to only return hits that matched 90%* or better, and that there should be no gaps allowed. He also used a version of BLASTN that was known to have problems, but he used it anyway.
When this and the problem of the 'ungapped' issue were brought up to him, he denied it all and called people names, but refused to retract his paper. Using a non-buggy version of BLASTN and getting rid of the script Tomkins used produces sequence identity in the 90+% range.
What do you make of that?
Sounds like fraud to me.
Sounds cool - please show us all some examples of these "built in" changes/adaptations.
Here is a link to the Human Genome :
Human Genome Resources at NCBI - NCBI
I think we would settle for, say, 10 such examples?
Let us see how these odds were calculated - can you explain it to us?
Also, I was under the impression that if something had odds of 1 in 10^50, all it means that it is impossible to predict - can you show justification that such odds make something "impossible"?
If something with such odds occurs, does that falsify the entire premise of impossibility?
*or something like that - working from coffee-free memory
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Magic! Wow, that was easy. I can see why those that find thinking difficult are so attracted to creationism. Go ahead, ask me another one. I bet I can answer that too using creationism.
ecco
Veteran Member
Karl Benz, inventor of the first practical, modern automobile. Karl Benz gets the credit for inventing the automobile
Do you suppose that Karl Benz knew everything about automobiles when he invented the car?
When Benz built this...
...could he have envisioned this...
So, by your way of thinking, Benz was wrong. To paraphrase your statement...
Actually had Benz known what we know today about the complexity of the simplest car today. His theory wouldn't have gotten off the ground.
ecco
Veteran Member
You could.
You believed the people who told you god is real didn't you? I do realize that that probably occurred before you could read or write and while your brain was still young and impressionable. So, it's probably impossible for you to change now. But, it has happened.
ecco
Veteran Member
Mommy: Missy, did you get into the peanut butter jar?
Missy: Sparky the dog did it.
Mommy: Missy, did you get into the peanut butter jar?
Missy: Tommy did it.
Both of Missy's answers are more logical and cogent than anything Patriottechsan has posted.
Patriottechsan
Member
The Probability of Life | Evolution FAQ
This will be my last post because I can't help you see what you refuse to see. I posted this article from a pro evolution site and about how evolution explains it could "create" DNA etc.
I will comment on this part of it. It notes the odds. Not counting the impossibility of biogenesis which is a law of science stating that life CAN NOT come from NON LIFE. Which if you are honest and you are not always honest about evolution which you have proven on here. At some point in the evolutionary chain that is exactly what you have to "believe" on "faith" has to have happened despite the science law against it. Then you just claimed it happened and off you go. Ignoring conveniently what you cant ignore an honest scientific law. Which btw since you claim evolution is responsible for all that exists it means evolution creates laws it then breaks.
Nonetheless here is my comment on the above article. Even it admits the odds are 10 to 40th power which is very very low it admits but as you guys claim due to its small odds due to lifes existence basically had to have happened that once and then gone forward. Here is the MAJOR mistake. It then acts like after that the odds get better instead of actually getting worse. They actually get worse because see what takes such large odds has to happen too many times over and over again and again. Thus making the odds exponentially grow. It has to hit the 10 to 40th over and over consecutively again and again. Law of Probability makes it get bigger not smaller. It is like saying throwing winning a lotto with odds 10 to 40th power. then winning it again and again over and over as it evolves per each step. That makes it mathematically impossible. You won't admit it. You refuse to see the difference between "appears" designed and "functional design" which is MASSIVE!
A person could take a bunch of dominos and make a intricate design to look like a sophisticated design of something. Sure it shows ID. But when its not functional it doesn't matter as it can't do anything ie to help the creature live. But when it is FUNCTIONAL DESIGN it is so much more than "appears designed" because it actually works and functions like it has to for the creature etc to live and function.
I'm saddened you refuse to see what is so obvious.
Sadly one day you will find the truth even against your will and it may not be to your liking but it won't be because you were never told or had the chance to recognize the truth you just intentionally ignored it. Thankfully many of the people I work with that are highly educated and decorated and esteemed Dr. of so many fields of science. They were once like you but decided to open their minds and recognize the oh so obvious truth they had once chosen to ignore. I hope you join them someday!
This will be my last post because I can't help you see what you refuse to see. I posted this article from a pro evolution site and about how evolution explains it could "create" DNA etc.
I will comment on this part of it. It notes the odds. Not counting the impossibility of biogenesis which is a law of science stating that life CAN NOT come from NON LIFE. Which if you are honest and you are not always honest about evolution which you have proven on here. At some point in the evolutionary chain that is exactly what you have to "believe" on "faith" has to have happened despite the science law against it. Then you just claimed it happened and off you go. Ignoring conveniently what you cant ignore an honest scientific law. Which btw since you claim evolution is responsible for all that exists it means evolution creates laws it then breaks.
Nonetheless here is my comment on the above article. Even it admits the odds are 10 to 40th power which is very very low it admits but as you guys claim due to its small odds due to lifes existence basically had to have happened that once and then gone forward. Here is the MAJOR mistake. It then acts like after that the odds get better instead of actually getting worse. They actually get worse because see what takes such large odds has to happen too many times over and over again and again. Thus making the odds exponentially grow. It has to hit the 10 to 40th over and over consecutively again and again. Law of Probability makes it get bigger not smaller. It is like saying throwing winning a lotto with odds 10 to 40th power. then winning it again and again over and over as it evolves per each step. That makes it mathematically impossible. You won't admit it. You refuse to see the difference between "appears" designed and "functional design" which is MASSIVE!
A person could take a bunch of dominos and make a intricate design to look like a sophisticated design of something. Sure it shows ID. But when its not functional it doesn't matter as it can't do anything ie to help the creature live. But when it is FUNCTIONAL DESIGN it is so much more than "appears designed" because it actually works and functions like it has to for the creature etc to live and function.
I'm saddened you refuse to see what is so obvious.
Sadly one day you will find the truth even against your will and it may not be to your liking but it won't be because you were never told or had the chance to recognize the truth you just intentionally ignored it. Thankfully many of the people I work with that are highly educated and decorated and esteemed Dr. of so many fields of science. They were once like you but decided to open their minds and recognize the oh so obvious truth they had once chosen to ignore. I hope you join them someday!
So you're only here to preach not discuss.
It does appear so.
I consider it all a plus. I met a couple of new and interesting posters. We all had to wade through intellectual manure to do it, but that was nothing.