Evolution & Creationism are both Faith & Supernatural based

[Dan From Smithville]

Nature seems to love zombies:

Nature does seem to like insect zombies especially. Here in the eastern US, there is a species of soldier beetle, Chauliognathus pensylvanicus that is found on a lot of plants, but towards the Fall, I find them on goldenrod. You can see dead specimens posed near the top of the plants where they have bitten in with their mandibles and opened their elytra. They are the victim of some kind of fungal infection, but I am not sure which.

 

[Patriottechsan]

Guys I am back. I've been dealing with health issues which is not unusual. I read this article yesterday. I found it so very analogous to what we have discussed I had to post it if I can. Now if it works. The Title is called "The Mysterious Alien Table". It makes an analogy that I think is so appropriate to show Intelligent Design that were this to actually occur it would be immediately recognized. Yet it is right in front of everyone's faces and they deny it to no end. Which indicates the hypocrisy and extreme faith based belief of evolution in that it created itself by itself by natural means. So if this works. The article starts on the right side by the Title I have told you. It is a three page article. After reading the first page you have to hit the arrow on the right of the first page to read the next 2 pages to finish the article. If, which I have my doubts, you are honest with yourselves and me. You will readily see the correctness of the analogy and recognize the ID involved which is right in front of everyone's face yet only in this scenario would they actually admit it due to reasons other than science. Because you'd have to alter your worldview. Enjoy

Creation - 2019 Volume 41, Issue 3 - page38

 

[Patriottechsan]

Guys I am back. I've been dealing with health issues which is not unusual. I read this article yesterday. I found it so very analogous to what we have discussed I had to post it if I can. Now if it works. The Title is called "The Mysterious Alien Table". It makes an analogy that I think is so appropriate to show Intelligent Design that were this to actually occur it would be immediately recognized. Yet it is right in front of everyone's faces and they deny it to no end. Which indicates the hypocrisy and extreme faith based belief of evolution in that it created itself by itself by natural means. So if this works. The article starts on the right side by the Title I have told you. It is a three page article. After reading the first page you have to hit the arrow on the right of the first page to read the next 2 pages to finish the article. If, which I have my doubts, you are honest with yourselves and me. You will readily see the correctness of the analogy and recognize the ID involved which is right in front of everyone's face yet only in this scenario would they actually admit it due to reasons other than science. Because you'd have to alter your worldview. Enjoy

Creation - 2019 Volume 41, Issue 3 - page38

 

[Patriottechsan]

Guys I am back. I've been dealing with health issues which is not unusual. I read this article yesterday. I found it so very analogous to what we have discussed I had to post it if I can. Now if it works. The Title is called "The Mysterious Alien Table". It makes an analogy that I think is so appropriate to show Intelligent Design that were this to actually occur it would be immediately recognized. Yet it is right in front of everyone's faces and they deny it to no end. Which indicates the hypocrisy and extreme faith based belief of evolution in that it created itself by itself by natural means. So if this works. The article starts on the right side by the Title I have told you. It is a three page article. After reading the first page you have to hit the arrow on the right of the first page to read the next 2 pages to finish the article. If, which I have my doubts, you are honest with yourselves and me. You will readily see the correctness of the analogy and recognize the ID involved which is right in front of everyone's face yet only in this scenario would they actually admit it due to reasons other than science. Because you'd have to alter your worldview. Enjoy

Creation - 2019 Volume 41, Issue 3 - page38

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am wondering if there is really any point in responding to this. Since posts are not directed to anyone and the person making the posts does not consider anything anyone else posts, I favor no further response at this time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am wondering if there is really any point in responding to this. Since posts are not directed to anyone and the person making the posts does not consider anything anyone else posts, I favor no further response at this time.

And the link appears to be to a site that has no clue on how a website should be made. The site is quite a bit like creationism itself. Impressive to the ignorant, but no form or substance once investigated.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And the link appears to be to a site that has no clue on how a website should be made. The site is quite a bit like creationism itself. Impressive to the ignorant, but no form or substance once investigated.

I read the article. It was nothing. It is just a fantasy story and an emotional effort to win over people that have no clue about science. If this journal is supposed to be a credible attempt at science communication, it is a major failure.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And the link appears to be to a site that has no clue on how a website should be made. The site is quite a bit like creationism itself. Impressive to the ignorant, but no form or substance once investigated.

Instead of providing any reason to doubt the theory and science of evolution, the article just relied on derogatory jabs at anyone considering the validity of the science. Basically, it said that science does not know anything about this very new discovery, so that means it must be intelligent design. Pretty pitiful.

 

[John53]

I am wondering if there is really any point in responding to this. Since posts are not directed to anyone and the person making the posts does not consider anything anyone else posts, I favor no further response at this time.

No point, I don't believe he reads any posts other than his own.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So says your totally unbiased opinion. But in actuality. It's casting pearls when you start a conversation with people whose minds are so closed they won't even look at the other sides science

Science doesn't have "sides".

The fact that "your side" wishes you to believe their are, actually tells you all about that "side" that you need to know.

It's like that thing where you have "medical science" on the one hand and then "alternative medical science" on the other.

The "alternative" part, is that it isn't actual science.... But that it instead is untested, undemonstrated quackery.
The "other side's science" is the same. It's not actual science. If it were, then it wouldn't have a need for "sides".

It's like having a jury trial but only allowing oneself to hear the side you've predetermined to decide for regardless

No. It's like having a jury trial where it is well established what counts as evidence and what doesn't and having one side insist that its "evidence" be considered, while it isn't valid evidence.

Where one side demands "special treatment".

Sorry, no. Your ideas will have to face the exact same scrutiny as all other ideas. And if your ideas don't manage to stand tall, then blame your ideas instead of the process.

It's not a test of truth just bias agenda. That never determines truth nor ever will.

Exactly. And ironically, this is applicable to "your side" only. It's the ID crowd that has the biased agenda (which obviously is their a priori religious beliefs). The only "bias" on the side of science, is that it will only consider testable ideas that actually have valid evidence in support of them.

So sure, science is "biased"... biased towards those things that are actually supported by valid evidence.

Some day you will find yourself staring at the truth & have no excuse because it's plainly evident regardless of one's unwillingness to look at it. To look at FUNCTIONAL DESIGN & not acknowledge that always takes an Intelligent Designer is beyond common sense

1. to invoke "common sense" in this context, is to pretend that you know what is sensible in advance. In science, that never ends well.

2. function develops without any "designer" intervention in nature all the time

3. don't play this "designer" game and just say "god" - we all know what you truelly mean with the word "designer".

That's also why evolution is so Faith & Supernatural based.

Not based on faith: it has mountains of valid supportive evidence and gazibillions of testable predictions.

Not supernatural: it consists entirely out of natural processes

So, wrong on both accounts.

For it not to have occurred by an Intelligent Designer

aka your god of choice

takes more Faith & Supernatural than my common sense & reason does to acknowledge that plain truth.

Calling things "truth" doesn't magically make them truth.

I'll go to some other thread where hopefully they actually search for truth with open mind

"with open mind", meaning "where they're willing to accept religious propositions on faith".

& not close off everything except their biased agenda.

My irony meter just exploded......

Who here is arguing against established science, based on a priori dogmatic religious beliefs?

 

[Audie]

I am wondering if there is really any point in responding to this. Since posts are not directed to anyone and the person making the posts does not consider anything anyone else posts, I favor no further response at this time.

Ig City. It is a lovely place to send people of
said calibre.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Show me a real life example in history or present day where any functional Design ever occurred by Random trial & error w/o Intelligent Designer.

In an long running evolution experiment involving E. Coli, in one of the populations new metabilism pathways evolved which allowed the organism to consume and metabolise a substance that it could metabolise in the generations before that.

None of the other populations evolved this trait, nore had this trait.

Same question for a computer program.

Why would a computer program evolve?

See like DNA is except it repairs itself & reproduces itself & it's even 3D & can be read in. multiple directions. You can't do that either. Yet you claim you can't find any " rational" or "evidence".

Our inability to replate certain natural things, by no means implies or suggests that therefor gods were required to make it happen.

HUMONGOUS argument from ignorance right there.

Once you can prove to me real life situations like I've said then I'll believe macro evolution is possible.

In your own words, what is "macro evolution" and how is it different from "micro evolution"?

Micro is proven but it's a just so story that it builds up leading to macro.

Accumulation is anything but "just so".
It's very observable and very demonstrable.

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+..............+1 = very large number

Every generation introduces genetic changes and passes those on to off spring.
So every generation has changes from its parents, adds changes of its own and passes that on to children.

This results in continuous accumulation of small changes.

Why would that not result in big changes over time?

Also, are you aware that such "macro" evolution is extremely testable, since the above literally makes gazibillions of testable predictions concerning genetics, anatomy, the fossil record, geographic distribution of species, etc?

[qutoe]
Heck there have been so many experiments generating 50,000 & more of species directed by evolution & even with adaptations they never become anything besides what they originally are.[/quote]

Groovy. Another one who argues against evolution with bs arguments that mean the exact opposite of what he thinks it means.......................

Consider the bolded part....
If we would actually see off spring be "something else" then its ancestors (like cats evolving from dogs), then evolution would be refuted, debunked, falsified, proven in error.

This is how ridiculously wrong your understanding of evolution is.... The evidence you demand to see in order to accept evolution theory, is in reality the kind of evidence that would REFUTE it instead.

Isn't it ironic also, that such things are indeed what we never see happening?
The things we actually SEE happening, are the things that should be happening if evolution in fact occurs!



[qutoe]
Miller- Usery was is a proven fraud. Funnier is as they've tried to create life with all their INTELLIGENT DESIGN those evolution scientist still can't produce life in the perfect lab setting but yet can snuggly tell us how it was created in an in perfect atmosphere which can't produce it now!![/quote]

Haaa, now we move on into the implied bs argument that if an experiment would create life, then it would prove "intelligent design", because scientists set up the experiment to create life....

Ever heared what "controlled conditions" are?

Here's the exact "logic" of that argument in another context:
Ice requires a "designer" because humans create freezers to make ice.

Wake up out of your evolutionary programming & honestly look. But odds are you won't as you've continually proven. Your biased agenda & esp atheism is too important. Funny thing is. That doesn't determine truth.

I just finished putting my irony meter back together, but now it went into nuclear meltdown...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I ask computer programmers the same question. Can a computer program write itself by itself by Random trial & error w/o any Intelligence involved.

I'm a software engineer, but it doesn't take a software engineer to realise that software aren't biological creature that reproduce with genetic variation and which are engaged in a struggle for survival through competition with peers over limited resources. All these aspects need to be present for evolution to take place.

So to ask the question "why doesn't software evolve by itself", is to expose a SERIOUS and FUNDAMENTAL lack in understanding concerning evolution theory.

And I do mean SERIOUS and FUNDAMENTAL.

Frankly, it's embarassing.

Geez DNA/RNA is by far the most complex computer program ever written

DNA is a molecule that forms through chemistry and isn't something that is "written" any more then a water molecule or any other molecule.

What molecules are, is like 4rd grade chemistry dude.

They aren't texts or instruction books.
They are compounds made up of atoms that chemically interact under certain conditions.

Yet evolution wants me to believe it created itself

Would you say that an H2O molecule "creates itself" when 2 H atoms and one O atom meet up in the conditions where they bind into H2O?

See that's using common sense

"Common sense" based on false information and misunderstandings, will only result in false conclusions.

Think about this too. If scientist are so sure how life came to be.

Which scientist is "sure" how life came to be?
I'm not aware of any. The only people I have seen who expressed certainty in knowing how life came to be, are fundamentalist creationists.

As far as I know, the origins of life are pretty much still unknown at this point. Scientists are working on it, trying to figure it out. But I'm not aware of any one who claims to have solved it.

Apparantly you are?
Please, share with us all the names of the scientists you have in mind, so we can look it up ourselves.

Heck if anyone could ever produce that type lab experiment honestly & Repeat it.

Please, be serious....

I'ld be willing to bet a lot of money that when the day comes that abiogenesis researchers actually succeed in setting up an experiment that results in new life, people like you will be on the first row screaming about how it "proves" intelligent design because the scientists are the "intelligent designers" who created life, completely ignoring to concept of controlled conditions.

What, suddenly you're going to stop believing that your god created life and designed everything?
Please. If the evidence for evolution today isn't sufficient for you, there is no reason at all why such evidence would then be sufficient.



EDIT: fixed quote tags

 

[Patriottechsan]

Guys I am back. I've been dealing with health issues which is not unusual. I read this article yesterday. I found it so very analogous to what we have discussed I had to post it if I can. Now if it works. The Title is called "The Mysterious Alien Table". It makes an analogy that I think is so appropriate to show Intelligent Design that were this to actually occur it would be immediately recognized. Yet it is right in front of everyone's faces and they deny it to no end. Which indicates the hypocrisy and extreme faith based belief of evolution in that it created itself by itself by natural means. So if this works. The article starts on the right side by the Title I have told you. It is a three page article. After reading the first page you have to hit the arrow on the right of the first page to read the next 2 pages to finish the article. If, which I have my doubts, you are honest with yourselves and me. You will readily see the correctness of the analogy and recognize the ID involved which is right in front of everyone's face yet only in this scenario would they actually admit it due to reasons other than science. Because you'd have to alter your worldview. Enjoy

Creation - 2019 Volume 41, Issue 3 - page38

 

[Patriottechsan]

I tried to post the article on the thread about The Mysterious Alien Tablet. The reason I felt comfortable doing it was it had in it links to post on many social media sites with which to post the article. Sadly when I copied and pasted it. It copied another article and it posted multiple times both articles and pages out of order. When I erased all of that. Then it kept telling me it was too long to post despite I had erased the mess ups. I will try again here one page at a time. It is three pages. Hopefully it will work,. If not then I am not able to do it for some reason,

Page 40

!NÁ8&JMQORPA>BAECFFB4ÁIWNIçØüóÐÚꧡLQT\WPI* 3>[JüóÐÚꧡ! 5$8&JMQORPA>BAECFFB4ÁIWNIçØüóÐÚꧡLQT\W&óÐꧡ 3>[PI*$83>[CFFB4ÁIWNIçJüóÐPI*PI*LQT\WPI* 3>[ØüóPA>BAECF


Position 2

Position 1

Position 3set of characters (or symbols) had tobe read from left to right to obtain oneinstruction and then from right to leftto obtain another instruction. That is,each character string appeared to havetwo meanings.

A few weeks later, another professor,an expert in cryptology, came rushinginto the staffroom, his face flushed withexcitement. He had discovered that someparts of the same instruction manualcould be read using different languages.He later explained to a news reporter thatit was a bit like having a book whereyou began by reading in English to getthe first half of the story, and then youstarted again at the first page and readthe same words in French to get thesecond half of the story.

In addition, in one of the languages all
the words had just three letters. But, by
starting with different letters, completely
different sentences with different mean-
ings were obtained. In one section, the
basic text was as follows3:
By forming the three-letter words
starting at position 1, (diagram above)
the sentence’s message turned out to be
a specification for a fuel mixture. By
forming the words starting at position
2, it was an instruction for dealing with
a potentially damaging engine vibra-
tion. By forming the words starting at
position 3, a warning was spelled out
against running the engines too fast
before they had reached their optimum
operating temperature. Reading this
same set of characters backwards
provided information needed to reboot
the engine’s computer.

As the project director remarked,
there was an astonishing level of ‘data
compression’, where a lot of information
was packed into a short string of charac-
ters. One set of characters appeared to
contain up to 12 different instructions,
dependent on how it was read.

Six months later, there was another
remarkable discovery. Needing a quiet
place to work, one of the researchers
took the tablet into what appeared to
be the spaceship’s kitchen. When she
opened a document, she noticed that
some of the characters had been ‘greyed
out’ and were hardly visible:
Reading the black characters only,
she found a recipe for an item on a
lunch menu. The document seemed to
be ‘context dependent’, meaning that it
altered itself to provide the information
needed to perform specific tasks in a
particular place. This was confirmed
when the researcher took the
tablet into what appeared
to be a navigation office. At
once, the text changed so that
different characters became
greyed out. The resulting
readable text was later discov-
ered to be part of a procedure
for plotting a course through a
distant solar system.



Information systemsin biological cells

Our story might seem fantas-
tical to the reader, but there
are real-world parallels, and the human
genome is like this. 4 DNA can be read
forwards and backwards, and different
instructions can often overlap, even in
reverse. As with the alien language, in
many places in the genome, different
‘sentences’ are formed by starting with
different letters. Moreover, just as the
text displayed by the aliens’ tablet altered
automatically according to which room
it was in, so genes (DNA instructions)
are automatically switched on or off,
causing plants and animals to change
or function in different ways, enabling
them to adapt to different environments.

More than that, human genes arecomposed of sets of DNA ‘letters’divided into sections known as ‘introns’and ‘exons’. After the DNA is copied,the introns have to be removed and theremaining exons joined together (seefig. 1). Different exons are combined indifferent ways to produce many differentinstructions. These, in turn, are used toproduce different proteins at differenttimes, and the proteins produced varyfrom one cell type to another. In fact, thehuman genome has a massive ‘splicingand dicing’ system that ‘cuts and pastes’DNA, swapping exons around in a verycomplex way. 5 A single exon might beincluded in many different genes, someof which code for (specify the form of)proteins that have little similarity. Infruit flies (Drosophila) the same ‘gene’can be used to specify thousands ofdifferent proteins. 6

Also, the same set of letters can havedifferent meanings depending on which‘language’ is used to read it. A section of

LQT\WPI* 3>[JüóÐÚ

ꧡ! 5$8&JMQORPA>BAECFFB4ÁIWNIçØüóÐÚꧡLQT\WPI* 3>[J$8&óÐꧡ 3>[PI*$83>[CFFB4ÁIWNIçJüóÐPI*PI*LQT\WPI* 3>[ØüóPA>BAECF

Exons
Introns
Splicing

Fig. 1. To make a protein, DNA must first be copiedbefore it is ‘translated’ into the protein language.But before translation can happen, the introns mustbe removed. The remaining exons can be splicedtogether in many ways to produce differentinstructions and thereby code for different proteins.







.

​

 

[Patriottechsan]

Now that is weird it posted the second and third page not page one. Here is page one.

 

[John53]

He's gonna keep posting the same article over and over while ignoring any attempt to discuss it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

He's gonna keep posting the same article over and over while ignoring any attempt to discuss it.

It would seem so. I got the link to work from the first three posts. Not that it was worthwhile, but the link did work.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ig City. It is a lovely place to send people of
said calibre.

I tried, but I broke down and responded on the other thread he made. It was not enough to post that article repeatedly on this thread. He had to create an entirely new one to do it too.

 

[John53]

It would seem so. I got the link to work from the first three posts. Not that it was worthwhile, but the link did work.

Yeah it wasn't hard to work out even for this dumb heathen, I clicked on the next article link. Divine inspiration perhaps?