Pink flamingos prove Creationism.

[The Emperor of Mankind]

It is more failure of your subjectivity, that you don't muster up the motivation to understand things which prove your argumentation is nonsense.

Right... You make a bad analogy and it's Revoltingest's fault for not understanding it...

 

[Revoltingest]

It is more failure of your subjectivity, that you don't muster up the motivation to understand things which prove your argumentation is nonsense.

Is it really my ignorance which is the problem here?
You've justified your claims by invoking obviousness.
I've listed premises necessary for calculating the probability you claim.
That's far far more than you've done....although your ad hominems have been extensive.

 

[dust1n]

It's just a lot of nonsense. There is CATG, random mutation says that any of these bases can change into any other, and then there is random adding, and deleting and shifting. Then there is random recombination. There are a lot of bases, you get a very large number. Then there is the issue of what percentage provides for advantage. Then after you get the advantageous variant, there is still a probability of it not reproducing, or the location on the dna becoming corrupted again through random mutation. Anybody who looks at it can easily tell that it doesn't add up mathematically. And the mathematics that has been done about it substantiates this.

Actually, I can't tell by looking at it that it adds up mathematically, because your post is entirely devoid of mathematics and adding anything up.

Also, a giant database of known human mutations in the genome:

The Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD®) is a comprehensive collection of germline mutations in nuclear genes that underlie, or are associated with, human inherited disease. By June 2013, the database contained over 141,000 different lesions detected in over 5,700 different genes, with new mutation entries currently accumulating at a rate exceeding 10,000 per annum.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24077912

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Is it really my ignorance which is the problem here?
You've justified your claims by invoking obviousness.
I've listed premises necessary for calculating the probability you claim.
That's far far more than you've done....although your ad hominems have been extensive.

It's not your ignorance, it is your motivation, your fairness, your honesty, etc. I see it all the time, when doing science the evolutionists switch of subjectivity, thinking they only need objectivity for science. It is your lack of fairness which is why you magically do not understand about the probability of getting the Godfather part V by randomly burning pits in a dvd.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not your ignorance, it is your motivation, your fairness, your honesty, etc. I see it all the time, when doing science the evolutionists switch of subjectivity, thinking they only need objectivity for science. It is your lack of fairness which is why you magically do not understand about the probability of getting the Godfather part V by randomly burning pits in a dvd.

You see what you want.
Tis time to look beyond that.

 

[leibowde84]

Merely because you can't falsify something, does not make it not a claim. atheism being a prime example, or materialism. Both claims, not necessarily falsifiable. This was already explained in other threads however, it just changes with the topic /theism ,creationism, etc.

So, you are saying that atheism is not a claim? If so then I have no idea why you are only focusing on certain ''non claims''. hmmmmmmm

If you mean strong atheism, that is also an unfalsifiable claim. Ive stated that several times actually. Atheism, as in merely a lack of belief in God or god's, that is not a claim at all.

 

[leibowde84]

I wouldn't know about it, I am sure if you look closely there is also much higher level ordering, just as well as the individual organism is very ordered. But I was talking about individual organisms, they would have to look more chaotic for the individual organism not to be chosen as 1 whole.

This seems like it couldn't be true, so can you provide your reasoning for believing this?

 

[Desert Snake]

If you mean strong atheism, that is also an unfalsifiable claim. Ive stated that several times actually. Atheism, as in merely a lack of belief in God or god's, that is not a claim at all.

Agreed, however the counterpoint to theism is what you are calling strong atheism, specifically. merely lack of belief is not relevant in the context of claim or argument regarding theism, because the inference is that it leaves no more probability for atheism .ie strong atheism, than theism. This is why I use the practical definition of atheism in the first place, which is more of a posit, as opposed to merely a lack. This way we aren't continually asking what type of atheism is being referenced. anyways, another thread topic I think.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

This seems like it couldn't be true, so can you provide your reasoning for believing this?

Why couldn't it be true? It makes sense, the evidence supports it, organisms are chosen as a whole in a reasoned and informed way.

As before, all this vacuous evolutionist garbage.... Scientists should just be looking to convert the signal from the DNA system to a videosignal for a 3D simulation on a computer. Intelligent design theory says this should be possible. Then we can look inside the DNA world of an organism on a computerscreen.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You see what you want.
Tis time to look beyond that.

You are wrong about how to deal with subjectivity. One needs to only distinguish fact from opinion, not crush opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

....this vacuous evolutionist garbage.....

Such language doesn't help your case.
It bespeaks rage & derision instead of reason.
Tis best to address issues with civility & cogent argument.

You are wrong about how to deal with subjectivity. One needs to only distinguish fact from opinion, not crush opinion.

This is odd. You don't seem too friendly towards contrary opinions.
And you proffer your own as fact, but without evidence other than your own certainty.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Such language doesn't help your case.
It bespeaks rage & derision instead of reason.
Tis best to address issues with civility & cogent argument.

We can always wish for a better way of putting things, but it is effective in dismissing evolutionists who really aim for having 0 knowledge about how anything is chosen, and succeeding at it. It's not so bad to dismiss the points of view of people who are against knowledge about freedom, and against subjectivity.

 

[Revoltingest]

We can always wish for a better way of putting things, but it is effective in dismissing evolutionists who really aim for having 0 knowledge about how anything is chosen, and succeeding at it. It's not so bad to dismiss the points of view of people who are against knowledge about freedom, and against subjectivity.

Is your technique really effective?
It hasn't changed the minds of any here.
But it has increased rancor.
So this is not effective.
Perhaps it's rationalization for lobbing insults, eh?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Is your technique really effective?
It hasn't changed the minds of any here.
But it has increased rancor.
This is not effective.
So perhaps it's rationalization for lobbing insults?

Evolutionists are not open for their minds to be changed. Grinding down the evolutionist machine is being effective. Voicing the simple truths that freedom is real and relevant in the universe, and that evolutionists reject subjectivity, it throws a spanner in the evolutionist machine most definitely.

 

[Revoltingest]

Evolutionists are not open for their minds to be changed. Grinding down the evolutionist machine is being effective. Voicing the simple truths that freedom is real and relevant in the universe, and that evolutionists reject subjectivity, it throws a spanner in the evolutionist machine most definitely.

You might consider a different tactic if you really want to affect evolutionists.
Citing religion, personal criticism, & using sciency sound words while eschewing actual science is only earning their disrespect.
Try constructing an logical evidence based argument against the TOE.
It's worth a try.

 

[dust1n]

If the gene can be turned off and on, then in principle the gene can also be removed or added. If one can walk, then one can also run, or at least it would be very surprising if one weren't able to.

Ah, well, things are very different "in principle", than they are in actuality. A turtle can walk, but cannot run. A cripple can walk, but cannot run.

Either way, epigenetics does also refer to "genes" being removed from a strand of DNA, as well as logic gates that are mediated by chemicals, but it's not a process of reproduction or agency. I can literally think of no instance in which a gene can be "added" although it could probably happen. Viruses and bacteria have a lot more ease gaining new DNA from not reproductive means.

Either way, nothing about epigenetics contradicts evolution. Why scientists and biologists are the ones who found out epigenetics and study it's various forms as opposed to any creationist should be rather obvious. Creationism isn't a science, can't contribute any knowledge to anything, and can't help anyone with their diseases.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You might consider a different tactic if you really want to affect evolutionists.
Citing religion, personal criticism, & using sciency sound words while eschewing actual science is only earning their disrespect.
Try constructing an logical evidence based argument against the TOE.
It's worth a try.

And why would I want the respect of people who reject subjectivity? Any creationist who wants to get respect from evolution scientists, that is ridiculous. We want success in breaking down the evolutionist machine, and besides that advance creationism, the science about how things are chosen.

 

[Revoltingest]

And why would I want the respect of people who reject subjectivity? Any creationist who wants to get respect from evolution scientists, that is ridiculous. We want success in breaking down the evolutionist machine, and besides that advance creationism, the science about how things are chosen.

How well is that working for you?
The "machine" is still going strong, & getting stronger.

 

[dust1n]

As before, all this vacuous evolutionist garbage.... Scientists should just be looking to convert the signal from the DNA system to a videosignal for a 3D simulation on a computer. Intelligent design theory says this should be possible. Then we can look inside the DNA world of an organism on a computerscreen.

Wow, I do appreciate the good laugh. Let me know when you convert "the DNA system" to a video signal.

By the way, the entirety of the human gene has already been cataloged.


Also, the smallest known organism has already been completely modeled on a computer. Of course anything the model predicts would need to verified on the actual organism itself.

"The goal of this project was to develop the first detailed, "whole-cell" computational model of the entire life cycle of living organism, Mycoplasma genitalium. The model describes the dynamics of every molecule over the entire life cycle and accounts for the specific function of every annotated gene product.

We anticipate that whole-cell models will be critical for synthetic biology and personalized medicine. Please see the project website wholecell.org and the Downloads page to explore the whole-cell knowledge base and simulations and obtain the model code."

https://simtk.org/home/wholecell

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

How well is that working for you?
The "machine" is still going strong, & getting stronger.

It's working pretty well for me, thank you. I couldn't imagine how it is like to spend your time denying freedom is real and rejecting subjectivity. It's incredible, a reverse miracle.