Monday, January 28, 2013

Evolution is Getting Slammed Again in This Transcription Factor Research

This is Getting Ridiculous

New research on how certain transcription factors work together is causing major problems for the theory of evolution. Transcription factors are proteins that attach to DNA and turn genes on or off. These regulatory proteins have recently been promoted to star status by evolutionists because their expectation that evolution proceeds by creating new proteins has fallen short. Instead of creating new proteins, our modern-day Epicureanism is now supposed to have reprogrammed how existing proteins are used in a mind boggling circuitry of molecular regulators, of which transcription factors play a major role. As one evolutionist explained:

Although the number of protein coding genes has remained fairly constant throughout metazoan evolution, the number of regulatory DNA elements has increased dramatically.

With this move evolutionary theory not only becomes far more complex, it also takes on yet more serendipity. For instance, can you imagine that evolution created all those proteins which just happened to have set the stage for the higher life forms?

Likewise those DNA regions, where transcription factors bind, had to have evolved while the transcription factors themselves had to have evolved. And these separate evolutionary pathways not only had to result in the right kind of binding at the right place in the billion-nucleotide long genome, but said binding had to sometimes produce something useful. Simply put, those DNA regions and the transcription factors have special properties that evolution must have somehow accidentally created. In fact, as one evolutionist explained, evolution must have created these DNA regions “which may allow evolutionary adaptation to novel conditions.” In other words, evolution created special DNA regions so that evolution could then occur.

And the new research makes all of this even more improbable, if that were so possible. The research elucidates how different transcription factors work together. Specifically, not only are DNA regions and transcription factors finely tuned to work together, but transcription factors are finely tuned to work together. In this case, when one transcription factor binds to a second transcription factor, that second transcription factor is then able to bind to DNA. This occurs via a rather dramatic structural change in the second transcription factor—a very difficult and unlikely stunt.

It is a great piece of research on a very interesting system, and the result is yet more absurdity for evolutionary theory. For evolution’s random mutations must have hit upon dozens of different mutations that just happened to result in this coordinated action between the two transcription factors and the right DNA region. It is astronomically unlikely.

Evolutionists once argued that deep time solved all their problems. Now they argue that on top of all those eons of time, there is a near infinity of universes in which evolutionary experiments are constantly on-going. Yes evolution is unlikely, but given all those universes, you’re bound to get lucky sometime.

And how many universes would that be? That’s easy: as many as are required. Infinity raises philosophical problems, but so what. With each new finding, evolutionists can simply ratchet up the universe count to whatever is needed.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

131 comments:

  1. Religion drives science, and it matters.

    And a mediocre, boneheaded religion at that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More like a spineless religion- just sayin'

      Delete
  2. Cornelius, if life is designed, how do you explain babies that are born with two heads or other deformities, or disabling or terminal syndromes, disorders, or diseases? How do you explain harmful parasites, viruses, and bacteria that afflict and kill people, animals, plants, etc.? How do you explain babies that are born dead? How do you explain miscarriages?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The whole truth: Theodicy, the problem of reconciling a perfectly good God with evil, is not a scientific argument, but is a Theological concern. Why are you using theological concerns to try to establish the scientific legitimacy of Darwinism?

      The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning - Paul A. Nelson - Biology and Philosophy, 1996, Volume 11, Number 4, Pages 493-517
      Excerpt: Evolutionists have long contended that the organic world falls short of what one might expect from an omnipotent and benevolent creator. Yet many of the same scientists who argue theologically for evolution are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism, which maintains that theology has no place in science. Furthermore, the arguments themselves are problematical, employing concepts that cannot perform the work required of them, or resting on unsupported conjectures about suboptimality. Evolutionary theorists should reconsider both the arguments and the influence of Darwinian theological metaphysics on their understanding of evolution.
      http://www.springerlink.com/content/n3n5415037038134/?MUD=MP

      Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html

      The Descent of Darwin - Pastor Joe Boot - (The Theodicy of Darwinism) - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKJqk7xF4-g

      “The strength of materialism is that it obviates the problem of evil altogether. God need not be reconciled with evil, because neither exists. Therefore the problem of evil is no problem at all.,,, And of course since there is no evil, the materialist must, ironically, not use evil to justify atheism. The problem of evil presupposes the existence of an objective evil-the very thing the materialist seems to deny. The argument (from Theodicy) that led to materialism is exhausted just when it is needed most. In other words, the problem of evil is only generated by the prior claims that evil exists. One cannot then conclude, with Dawkins, that there is ‘no evil and no good’ in the universe.,,,
      The fact that evolution’s acceptance hinges on a theological position would, for many, be enough to expel it from science. But evolution’s reliance on metaphysics is not its worst failing. Evolution’s real problem is not its metaphysics but its denial of its metaphysics.,,,
      Cornelius Hunter – Darwin’s God – pg. 154 & 159
      http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-God-Evolution-Problem-Evil/dp/1587430118

      Delete
    2. The whole truth January 28, 2013 at 2:11 AM

      Cornelius, if life is designed, how do you explain babies that are born with two heads or other deformities, or disabling or terminal syndromes, disorders, or diseases? How do you explain harmful parasites, viruses, and bacteria that afflict and kill people, animals, plants, etc.? How do you explain babies that are born dead? How do you explain miscarriages?


      a) Not a very nice designer

      b) Not a very competent designer

      c) Both of the above.

      Delete
    3. D)Accumulated random effects on the original design

      Delete
    4. Did you say "random", joey? By "effects", do you mean mutations?

      And just to make sure that I'm not seeing things, did you use the word "Accumulated"?

      So, joey, will you explain how there are "random effects" that "Accumulated" if the original organisms were designed/programmed to pass on "directed" mutations/modifications?

      Is only the bad stuff random and the good stuff directed?

      Delete
    5. TWiT:
      So, joey, will you explain how there are "random effects" that "Accumulated"

      It's called entropy.

      Delete
    6. Do two headed babies have more "entropy" than one headed babies? Do miscarried (aborted) babies have more "entropy" than full term babies?

      Delete
    7. And add entropy to the long and growing list of things TWiT is ignorant of

      Delete
    8. Joe

      D)Accumulated random effects on the original design


      That would be a subset of B, I thought there are no random effects what with the algorithm and all? Or just bad effects are possible?

      Delete
    9. Sorry twt, didn't see your reply.

      Joe,
      If entropy is the problem why did the designer design it that way?

      Delete
    10. D)Accumulated random effects on the original design

      vel:
      That would be a subset of B

      Only in your little bitty mind- well and those of your ilk.

      I thought there are no random effects what with the algorithm and all?

      As if you ever had a thought in your life

      Delete
    11. vel:
      If entropy is the problem why did the designer design it that way?

      Why are asking me? That seems very childish.

      Delete
    12. Let's recap the Chubby Joke G position.

      All cells contain internal programming which directs mutations towards an end goal, except there isn't any end goal beyond survival. It produces results exactly like unguided evolution.

      This directed mutations program is responsible for all the variation from the "original designed organisms" through common descent. It works exactly like unguided evolution.

      This magic directed mutations program works by altering the laws of chemistry to get the mutations it wants, except it can't get around "entropy" which produces random WRT fitness mutations. It behaves exactly like unguided evolution.

      Damn Chubs, could you make yourself sound any more ridiculous and incoherent?

      Delete
    13. empty bluster boy:
      All cells contain internal programming which directs mutations towards an end goal, except there isn't any end goal beyond survival.

      Nope.

      It produces results exactly like unguided evolution.


      Nope. Unguided evolution cannot construct biological systems and subsystems.

      This directed mutations program is responsible for all the variation from the "original designed organisms" through common descent. It works exactly like unguided evolution.


      Nope, unguided evolution doesn't work.

      This magic directed mutations program works by altering the laws of chemistry to get the mutations it wants

      Manipulates- just as a chemist would/ could.

      except it can't get around "entropy" which produces random WRT fitness mutations.

      AGAIN only morons use "random wrt fitness" because it is meaningless. And thorton swears by it! LoL!

      Directed mutations could be random wrt to teh current fitness. The ToE needs the mutations to be random, as in chance/ happenstance events. and no one even knows how to determine that.

      It behaves exactly like unguided evolution.


      Nope

      Damn thorton, could you make yourself sound any more ridiculous and incoherent?


      Delete
    14. The whole truth,

      "Cornelius, if life is designed, how do you explain babies that are born with two heads or other deformities, or disabling or terminal syndromes, disorders, or diseases? How do you explain harmful parasites, viruses, and bacteria that afflict and kill people, animals, plants, etc.? How do you explain babies that are born dead? How do you explain miscarriages?"

      If you would bother to read that badly written, poorly translated book of 'fairy tales', you would know the answer.

      Delete
    15. The whole truth:

      Cornelius, if life is designed, how do you explain babies that are born with two heads or other deformities, or disabling or terminal syndromes, disorders, or diseases? How do you explain harmful parasites, viruses, and bacteria that afflict and kill people, animals, plants, etc.? How do you explain babies that are born dead? How do you explain miscarriages?

      Imagine if we all evolved from random events. Do you think you would view these things as bad? Another problem with your logic is you are deciding what God would and wouldn’t allow or do. These theological premises force your hand to evolution, a scientifically unlikely theory. Are you sure about your theology?

      Delete
    16. An important question. Yes, obviously life was designed. It is far too complex to randomly assemble. So why is there suffering? It is because the world was not designed to be permanent. A life with change requires death. Think of a garden. The harvest is beautiful, and each year is a fresh harvest; but this would not be possible if the same flowers lasted forever. So life is designed to be finite, and to exist within cycles of life and death. This to me shows a greater amount of design than a static creation. A design only an immortal being could create.

      Delete
    17. Peter Wadeck

      An important question. Yes, obviously life was designed.


      Yes, obviously the sun revolves around a stationary Earth - to a clueless five year old.

      It is far too complex to randomly assemble.

      Good thing then that only idiot Creationists think ToE posits that life randomly assembled.

      A life with change requires death.

      OK, but why did your omnipotent Big Guy makes so many of the deaths lingering and/or horribly painful? Why did he create harlequin babies? He must be a pretty sadistic monster.

      Delete
    18. empty bluster boy:
      Good thing then that only idiot Creationists think ToE posits that life randomly assembled.

      He didn't say anything about te ToE you moron loser. Not only tat but materialism posits life randomly assembled- what else is there for a materialist?

      Delete
    19. I asked:

      Cornelius, if life is designed, how do you explain babies that are born with two heads or other deformities, or disabling or terminal syndromes, disorders, or diseases? How do you explain harmful parasites, viruses, and bacteria that afflict and kill people, animals, plants, etc.? How do you explain babies that are born dead? How do you explain miscarriages?

      Cornelius responded:

      "Imagine if we all evolved from random events. Do you think you would view these things as bad?"

      What does how we all evolved have to do with viewing those things as good or "bad"?

      "Another problem with your logic is you are deciding what God would and wouldn’t allow or do."

      I asked you "how", not why, but since you and others have brought "God" into it, I'll ask you why it's okay for you to decide what "God" would and wouldn't allow or do, but not for me to decide it or question it?

      "These theological premises force your hand to evolution, a scientifically unlikely theory."

      Look at who's talking about theological premises.

      "Are you sure about your theology?"

      I'm sure that your fairy tale god doesn't exist and that none of the alleged gods that people have ever cooked up exist, and that the bible is a poorly written/translated/edited conglomeration of monstrous, mostly or completely impossible fairy tales, at least some of which are plagiarized.

      Tell me, do you believe that animals that mate near sticks will have striped offspring and that a person can live inside a fish for days? How about a talking serpent?

      Delete
    20. Well twiity, the next time you have sex with another species, do it near striped poles and tell us what happens.

      Delete
    21. How do you explain several thousand deaths of humans, every year, in air disasters? How do you explain tens of thousand deaths caused by automobile accidents, every year? Are existence of air crafts and automobiles result of evolution or design? How do you explain when mother gave birth to her child the flow of milk in her breast, starts, with in 70 hours. Is it a process of senseless and pitiless evolution or result of a designer's design? You fools do not know what science is? You just hate the idea of God.

      Delete
  3. as to:

    "Although the number of protein coding genes has remained fairly constant throughout metazoan evolution, the number of regulatory DNA elements has increased dramatically."

    This sure does sound a whole lot more like 'top down' design than it does 'bottom up' Darwinian tinkering to me.

    This following paper found Alternative Splicing ('top down' regulatory) patterns to be 'species specific':

    Evolution by Splicing - Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. - Ruth Williams - December 20, 2012
    Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,,
    A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species.
    On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,,
    http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F

    ,,,Alternative splicing,,, may contribute to species differences - December 21, 2012
    Excerpt: After analyzing vast amounts of genetic data, the researchers found that the same genes are expressed in the same tissue types, such as liver or heart, across mammalian species. However, alternative splicing patterns—which determine the segments of those genes included or excluded—vary from species to species.,,,
    The results from the alternative splicing pattern comparison were very different. Instead of clustering by tissue, the patterns clustered mostly by species. "Different tissues from the cow look more like the other cow tissues, in terms of splicing, than they do like the corresponding tissue in mouse or rat or rhesus," Burge says. Because splicing patterns are more specific to each species, it appears that splicing may contribute preferentially to differences between those species, Burge says,,,
    Excerpt of Abstract: To assess tissue-specific transcriptome variation across mammals, we sequenced complementary DNA from nine tissues from four mammals and one bird in biological triplicate, at unprecedented depth. We find that while tissue-specific gene expression programs are largely conserved, alternative splicing is well conserved in only a subset of tissues and is frequently lineage-specific. Thousands of previously unknown, lineage-specific, and conserved alternative exons were identified;
    http://phys.org/news/2012-12-evolution-alternative-splicing-rna-rewires.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In supplemental note, it is turning out, besides finding that "that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species", it is also found that the specific gene sets per species, though while roughly similar in total gene number (in the low tens of thousands per species), are turning out to be far more 'species specific' than we were originally led to believe:

      Genes from nowhere: Orphans with a surprising story - 16 January 2013 - Helen Pilcher
      Excerpt: When biologists began sequencing genomes they discovered up to a third of genes in each species seemed to have no parents or family of any kind. Nevertheless, some of these "orphan genes" are high achievers (are just as essential as 'old' genes),,,
      But where do they come from? With no obvious ancestry, it was as if these genes appeared out of nowhere, but that couldn't be true. Everyone assumed that as we learned more, we would discover what had happened to their families. But we haven't-quite the opposite, in fact.,,,
      The upshot is that the chances of random mutations turning a bit of junk DNA into a new gene seem infinitesmally small. As the French biologist Francois Jacob wrote 35 years ago, "the probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero".,,,
      Orphan genes have since been found in every genome sequenced to date, from mosquito to man, roundworm to rat, and their numbers are still growing.
      http://ccsb.dfci.harvard.edu/web/export/sites/default/ccsb/publications/papers/2013/All_alone_-_Helen_Pilcher_New_Scientist_Jan_2013.pdf

      Human Gene Count Tumbles Again - 2008
      Excerpt: Scientists on the hunt for typical genes — that is, the ones that encode proteins — have traditionally set their sights on so-called open reading frames, which are long stretches of 300 or more nucleotides, or “letters” of DNA, bookended by genetic start and stop signals.,,,, The researchers considered genes to be valid if and only if similar sequences could be found in other mammals – namely, mouse and dog. Applying this technique to nearly 22,000 genes in the Ensembl gene catalog, the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences.,,, the researchers compared the orphan sequences to the DNA of two primate cousins, chimpanzees and macaques. After careful genomic comparisons, the orphan genes were found to be true to their name — they were absent from both primate genomes.
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080113161406.htm

      From Jerry Coyne, More Table-Pounding, Hand-Waving - May 2012
      Excerpt: "More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren't found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps."
      Jerry Coyne - ardent and 'angry' neo-Darwinist - professor at the University of Chicago in the department of ecology and evolution for twenty years. He specializes in evolutionary genetics.
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/from_jerry_coyn060271.html

      An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome - Sept. 6, 2012
      Excerpt: Analysis,,, yielded 57 confidently identified unique peptide sequences in intergenic regions relative to GENCODE annotation. Taken together with evidence of pervasive genome transcription, these data indicate that additional protein-coding genes remain to be found.
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11247.html

      Delete
  4. Evolutionism cannot account for transcription factors.

    ReplyDelete
  5. TWiT strawman maker:
    Cornelius, if life is designed, how do you explain babies that are born with two heads or other deformities, or disabling or terminal syndromes, disorders, or diseases?

    Those babies were NOT designed. Only the original living organisms were designed. Every other living organisms descended with modification from them.

    How do you explain harmful parasites, viruses, and bacteria that afflict and kill people, animals, plants, etc.? How do you explain babies that are born dead? How do you explain miscarriages?

    Why are YOU using theological arguments?

    I say it is because you don't understand science.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe G January 28, 2013 at 3:52 AM

      [...]

      Those babies were NOT designed. Only the original living organisms were designed. Every other living organisms descended with modification from them.


      So the designer scattered its original designs around the planet, let them evolve and had no idea how it would all turn out?

      Not very omniscient of it.

      Why are YOU using theological arguments?

      He's not. He's just pointing out the obvious flaws in the Inteligent Design/Creationists theological argument.

      Delete
    2. Ian:
      So the designer scattered its original designs around the planet, let them evolve and had no idea how it would all turn out?

      Non-sequitur.

      Not very omniscient of it.

      Followed by a strawman.

      Why are YOU using theological arguments?

      He's not.

      Yes, he is.

      He's just pointing out the obvious flaws in the Inteligent Design/Creationists theological argument.

      Except ID doesn't have a theological argument. Your ignorance means nothing.

      Delete
    3. Actually, joey, Ian is right and you are wrong as usual.

      Hmm, so your argument is that "Those babies" with horrible diseases, deformities, or who are born dead, etc., were not designed and they and all people, animals, plants, etc., that are afflicted and killed by harmful parasites, viruses, and bacteria, accumulated random effects and the random effects were programmed into the original design to manifest themselves later so that people, "Those babies", plants, animals, etc., would horribly suffer and die, and sometimes be dead at birth. Oh, and miscarriages (abortions) are caused by accumulated random effects that were designed/programmed into the original organisms too. Does that about cover it, joey?

      Delete
    4. Chubby Joke G

      Those babies were NOT designed. Only the original living organisms were designed. Every other living organisms descended with modification from them.


      What were the original "designed" living organisms Chubs? How about a partial list since you seem to know all about them.

      When were they manufactured, and how?

      Did some old guy build a huge wooden boat and take pairs of them on-board to escape a ginormous Flood?

      Delete
    5. empty bluster boy:
      What were the original "designed" living organisms

      That is what science is for. Heck we still don't know what makes an organism what it is. But that is because your position has stifled science.

      Delete
    6. TWiT:
      Actually, joey, Ian is right and you are wrong as usual.

      Nope. Anyone with an IQ over 50 sees that you are trying to use theological arguments.

      And everyone knows that you are an ignorant lying coward who has to make stuff up to feel big.

      Delete
    7. LOL! Cowardly Creationist Chubby Joke G avoids another question.

      What a surprise.

      Delete
    8. LoL! Cowardly thorton thinks its belligerent ignorance means something.

      thorton, why is it that your position avoids all questions?

      Delete
    9. So you don't know what the original organisms were but you do know that they were designed by 'the designer', eh joey? And you expect science to figure out what the original organisms were even though you claim to know everything about everything and to have a state of the art science lab in your basement that would make scientists jealous. Why wait for science, joey? Get busy in your fancy lab and figure out what the original organisms were. Maybe you can enlist the help of your alien and ghost friends. Send them a message with your pyramid antenna. Yeah, that's the ticket.

      Delete
    10. TWiT:
      So you don't know what the original organisms were but you do know that they were designed by 'the designer', eh joey?

      That is what the evidence says. However you are totally ignorant so you don't know what evidence is.

      even though you claim to know everything about everything

      Only a lying buttlicker would say I made such a claim, and here you are.

      Delete
    11. Ian,
      Not very omniscient of it.

      Perhaps the problem is we don't know the goal. Design assumes that humans are the goal, maybe humans are just a by product. Maybe bacteria are the goal. The earth a giant Petri dish

      Seems equally possible

      Delete
    12. Will the inanity never end?

      Does every computer that Hewlett-Packard produces work properly?

      No.

      Does that make computers not designed?

      Of course not.

      The evolutionists retort:
      But we're not talking about H-P, we're talking about "the" Intelligent Designer.

      Maybe so, but, if so, we're no longer talking about "design" versus lack of "design"; we're now talking about whether the Intelligent Designer is "good" or not. IOW, you evolutionists have moved from scientific considerations to religious ones.

      Furthermore, who says that a Designer HAS TO design a "perfect" world? It is this very "expectation" you evolutionists continue to rail against; and it's ill-informed.

      Evolutionists: please keep religion out of your arguments.

      (Oh, but alas, then you wouldn't have any argument left at all.)

      Delete
    13. Chubby Joke G's latest favorite non-answer evations:

      non-sequitur

      strawman


      No question about ID is so benign that Joe G won't piddle his pants and run from it.

      Delete
    14. PaV Lino

      Will the inanity never end?


      Not as long as we have insane Creationists blithering about science.

      Hey PaV, for the record; what were the original designed organisms? You told us before they all lived during the Cambrian era 500+ million years ago. Is that still your story? Can you please list them? Joe G can't. He's off changing his soiled underwear again.

      Delete
    15. Shut up thorton- you are ignorant of science and ignorant of the theory of evolution.

      All you do is take viagra, cum here and wet your keyboard.

      Delete
    16. Lino ,
      Maybe so, but, if so, we're no longer talking about "design" versus lack of "design"; we're now talking about whether the Intelligent Designer is "good" or not. IOW, you evolutionists have moved from scientific considerations to religious ones.


      Not unless the designer is God, questioning the competency of the design is standard, it is not religious to question the competency of the pinto designer,are whether he was motivated by " good" intentions.

      Furthermore, who says that a Designer HAS TO design a "perfect" world? It is this very "expectation" you evolutionists continue to rail against; and it's ill-informed.

      Fair enough,any quality of the design cannot be considered when judging whether something is designed.

      Delete
    17. velikovsky:

      . . . it is not religious to question the competency of the pinto designer,are whether he was motivated by " good" intentions.

      Is it "scientific" to question the competency or the intentions of a designer? Isn't asking the question: should the atomic bomb have been built? a philosophical one rather than a scientific one?

      velikovsky:

      . . . any quality of the design cannot be considered when judging whether something is designed.

      I'm supposing you're being sarcastic here, having to suppose because the sentence isn't that well constructed; so, as to a UFO found atop a New Mexico hilltop, would you even bother asking is it "designed, or not"? Would you even ask the question: Why did they build it? Again, none of this is of any import as to whether or not something is designed.

      This is nothing more than the art of 'changing the subject'; and you evolutionists have refined it.

      Delete
    18. There's an evolutionist who keeps repeating himself about "kinds."

      I would kindly ask him to please explain the Cambrian Explosion via neo-Darwinism.

      Delete
    19. PaV

      I would kindly ask him to please explain the Cambrian Explosion via neo-Darwinism.


      What do you think needs explaining? When multi-cellularity first evolved there was a huge amount of ecological space open. Life diversified and explored these niches with a variety of body plans. The fossil record of that time is incomplete because fossilization of soft-bodied animals is extremely rare.

      I note you avoided answering the questions about your previous claims of the Cambrian animals being the original created "kinds".

      Why is that PaV? Not very sure of your position?

      Delete
    20. lino said:

      "Maybe so, but, if so, we're no longer talking about "design" versus lack of "design"; we're now talking about whether the Intelligent Designer is "good" or not. IOW, you evolutionists have moved from scientific considerations to religious ones.

      Since you sanctimonious IDiot-creationists claim that 'the designer' is the only 'grounding' for "good" morals and that 'the designer' is omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, and loving, it's about "good" AND perfect competency.

      "Furthermore, who says that a Designer HAS TO design a "perfect" world?"

      How could and why would an allegedly omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, loving 'designer' NOT design a "perfect" world and entire universe?

      "It is this very "expectation" you evolutionists continue to rail against; and it's ill-informed."

      It's 'informed' by the claims of you IDiot-creationists.

      "Evolutionists: please keep religion out of your arguments."

      You first.

      And why don't you liars just drop 'the designer' crap? Just be honest and say god or allah or yhwh or jesus or holy spirit or tyrannical jealous three headed genocidal maniac.

      Delete
    21. Lino,

      . it is not religious to question the competency of the pinto designer,are whether he was motivated by " good" intentions.

      Is it "scientific" to question the competency or the intentions of a designer? Isn't asking the question: should the atomic bomb have been built? a philosophical one rather than a scientific one


      Your claim was it was religious, not that is was philosophical. Unless those are equivalent to you. The intent or purpose of a design and therefore the designer, is open to scientific inquiry, as would the the competency/ effectiveness of the design to accomplish that purpose/ goal. Of equal importance to science would be how the designer implemented that design. Also of interest would be what can be inferred about the designer from the design.

      None of these things are considered by ID, is that correct?

      I'm supposing you're being sarcastic here,

      I would characterize more as taking your objection to an unintended logical conclusion, but that is me.


      having to suppose because the sentence isn't that well constructed;

      "Furthermore, who says that a Designer HAS TO design a "perfect" sentence? It is this very "expectation" you continue to rail against; and it's ill-informed,: please keep religion out of your arguments".

      as to a UFO found atop a New Mexico hilltop, would you even bother asking is it "designed, or not"? Would you even ask the question: Why did they build it?

      First,people who live in glass houses should not throw rocks. As to your hypothetical, first where exactly in New Mexico? Irrelevant but interesting.

      I assume you are talking a Roswell/ Day The Earth Stood Still object. The first glimpse,seeing the exterior I would conclude it was designed by humans, from knowledge of what humans are capable of constructing as well as being human myself, since I " concluded " it, I asked the question.
      Next question would be" what is that thing, what does it do?"So yes, that is close to "why did they build it?"

      Again, none of this is of any import as to whether or not something is designed

      It would be to science. Let's say I am Lino, I see the object, since I can say nothing about the designer's abilties / competencies ,the refined metal of the exterior must be of no import, I cannot know anything about what it is used for since that would speak to the goals/intent of the unknown designer, all I can do is calculate its dfcsi or csi or some ambiguous metric, conclude it is best explained by design and walk away.

      This is nothing more than the art of 'changing the subject'; and you evolutionists have refined it

      Same subject,just approached from a different angle. No offense but you seem a little emotional.

      Delete
    22. "Just-so" stories are not explanations; and they certainly are not neo-Darwinian.

      How many mutations are needed for macroevolution? How much time is needed for these mutations to arise?

      Any answers? Or just another "just-so" story?

      You can "huff and puff" all you want, but you're not going to blow the facts away: how many millions of years did that evolutionist pair say was needed for ONE mutations? Was it a hundred plus millions of years?

      Delete
    23. PaV Lino

      How many mutations are needed for macroevolution? How much time is needed for these mutations to arise?


      What's the deal with continuing to ask the incredibly stupid question "how many mutations did it take"? It seems to be the latest idiotic Creationist meme.

      We''ll never know the exact number short of building a time machine and examining every last animal in every last species for the last 500 million years, but not knowing the exact number doesn't matter one bit towards the evidence that the process happened. It's like claiming because we don't know the exact number of raindrops the Appalachian Mountains never eroded down.

      Creationist idiots. Jeez...

      Also keep in mind that it's not the total number but where the mutations occur that make a difference. In the evolution of bats for instance, just a few simple mutations to the Bmp2 protein expression and signalling resulted in the greatly elongated middle digit which produced the bats' wings.

      Development of bat flight: Morphologic and molecular evolution of bat wing digits

      how many millions of years did that evolutionist pair say was needed for ONE mutations? Was it a hundred plus millions of years?

      Pardon me for interrupting your massive ignorance display PaV but every human born has between 100-150 completely new unique mutations. Ones that didn't come from either parent. The germline new mutation rate is even higher for other species.

      So, what's the problem?

      Delete
    24. The problem is that you can't account for BMP2. And elongating fingers do NOT make wings.

      Delete
    25. lino asked:

      "How many mutations are needed for macroevolution? How much time is needed for these mutations to arise?

      Any answers? Or just another "just-so" story?"

      Since joey claims that ID is OK with evolution and promotes "directed" evolution, and since he portrays himself as an expert on "directed" and random mutations (and everything else), he should be able and eager to specifically answer your questions. How about it, joey?

      Delete
    26. Typical cpowardly response from the twit-meister.

      Delete
    27. joey said:

      "And elongating fingers do NOT make wings."

      So 'the designer' wasted its time and effort designing and creating those elongated fingers? I'm sure that Cornelius wants to ask you; Who are you to decide what 'the designer' would or wouldn't allow or do? Right, Cornelius?

      Delete
    28. So twitty is a moron who thinks its ignorance means something. Strange, but typical.

      Delete
    29. joey belched:

      "Typical cpowardly response from the twit-meister."

      Project much, joey?

      What's the matter, can't you answer those questions? You IDiots constantly expect and demand specific answers to questions like those but you run from the same questions when they're asked of you. Since you, joey, claim that ID is OK with evolution and since you promote "directed" evolution, you surely must have all of the specific answers about evolution. You wouldn't be OK with and promote something that you don't have all of the specific answers about, would you joey?

      Delete
    30. twitty-

      You don't answer anything- you just spew your ignorance as if it means something.

      Delete
  6. phil (ba77) and joey, I didn't say or argue anything about "God" or evil or theology or Darwinism. I ASKED Cornelius to explain the things I listed, if life is designed. Notice that I used the word "designed", not designer or "God". Your responses thoroughly demonstrate that you believe that anything regarding 'design' is theological, but then I already knew that you are god-allah pushers.

    joey asserted:

    "Those babies were NOT designed."

    Ah, just "Those" babies, eh joey? Normal, healthy babies are designed, eh?

    "Only the original living organisms were designed."

    As you, joey, would demand: Prove it.

    "Every other living organisms descended with modification from them."

    Naturally or with tinkering?

    By the way joey, what happened to "directed mutations"? If only the original organisms were designed then how can much later mutations be "directed"? And who or what is doing the much later modifications and exactly how are they done?

    What's the difference between ID and theistic evolution, joey and phil?

    Hey phil, do you agree with joey that "Those" babies were not designed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TWiT:
      I ASKED Cornelius to explain the things I listed, if life is designed.

      Right, yours is a theological argument.

      Your responses thoroughly demonstrate that you believe that anything regarding 'design' is theological,

      Only to a mental midget, like you.

      "Every other living organisms descended with modification from them."

      Naturally or with tinkering?

      By design with random effects thrown in.

      By the way joey, what happened to "directed mutations"?

      Nothing.

      If only the original organisms were designed then how can much later mutations be "directed"?

      By design, ie the internal programming.

      And who or what is doing the much later modifications and exactly how are they done?

      By the internal programming- just as Dawkins' weasel did.

      What's the difference between ID and theistic evolution

      If you have to ask... IOW thanks for proving that you are just an ignorant turd.

      Delete
    2. One thing you're good at, joey, is avoiding answering questions.

      Here's another question for you to avoid answering:

      How can there be anything "random" if the entire universe is designed? You've often claimed that anything resulting from an original design is a designed result. Your memory appears to be defective, along with many other things.

      Delete
    3. TWiT hypocrite:
      One thing you're good at, joey, is avoiding answering questions.

      Nice projection.

      How can there be anything "random" if the entire universe is designed?

      I have already told you. Just because you are to stupid to understand what I tell you doesn't mean that your weren't told.

      Cars are designed yet accidents and breakdowns still happen.

      Delete
    4. Cars are designed by people, joey, and people can't and don't design all of the conditions that cars encounter. People are also limited by costs, availability and quality of materials, current technology, human imperfections, and other constraints.

      People didn't and couldn't design the entire universe, as you claim was done by 'the designer'. And since you claim that anything resulting from an original design is a designed result, there can be no such thing as an "accident" or "breakdown" or "random effect" in a designed universe, according to your claim. Of course you can argue that breakdowns and random effects in the universe were originally designed but then you can't legitimately claim that there are "accidents".

      Delete
    5. Chubby Joke Gallien has his stock list of meaningless IDiot buzzword non-answers that he uses to avoid all questions.

      internal programming
      nature operating freely
      blind watchmaker
      genetic entropy
      directed mutations
      your side has no evidence
      accumulation of accidents
      what makes a fly a fly
      the evidence supports baraminology
      CSI, dFSCI, UPB, other IDiot alphabet soup

      ...and a few others. We should just number them for the sake of convenience.

      Joe G's basically a scientifically illiterate moron with severe mental and emotional issues. He won't discuss any technical details because he can't. He doesn't know any.

      He does know how to spew vulgar obscenities like nobody's business though.

      Joe Gallien is a cowardly, woefully ignorant blustering fool. He really is the perfect spokesman for ID-Creationism.

      Delete
    6. TWiT:
      Cars are designed by people,

      Yeah, so what? They are still designed.

      And since you claim that anything resulting from an original design is a designed result

      No, I have never made that claim. You are just a twisted liar.

      Ya see THAT is the problem. You have to make stuff up and then your demented mind thinks it's the troof.

      Delete
    7. I see thorton is still upset because I keep exposing its ignorance.

      Let's see thorton has been proven ignorant of science, ignorant of the theory of evolution and obsessed with fat people because he was molested by a fat guy and liked it.

      Delete
    8. Hey Chubs, still waiting for you to list those original "designed" living organisms, and tell us when and how they were manufactured.

      I say you're a cowards and won't do it because you can't. You made up the whole thing.

      Go ahead and prove me wrong

      Delete
    9. Hey blustering coward thorton, we are still waiting for you to post something other than your drooling ignorance, cowardly equivocations and feeble-minded attempts at a testable hypothesis.

      I say that you're a coward who couldn't defend evolutionism if its life depended on it.

      Go ahead and prove me wrong.

      Delete
    10. Chubs, you made the claim that the original living organisms were designed.

      Please lit them, and tell us how you determined what the originals were.

      Delete
    11. empty bluster boy:
      you made the claim that the original living organisms were designed

      And so did Charles Darwin and many others.

      Please lit them, and tell us how you determined what the originals were.

      That is what science is for. No one needs to have ALL the answers and your position doesn't have any.

      Delete
    12. Joke G with another cowardly evasion when questioned about his claims. It's all he knows.

      Delete
    13. LoL! Only a clueless and cowardly evoTARD would say that FACTS = an evasion, and here is thorton doing exactly that.

      Delete
    14. Me:

      "And since you claim that anything resulting from an original design is a designed result"

      joey:

      "No, I have never made that claim. You are just a twisted liar."

      Hmm, let's see who's right:

      joey claims that life was originally designed and that life was front-loaded with designed software (programming) that determines the continued existence and diversity of life.

      joey:

      "What we use in every day life is Intelligent Design Evolution- when someone DESIGNS a program to DESIGN a particular product and gives the program all the resources and code required to do so, then even if the solution is not pre-defined (just the goal), the program produces the product BY DESIGN." (my bold)

      http://skepticink.com/humesapprentice/2013/01/10/putting-evolution-to-use-in-the-everyday-world/

      joey claims that the front-loaded software (programming) in living things is a genetic algorithm, but he also recently denied (on this site) that 'intelligent design' requires "steps", and he can't make up his puny mind about what an algorithm does.

      joey:

      "ANY algorithm directs. That is what an algorithm does- solves a problem. It should also be noted that there has never been an algorithm written without an intelligent agent.

      http://telicthoughts.com/dwindling-credibility/

      And:

      "Joe G Says:
      November 22nd, 2005 at 7:09 pm

      Algorithm:

      a procedure for solving a mathematical problem (as of finding the greatest common divisor) in a finite number of steps that frequently involves repetition of an operation; broadly : a step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing some end especially by a computer

      doctor:
      Take a genetic algorithm and set the constraints randomly. You get "CSI"s that are optimized for the random constraints. Is it still directed? No.

      Get CSIs? From what?

      doctor:
      How about Earth's climate? It's stable, despite being perturbed by meteorite impacts and volcanic activity. It works much like a thermostat. There's an algorithm that keeps Earth's temperature stable (or at least, metastable) and qualitatively different from the climate of planets like Mars. Just like life, our climate produces regenerating structures (e.g., ice flows, conveyors, streams) that persist beyond the presence of specific constituent atoms. These structures "solve a problem" for the climate, to the extent that analogy makes any sense.

      Read The Privileged Planet and you will find out why the above was not done via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes." (my bold)

      http://telicthoughts.com/dwindling-credibility/

      Let's see, according to joey, algorithms solve problems (come up with solutions) even if the solution isn't predefined (just the goal) so of course the goal isn't the solution and the solution isn't the goal and solutions aren't goals and goals aren't solutions and the designed, front-loaded algorithms in living things don't solve solutions or goals or do solve solutions or goals or just goals or just solutions, and algorithms produce products (results) BY DESIGN or don't produce products (results) BY DESIGN, or, well, make up your puny mind, joey.

      joey also obviously believes that a designed algorithm determines the weather and the 'privilege' (extra special fine tuning) of the Earth. And since joey claims that the "entire universe" was originally designed, he's therefor claiming that the universe was front-loaded with a designed algorithm and that anything in and of the universe is a product (result/goal/solution) of the original design and algorithm BY DESIGN.

      See part two.

      Delete
    15. Part two.

      Want to see more? Here's a start:

      http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2012/07/genetic-algorithms-have-goal-natural.html

      http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP&f=14&t=6647&p=184177

      http://skepticink.com/humesapprentice/2013/01/10/putting-evolution-to-use-in-the-everyday-world/

      http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2011/12/torley-defense-of-irreducible.html

      http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2012/03/evidence-for-real-genetic-algorithms.html

      http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2011/11/genetic-evolutionary-algorithms-and-my.html

      http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=629

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-marine-mollusk-grinds-down-rock.html

      http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2012/04/genetic-algorithms-have-goal.html

      http://telicthoughts.com/dwindling-credibility/

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/01/evolution-is-getting-slammed-again-in.html#comment-form


      And hey joey, is 'the designer' a mathematician?

      Delete
    16. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    17. Oh and hey joey, before you say something as stupid and dishonest as you usually do, I want to remind you that you have been belligerently claiming for years that the solutions/products/results GAs come up with are goal directed AND are the solutions/products/results of design even if or though the solutions/products/results are not "pre-defined".

      Delete
    18. TWiT-

      you are nothing but an asshole liar:

      joey claims that life was originally designed and that life was front-loaded with designed software (programming) that determines the continued existence and diversity of life.

      Nope.

      joey also obviously believes that a designed algorithm determines the weather and the 'privilege' (extra special fine tuning) of the Earth.

      Nope- you are just a pathetic liar.

      Take a genetic algorithm and set the constraints randomly. You get "CSI"s that are optimized for the random constraints.

      Prove it, loser.

      Delete
    19. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    20. Take a genetic algorithm and set the constraints randomly. You get "CSI"s that are optimized for the random constraints.

      Prove it, loser.

      -------------

      Those are not my words, so I don't have to prove anything about them. They were part of a debate between you and someone with the user name "doctor". It's your words that matter, joey.

      Anyone who reads your comments at the links I provided and who looks into the other claims that you've made will see that my rendition of your claims is accurate. Unfortunately for you the internet preserves most or all of what you've puked up for the last several years.

      I encourage anyone who's interested to pursue joey's tardiferous vomit and you will see for yourself that he is a chronic liar and an incorrigible, malignant narcissist.

      Here's another place to see joey in action:

      http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=5109e4065f41ca46;act=ST;f=14;t=6647

      Delete
    21. No, twiity. You are a demented loser and your interpretaion is that of an ignorant moron.

      Delete
    22. twitty dumbass:
      claiming for years that the solutions/products/results GAs come up with are goal directed AND are the solutions/products/results of design even if or though the solutions/products/results are not "pre-defined".

      Yes moron. If someone designs a program to do something, and it does it, then it did so BY DESIGN, duh.

      If you are too stupid to grasp that simple fact then you are too stupid to discuss anything.

      Delete
    23. joey said:

      "If someone designs a program to do something, and it does it, then it did so BY DESIGN, duh."

      Further verification that my rendition of your claims is accurate. Thanks, joey.

      Delete
    24. "If someone designs a program to do something, and it does it, then it did so BY DESIGN, duh."

      twitty:
      Further verification that my rendition of your claims is accurate.

      Only a moron would think so, and here you are.

      However your response does prove that your are an ignorant ass. But we already knew that.

      Delete
    25. Your contradictory, dishonest words speak for themselves, joey.

      Oh, by the way, if "No one needs to have ALL the answers" then why do you IDiots expect and demand ALL the answers from scientists and others who accept evolution and the ToE?

      Delete
    26. LoL! I knew that you couldn't make your case. And your position can't answer anything. It doesn't have any answers.

      Look, moron, with the "theory" of evolution nothing cam be measured, nothing can be quantified- it ain't science.

      Delete
  7. Amazing that Cornelius Goebbels can keep identifying all these major "problems" for the theory of evolution, but somehow science keeps right on using ToE productively without the slightest hiccup.

    It's almost like the claims are nothing but pure Creationist lies and propaganda that have zero impact on the real scientific world.

    Wonder why that is?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one uses the theory of evolution for anything. It is useless.

      Delete
    2. No one? Useless? Those are blatant lies and you know it, joey.

      Delete
    3. Please, TRY to prove me wrong. Please show us one scientist who uses the premise that all of life's diversity arose from some unknown population(s) of prokaryotic-like organisms via accumulations of genetic accidents, ie blind and undirected processes.

      I know you can't- and that means you are the ignorant liar twitty

      Delete
    4. joey, you are certainly one of the most dense and dishonest organisms to have ever existed throughout the history of this planet. Many thousands of scientists worldwide 'use' the theory of evolution and you damn well know it. If they don't, then WHY are you SO upset and belligerent about the FACT that they DO? Well, joey?

      Oh, and I see that you still don't understand, and continue to poorly describe, the ToE.

      It's also pretty funny that one day you gripe about "accidents" but another day you claim that "accidents" happen even in a universe that was allegedly designed by an omnipotent, omniscient, perfect designer. Make up your puny mind, joey.

      Delete
    5. twitty:
      Many thousands of scientists worldwide 'use' the theory of evolution

      Liar. What do they use it for? Please be specific.

      Oh, and I see that you still don't understand, and continue to poorly describe, the ToE.

      Liar. I understand and describe it as the evolutionary biologists do. And it is very telling that you can only accuse me of something but cannot support that accusation.

      It's also pretty funny that one day you gripe about "accidents" but another day you claim that "accidents" happen even in a universe that was allegedly designed by an omnipotent, omniscient, perfect designer.

      So you do think that your igmnorance means something. Strange.

      Delete
    6. Did you say "evolutionary biologists", joey? I thought you said that "No one uses the theory of evolution for anything". How can there be "evolutionary biologists" if "No one uses the theory of evolution for anything"?

      joey g: Dumbest. Dipstick. Ever.

      Delete
    7. LoL! Evolution the thing is not evolution the theory. IOW you are proud to be a dumbass and it shows.

      Delete
    8. joey said:

      "Evolution the thing is not evolution the theory."

      I know. So, how about answering the question:

      How can there be "evolutionary biologists" if "No one uses the theory of evolution for anything"?

      Delete
    9. You conveniently ignored this too, joey:

      Many thousands of scientists worldwide 'use' the theory of evolution and you damn well know it. If they don't, then WHY are you SO upset and belligerent about the FACT that they DO? Well, joey?

      Delete
    10. twitty:
      How can there be "evolutionary biologists" if "No one uses the theory of evolution for anything"?

      They study evolution the thing, the "theory" is useless.

      Many thousands of scientists worldwide 'use' the theory of evolution

      Liar, Please reference ONE scientist who use the premise taht all of life's diversity owes it collective common ancestry to some unknown populations of prokaryotic-like organisms via accumulations of genetic accidents?

      Or admit that you are a liar and a loser.

      I have asked you that already and like the coward you are you ran away from it. That proves that I am correct.

      Thank you.

      Delete
  8. It is amazing to me that in the 21st century some are still using the ancient mechanism of deus ex machina. For those ignorant of Greek drama, deus ex machina was literally a mechanism made of pulleys by which a god was brought down on stage in order to solve a particularly difficult plot issue. If you didn't know how to fix a plot problem, you just brought down Ares or Zeus who decreed what would happen next and that was that.

    The same mentality is unfortunately being used in ID. We don't yet have the full understanding of evolution, I grant you, but that doesn't mean we have to immediately jump to God or a designer for the answer. And for those hypocrites out there who insist that the designer isn't God, well, who is it then? An alien? Then who designed him? In the end it is a deceptive argument to make that we aren't talking about God. We are, and ID people should simply admit it. There is nothing to be ashamed of.

    The problem with ID is that it has only one answer for everything. If you can't explain it, you just say "the designer did it." That's the answer. But there are other less supernatural answers that are possible. The fact that Cornelius makes fun of quantum physics and multiple universes is emblematic of the narrow focus of both ID and pure Neo-Darwinism proponents. Quantum mechanics, fractals and chaos theory, information theory, all are converging toward a more complex vision of evolution. (See Bill Maz Blog). I believe we will find that evolution is not purely "random" in the sense we now understand it, but it is also not "directed" by constant adjustments by a designer that ID proponents envision. The answer will turn out to be a grander vision of how the universe works. The universe will, I believe, be seen to be an unfolding, self-assembly mechanism that provides not only the possibility of life but the active physical laws to create intelligent life.

    Now, ID proponents and Creationists should be satisfied with that. After all, God would still have to exist in order for that universe to have been created. Even if you believe what quantum physicists say that the universe could have arisen out of nothing through quantum fluctuations, they all agree that those mathematical equations of quantum physics had to exist before the universe could arise. So who created those math equations?

    Instead of getting bogged down in losing arguments over details of evolution, most of which will be resolved at some point in the future, ID/Creationists should simply say "God created the universe with all its laws, including the laws governing evolution," and call it a day.

    After all, most scientists believe in God. Certainly Einstein did. The two are not contradictory. In fact, the most a true scientist can say is that he doesn't have evidence to prove either that God exists or not. So Dawkins is being very unscientific when he lists himself as an atheist. He can't prove there is no God. He can only shrug his shoulders and say he has no proof either way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now, ID proponents and Creationists should be satisfied with that. After all, God would still have to exist in order for that universe to have been created. Even if you believe what quantum physicists say that the universe could have arisen out of nothing through quantum fluctuations, they all agree that those mathematical equations of quantum physics had to exist before the universe could arise. So who created those math equations?

      Do the equations cause something to happen or describe something that happens?

      Delete
    2. Kurt Gödel - Incompleteness Theorem - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/w/8462821

      Kurt Gödel - Incompleteness Theorem as it applies to material particles and the universe
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GN9MSnMhp6a67TvDvW1DusssdidK0Aq1qYC2updfqvw/edit

      As you can see, somewhat from the preceding 'Dangerous Knowledge' video, mathematics cannot be held to be 'true' unless an assumption for a highest transcendent infinity is held to be true. A highest infinity which Cantor, and even Godel, held to be God. Thus this following formal proof, which was referred to at the end of the preceding video, shows that math cannot be held to be consistently true unless the highest infinity of God is held to be consistently true as a starting assumption:

      Taking God Out of the Equation - Biblical Worldview - by Ron Tagliapietra - January 1, 2012
      Excerpt: Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties.
      1. Validity . . . all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning.
      2. Consistency . . . no conclusions contradict any other conclusions.
      3. Completeness . . . all statements made in the system are either true or false.
      The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem.
      Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation.
      Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). God is the ultimate authority (Hebrews 6:13), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3).
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n1/equation#

      Alan Turing and Kurt Godel - Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition - video (notes in video description)
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8516356/

      The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960
      Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin's process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,,
      It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind's capacity to divine them.,,,
      The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.
      http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html

      The 'Spirituality' of Mathematics
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/13VBciybSK3D7uJoz6ltldPPSvhL4HJaJAmCmOMkmQxg/edit

      Delete
    3. velikovskys,

      Although this is still controversial, I believe the math equations we write describe a mechanism that already exists. Our equations are approximations of a true reality. The mathematical structure of that reality had to exist before the universe came to pop up 'out of nowhere.'

      Delete
    4. Bill, ID is not an argument from ignorance, evolution is. Evolution begs us to believe in something that nature has never been observed to do - animal speciation. Evolution is an assumed fact based on metaphysics, with cherry picked data that weakly rationalizes it. Whatever is found - EvolutionDIDit. How It's an evolution-of-the-gorges (gap is not accurate) approach.

      It goes like this:

      IF WHATEVER

      Then

      EvolutionDIDit.

      Design inference is based on the best of what we know of life and what we know nature left to itself can do and what intelligent action can do. Evolution begs for a miracle of nature by adding eons and multiverses. Just throw more time and universes at a problem and poof something sticks. It's a very unscientific approach.

      Delete
    5. Tedford the Slow

      Bill, ID is not an argument from ignorance, evolution is. Evolution begs us to believe in something that nature has never been observed to do - animal speciation.


      As opposed to all those empirical observations we have of the Intelligent Designer POOFING separately created species into existence.

      There's a reason guys like Tedford the Slow are referred to as IDiots.

      Delete
    6. Bill, I agree with some of the things you said and I don't necessarily disagree enough to argue against some of the other things you said, but this stands out as just plain wrong:

      "After all, most scientists believe in God. Certainly Einstein did."

      Delete
    7. Einstein believed in God- just not a personal God. Heck he said he wanted to know the mind of God.

      Delete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hey blustering coward thorton, we are still waiting for you to post something other than your drooling ignorance, cowardly equivocations and feeble-minded attempts at a testable hypothesis.

    I say that you're a coward who couldn't defend evolutionism if its life depended on it.

    Go ahead and prove me wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since "evolutionism" is a cartoon that only exists in the tiny little ignorant minds of Creationists like you, I have no need to defend it.

      Delete
    2. LoL! Nice try but you have already said that evolutionism = the theory of evolution. But then again it has been proven that you are ignorant of the theory of evolution:

      Thorton is so freaking stupid he should learn to shut up.



      Now he is proving that he doesn't even understand the theory of evolution!



      Over on another one of Cornelius Hunter's blog entries Thorton tried to put me in my place when I had said:



      There isn't any evidence that genetic accidents can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans




      Good thing then that the actual scientific theory doesn't posit life evolving through genetic 'accidents'.



      Have you ever read a college level biology book in your life? Have you ever read any science textbooks?





      Unfortunately for Thorton I understand the ToE and science better than he does:



      Thorton shot down by reality



      So now what does Thorton do?



      Why it throws a hissy fit as expected...



      Evotards are sooo predictable.

      Delete
  11. Is there a kindergarten class we can place the pre-schoolers above so that the adults can have a civil conversation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it kindergarten or pre-school? And didn't you know that evolutionists are incapble of having an adult conversation?

      Delete
    2. Bill,

      That is Jose's way of saying hi

      Delete
    3. Yes, thorton is a hoser.

      Nice call

      Delete
  12. Instead of making fun of science that you don't understand, how about trying to make some sort of contribution to the subject? Yes, it does seem that evolutionary biologists are studying phenomena and finding things that are unexpected and which are causing them to modify their theories. That is *science*. Evolutionary
    biologists are doing science, you are not, nor are any of the other self-styled intelligent design investigators (ID creationists by any other name).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi John,

      Instead of making accusations that you cannot support, perhaps you could tell us about this alleged science is that we allegedly don't understand.

      Delete
    2. Chubby Joke G

      Instead of making accusations that you cannot support, perhaps you could tell us about this alleged science is that we allegedly don't understand.


      Where do you want to start Chubs?

      Pyramid antennas?
      Space aliens?
      Reincarnation?
      Ghosts?
      ice isn't made of water?

      Your grasp of science is legendary Chubs. LEGENDARY

      ...in your own teeny Creationist brain.

      Delete
    3. John:

      Random mutations are not going to come up with these structures. It ain't gonna happen. You're on the wrong side of the probability curve. This mythology was silly two millenia ago when the Epicureans were pushing it, and it's even more ridiculous not.

      Delete
    4. Instead of making accusations that you cannot support, perhaps you could tell us about this alleged science is that we allegedly don't understand.

      thorton
      Where do you want to start

      YOU need to start by getting an education. I have already proven that you are ignorant of science and ignorant of the theory of evolution. So perhaps you should just shut up.

      Delete
    5. Cornelius Hunter Goebbels

      Random mutations are not going to come up with these structures. It ain't gonna happen. You're on the wrong side of the probability curve. This mythology was silly two millenia ago when the Epicureans were pushing it, and it's even more ridiculous not.


      You're right Herr Goebbels. Random mutations by themselves won't do it. But random mutations filtered by selection and carried forward as heritable traits like we actually empirically observe does the job just fine.

      You know that, we know you know that, yet still you choose to lie about the process. Lying for money - what a fine example you set for other Christians.

      Delete
    6. Chubby Joke G

      YOU need to start by getting an education.


      Tell us Chubs, what college did you go to to get your education on pyramid antennas, space aliens, and reincarnation? Patriot U.?

      Delete
    7. empty bluster boy:
      Random mutations by themselves won't do it. But random mutations filtered by selection and carried forward as heritable traits like we actually empirically observe does the job just fine.

      Does what job just fine? Please be specific and present supporting evidence.

      Or admit that you are just a lying coward- which is something we already know anyway.

      Delete
    8. empty blustr boy:
      what college did you go to to get your education on pyramid antennas, space aliens, and reincarnation?

      I see that you are still upset because there is more evidence in support of thsoe than there is for your position.

      Life is good...

      Delete
  13. C.H.,

    "Now they argue that on top of all those eons of time, there is a near infinity of universes in which evolutionary experiments are constantly on-going. Yes evolution is unlikely, but given all those universes, you’re bound to get lucky sometime."

    Do you know that it has been proven in physics that any universe with a hubble expansion > 0 has a beginning, iow, from nothing. So even a mutliverse needs to have a creator because they are inflationary. So there is therefore a end to natural causes as Aquinas argued hundreds of years ago.

    I know that this is a little out of your area of expertise, but not much. It would be nice to have a blog on this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's nothing compared to all you've given us over the years. I got this from a dvd lecture by Fr Spitzer, SJ, a priest/physicist. I'd like to learn more about it. This proof is decades old but does not get the coverage it deserves. Unfortunately it was an informal affair and I didn't take notes.

      Delete
    2. Father Spitzer seems to be a theologian and philosopher but not a physicist as far as I can see. Do you know if he has ever done research or published in the field?

      Delete
    3. Yes, I should have been more accurate. He is a philosopher of science specializing in cosmology, etc (see below).

      One of his publications is New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy (Eerdmans, 2010) for which he won the Catholic Press Associations Award for best book in faith and science.


      According to his website

      His academic specialties are (1) Philosophy of Science, particularly space-time theory and transcendent implications of contemporary big bang cosmology, (2) metaphysics, particularly the theory of time and philosophy of God, and (3) organizational ethics and its relationship to personal and cultural transformation. He has also studied leadership, historical exegesis of the New Testament, the life issues, and philosophy of culture.

      http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/about_spitzer.html

      He seems to understand the physics, but writes on the philosophical implications, much like C.H. does in biology.

      Delete
  14. The Zero Probability Argument

    IDers love to use the low probability argument in their struggle against evolution. Of course, evolutionists throw the argument back at them by pointing out that everything is improbable and that improbability is not synonymous with impossibility. I'm sorry to say that the evos are right in this regard.

    What IDers should use as an argument is not low probability but zero probability. The only reason that living organism can survive the onslaught of deleterious mutations is that they have a powerful gene repair mechanism that eliminates almost all mutations. Without such a mechanism, nothing would survive. Now imagine a hapless evolving organism that has not yet evolved its gene repair mechanism. The likelihood that such an organism will survive is exactly ZERO. It ain't gonna happen.

    Here's my message to IDers: Stop using the low probability argument. It is not a good argument. Darwinian evolution has ZERO probability of being correct. It's voodoo science. It's not even wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Louis Savain said:

    "The likelihood that such an organism will survive is exactly ZERO. It ain't gonna happen."

    Exactly. Organisms can't "survive" in the first place to be able to evolve.

    Yet, we hear Evolutionists talk about "survival" loosely as though "survival" itself has no prerequisites.

    And to them this is "evidence".

    You need those mechanisms, you can't evolve that which is not evolve-able, its that simple.

    ...but Evolution can explain everything!

    ReplyDelete
  16. backgroundscan have mother of bride dresses a completely distinctive understanding of the associativemeaning conveyedfrom the equivalent coloration.

    ReplyDelete