Wednesday, February 20, 2013

This Circadian Clock Protein is Finely-Tuned (and a Bunch of Other Things)

Making Evolution Even More Ridiculous

That new paper on the circadian clock protein is not only an example of how evolution lacks theoretical content and so anything can be explained (“Many genes exhibit little codon-usage bias, which is thought to reflect a lack of selection for messenger RNA translation. Alternatively, however, non-optimal codon usage may be of biological importance.”) or of fine-tuning in biology (“Living organisms’ inner clocks are like Swiss watches with precisely manufactured spring mechanisms”). Nor is the paper merely an example of yet another falsification of evolutionary predictions (“The team … was perplexed when it found a paradoxical result”) or even of bad writing (“And that’s essentially a discovery”).

In addition to all those usual contradictions, the paper is another good example of the many signals in protein sequences and how crucial and fine-tuned they are. Coding genes specify the amino acid sequence in the resulting protein that is synthesized when the gene is expressed. Only a relatively few of the possible DNA gene sequences could code for a typical native protein, and these magical sequences are statistically impossible for evolution to find by known mechanisms.

Background

But that is not all. Coding genes carry all kinds of signals, in addition to the information that specifies the amino acid sequence. For instance, the gene’s DNA sequence is also implicated in the control of transcription—the gene copying process. And the gene’s DNA sequence determines the important stability of the DNA copy—the so-called mRNA strand, and the mRNA interactions with proteins such as splicing machinery.

Of course the gene sequence also determines the protein’s three-dimensional protein structure, the stability of that structure, the function of the protein, interactions of the protein with other proteins, instructions for transport, and so forth.

But on top of that information, the gene also contains signals that help to control the speed at which the new protein is synthesized. These signals have been found to be quite sophisticated and the resulting speed changes can cause the protein to take on a different conformation and influence the protein’s function and regulation.

And it appears that the DNA sequence can make the expression level of the protein sensitive to different environmental conditions. For instance, perhaps some proteins should have lower priority than other proteins, in certain conditions. That could be coded for in their respective gene sequences.

Also it has been discovered that gene sequences are cleverly arranged to complement the cell’s error correction mechanisms and so minimize copying errors.

One interaction that must be avoided is the propensity of proteins to stick to each other and form fibrils in what is known as an amyloid. As one researcher explained, “The amyloid state is more like the default state of a protein, and in the absence of specific protective mechanisms, many of our proteins could fall into it.” So the DNA gene sequence must avoid this problem.

Also, some genes are overlapping with other genes. In other words, the stretch of DNA where a gene resides may be shared with another gene entirely. So the genetic information is now doubled. And even if this is not the case, researchers are increasingly finding that genes perform multiple tasks. In what is known as gene sharing, the protein product of a gene may carry out several separate and distinct functions. As one researcher concluded, “protein multifunctionality is more the rule than the exception.” In fact, “Perhaps all proteins perform many different functions by employing as many different mechanisms.”

One more thing

So a gene does not merely code for a protein. As difficult as it is for evolution to find a protein-coding gene sequence, it would be far more difficult to find a real gene because they carry so many more signals.

That brings us to the new paper on the circadian clock protein. For in addition to it demonstrating how evolution lacks theoretical content, fine-tuning in biology, yet another falsification of evolutionary predictions, and even of bad writing, the paper also shows just how important and sensitive are these layers of information.

In this case, the research found that speed at which the mRNA strand is translated into the protein amino acid sequence is finely-tuned. The DNA sequence contains signals to slow this process, and that is crucial. For otherwise the protein takes on a different conformation, is not properly regulated, and the circadian rhythms are lost.

It is not as though we find gradual pathways leading to ever more useful and fit designs. Instead, function is lost, even when relatively minor DNA sequence changes occur. The idea that such incredible designs spontaneously arose via evolution’s random chance events (no, selection doesn’t help, each event must be random with respect to need, multitudes of such events are needed, and we don’t generally find gradual pathways) continues to grow ever more unlikely.

Religion drives science and it matters.

210 comments:

  1. ZOMG it's so COMPLEX!!!

    Didn't you hear me? It's so COMPLEX!!!

    You gotta understand, so COMPLEX!!!

    I mean it's really really really COMPLEX!!!

    Not any old complex, really COMPLEX!!!

    ZOMG it's so COMPLEX!!!

    That has to mean GAWDDIDIT!


    Cornelius Goebbels personal incredulity theater, act #27429.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shut the hell up, Throaton, you obsequious moron. The complexity argument is an extremely powerful argument because it kills evolution dead. You and those whose asses you kiss every day on this forum know this. This is why you go bezerk every time you see it mention. Complexity is to jackasses like you like holy water is to a vampire. ahahaha....

      Get that, Throaton? Complexity kills evolution dead. Vampiro de mierda. ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...

      Delete
    2. I get under your skin, Throaton, and you know that I know it. LOL.

      Delete
    3. LOL! Fruit loop, you're an even better spokesman for Creationism and Christianity that Joe G was!

      Delete
    4. ahahaha... Neither Joe nor I are creationists in the fundamentalist sense of the word. Jackass. Joe is not even Christian from what I understand. The thing is, we don't fit your pathetic little creationist strawman image that you have so carefully constructed over the years to please your masters. You can't stand it, Throaton. Make yourself useful and go kiss Dawkins' asteroid orifice, you obsequious moron.

      ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

      Delete
    5. LOL! You even do meltdowns better than Chubby Joe!

      Delete
    6. You love an ass whipping. We all know that.

      Delete
    7. But it's your ass that's continually being whipped fruit loop.

      Delete
    8. I get it now. You guys really are 12 years old. No one of any real intelligence carries on like this post after post. Cornelius I think some retrictions are in order. The kiddies just destroy discussions completely.

      Delete
    9. Elijah,

      How naive can you be? There has never been any discussion on this forum between evolutionists and their critics. You are sorely mistaken. It was always, "take that, Mr. Stupid Christian Fundamentalist!" followed by "please hit me on the other cheek, Mr. Evolutionist, sir." LOL.

      It's funny but it gets old real quick.

      Delete
  2. ahahahaha... Another hilarious picture that perfectly illustrates the topic of the article. This is brilliant, Cornelius. There are very few things that those gutless cretins fear more than ridicule. It makes their blood boil. LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  3. “Many genes exhibit little codon-usage bias, which is thought to reflect a lack of selection for messenger RNA translation. Alternatively, however, non-optimal codon usage may be of biological importance.”

    LOL. I try to imagine the above being said in a perfect Julia Child accent, for effect. AHAHAHAHA...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nice article Dr Hunter. I enjoy reading about the intricate nature of our cells. I find your writing a blessing and it creates in me a profound sense of wonder about our Creator. Keep up the great work and please preserve your high standard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There were many creators, Marcus, not just one. The Hebrew word (Elohim) translated God in the book of Genesis actually means the masters. The Elohim were (and are) fabulously advanced but they are neither perfect nor omniscient.

      For example, they had to take a good look at their creation to determine whether or not it was good. They concluded that it was very good, but not perfect. And I agree, the creatures on this planet are breathtaking in their beauty and sophistication. Whoever designed them are worthy of worship. They were being modest, in my opinion as I don't think 'very good' does it justice.

      Delete
    2. Hey Louis,

      I'm in agreement with most of what you say, but when you refer to the "Creators" are these space aliens, supernatural entities or both? Are they beings created and sent by God?
      Thanks!

      Delete
    3. Hi Louis, When I speak of the Creator, I am speaking of the Great I Am, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, one and three. Jesus wants to have have a close relationship with us and He is worthy of worship. Pretty simple really. If God speaking of His creation says it's good then from my perspective, exceedingly limited in scope, it could be considered perfect. Also, if God created the universe, then He knows everything about it. I think it's safe to conclude He is omniscient from my ignorant perspective.
      I use the New King James Bible.

      Delete
    4. I'm in agreement with most of what you say, but when you refer to the "Creators" are these space aliens, supernatural entities or both? Are they beings created and sent by God?

      I really don't know who they are. I have several hypotheses.

      1. It is possible that God is like a nation, consisting of multiple individuals, the Elohim. Apparently, some of those Elohim could reproduce (they were male and female) since there is mention in Genesis of the horny sons of the Elohim who thought that the daughters of men were hot.

      2. It is not possible that the Elohim are angels because the angels are said to be neither male nor female.

      3. It is possible that the Elohim of Genesis were a different species or civilization than either Yahweh or the angels because Yahweh was angry at them for messing around with humans and for teaching them a bunch of technologies like metal and stone working.

      This stuff requires further research and a thorough understanding of the ancient languages but, unfortunately, I don't have the means to do so at this time, although this may change in the not too distant future.

      Finally, I don't believe in the supernatural, whatever that is. If it exists, it is natural in my book.

      Delete
    5. Thanks, Louis. Very interesting.

      "Finally, I don't believe in the supernatural, whatever that is. If it exists, it is natural in my book."

      If you don't believe in the "supernatural" (and trust me, I know all about the problems with the terms "natural" and "supernatural"), then what process alone could have caused these entities into existence?

      Are you supporting some sort of self-governing process (like Darwinian Evolution) created these entities?

      I'm a little skeptical of Aliens (not because I don't think they can exist) but they, like us, would require Intelligent Design, especially if they were far more advanced than us.

      Thanks again.

      Delete
    6. Are you supporting some sort of self-governing process (like Darwinian Evolution) created these entities?

      Not at all. I believe there exist two opposite and complementary realms: the physical realm and the spiritual realm. The former can be created, destroyed and can change but the latter can neither be created nor destroyed nor can it change. Spirits just are. Some are good, some are evil. Some belong to distinct species. Some spirits are more powerful than others, able to accomplish great feats of physical creation. Others, such as ours, are also capable of great feats of creativity. But human spirits can neither create nor destroy matter. They can just guide certain physical processes such as those occurring in the brain. Other spirits serve more or less structural functions, able to give meaning to physical matter and its properties and able to enforce operating principles for various particles.

      I'm a little skeptical of Aliens (not because I don't think they can exist) but they, like us, would require Intelligent Design, especially if they were far more advanced than us.

      In a general sense, if a conscious entity is not human, it is an alien. This is true even if the entity created us. Scripture teaches us that the angels were created by Yahweh. However, Yahweh can only create physical bodies, not their spirits. It turned out that the angel species (unlike humans who are all bad) are not all bad or good. We are told that only one third of them are bad. Are angels aliens? Absolutely. They are a different species altogether.

      Keep in mind that this line of thought is tentative at best. There is room for deeper study in the light of our more modern perspectives and potential for amazing discoveries as well.

      Delete
    7. Marcus:

      ...
      Also, if God created the universe, then He knows everything about it. I think it's safe to conclude He is omniscient from my ignorant perspective.


      Omniscience is concept from the evil one, in my opinion. It makes no sense. In fact, it is downright stupid. LOL. Worse, nowhere in the scriptures does anybody claim to be omniscient. Extremely knowledgeable? Yes. But knowing everything? I don't think so.

      I use the New King James Bible.

      That there is our main problem. Translations leave a lot to be desired and add a lot to be detested.

      Delete
    8. LS: "Not at all. I believe there exist two opposite and complementary realms: the physical realm and the spiritual realm. The former can be created, destroyed and can change but the latter can neither be created nor destroyed nor can it change. Spirits just are. Some are good, some are evil. Some belong to distinct species. Some spirits are more powerful than others, able to accomplish great feats of physical creation. "

      How did you come to determine this? Is this information you draw from the Bible?

      I'm curious - I believe you identify yourself as a Christian? Do you belong to any particular denomination or attend a church?

      Delete
    9. JDRick:

      How did you come to determine this? Is this information you draw from the Bible?

      Yes, mostly. It comes from a long process of deduction. I think a good Christian should be a Sherlock Holmes of sorts, always analyzing and always searching.

      I'm curious - I believe you identify yourself as a Christian? Do you belong to any particular denomination or attend a church?

      I am Christian for the simple reason that I accept the sacrifice of Yahshua, the son of Yahweh for my spiritual shortcomings. And no, I don't belong to any denomination nor do I go to church. By and large, I find organized Christianity to be rather boring, if not outright evil. And I apologize to no one for my beliefs.

      By the way, aren't you an atheist and evolutionist? Why are you interested in my religious beliefs? Aren't you people the superior enlightened ones? LOL.

      Delete
    10. LS: "And no, I don't belong to any denomination nor do I go to church. By and large, I find organized Christianity to be rather boring, if not outright evil. And I apologize to no one for my beliefs.
      Why do you find Christianity evil? "

      Do you not miss fellowship with other believers? Why do you find Christianity evil?

      LS: "By the way, aren't you an atheist and evolutionist? Why are you interested in my religious beliefs? Aren't you people the superior enlightened ones? LOL."

      True, I'm an unbeliever, although I'm not sure I would identify as an atheist (like you I'm not a joiner and don't belong to any groups). But I'm always interested in what motivates people, so that's why I'm curious (and I'm an ex-believer too).

      No, I'm not superior at all. I don't have any answers for very much of anything, so could be open to something like ID if there was more compelling positive evidence. At the end of the day whether evolution is true or not has very little to do with how I live my life.

      Delete
    11. Louis and JDRick both might like this short video...
      http://www.rzim.org/rzim-news/does-god-care-about-our-happiness/

      Delete
    12. JDRick:

      Do you not miss fellowship with other believers?

      I only know a handful who think as I do and we do share ideas. I'm OK with that.

      Why do you find Christianity evil?

      A quick history of Christianity reveals mostly wars, strife, perversion and corruption. Not to mention stupidity and worship of their own doctrine. Not all Christians are like that, of course. Isaac Newton was smarter than most atheists put together.

      At the end of the day whether evolution is true or not has very little to do with how I live my life.

      That, my friend, is bound to change sooner rather than later. A powerful, ass-kicking dude named Elijah is prophesied to come soon and to restore all things. His job will be to prepare a path for the return of Yahshua. He'll be nobody's bitch, that for sure. LOL.

      Delete
    13. louis the raving lunatic said:

      "A quick history of Christianity reveals mostly wars, strife, perversion and corruption. Not to mention stupidity and worship of their own doctrine."

      No wonder you're a christian.

      Delete
    14. truthy:

      No wonder you're a christian.

      I'd rather be a Christian than be an ass kisser in a religion of cretins. LOL.

      Delete
    15. ass kissing christian cretin louis said:

      "Worse, nowhere in the scriptures does anybody claim to be omniscient."

      Millions of other christians would vehemently disagree with you, including many who consider themselves 'omniscient' about "the scriptures". I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that ba77, gordon e. mullings, and Cornelius haven't straightened you out.

      Delete
    16. truthy:

      ass kissing christian cretin louis

      ahahaha... This is a sure sign that my missiles are right on target and inflicting heavy casualties upon the enemy. Oh, the humanity. LOL.

      ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...

      Delete
  5. Thorton said
    "ZOMG it's so COMPLEX!!!

    Didn't you hear me? It's so COMPLEX!!!

    You gotta understand, so COMPLEX!!!

    I mean it's really really really COMPLEX!!!

    Not any old complex, really COMPLEX!!!

    ZOMG it's so COMPLEX!!!

    That has to mean GAWDDIDIT!


    Cornelius Goebbels personal incredulity theater, act #27429."


    This is a good argument a couple of times. When you have to use it 27429 times it became more ridiculus than the argument of complexity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  6. Various levels of complexity exist in biology, though how that is measured can vary. For example, a eukaryote is more complex than a virus.

    But, no matter how complexity is measured, if you take whatever measure of complexity is used and in a thought experiment raise that measure of complexity to the power of infinity the resultant complexity is still within the bounds of ToE.

    Evolutionist possess no metric, capability, or theorem to measure the limits of their mechanisms... and they will allow none.

    So, whenever anybody brings up the subject of complexity as a point against ToE, evolutionists are quick to dismiss it.

    They are forearmed with the notion that No complexity, no bridge can be too long for which evolution can not accomplish it. How Evolution Did It is up for some argument, but IF evolution did it is never a question. Evolution is fact by default and nothing anyone can say or find is allowed to question that fact.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tedford the Slow

    But, no matter how complexity is measured, if you take whatever measure of complexity is used and in a thought experiment raise that measure of complexity to the power of infinity the resultant complexity is still within the bounds of ToE.

    Evolutionist possess no metric, capability, or theorem to measure the limits of their mechanisms... and they will allow none.

    So, whenever anybody brings up the subject of complexity as a point against ToE, evolutionists are quick to dismiss it.


    Tedford is still to slow to understand that evolution is a process, not a goal. As long as the process keeps running it can produce novel, complex biological forms. The only limits known now are constraints based on the laws of physics - strength of bone and muscle tissue limit maximum size, energy output and resistance limit maximum speed, etc.

    Tedford's latest whine is as stupid as arguing that since science has set no limit to the number of footsteps you can take while on a walk, that means walking is impossible.

    Evolution is fact by default and nothing anyone can say or find is allowed to question that fact.

    Of course Tedford has to finish with a lie. Lots of discoveries if made would falsify the current ToE. They just haven't been found. Tedford is still too clueless to grasp that not falsified isn't the same as not falsifiable.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Tedford is still to slow to understand that evolution is a process, not a goal. As long as the process keeps running it can produce novel, complex biological forms. The only limits known now are constraints based on the laws of physics - strength of bone and muscle tissue limit maximum size, energy output and resistance limit maximum speed, etc."

    No, that are the limits of laws of physics, but the limit of a "process" is defined by the parameters of the process itself. As the only parameter of the evolution process is "ability to produce offspring", the limit should be the maximum ability to produce offsprings. But that do not seems to fit with the real life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blas

      No, that are the limits of laws of physics, but the limit of a "process" is defined by the parameters of the process itself. As the only parameter of the evolution process is "ability to produce offspring", the limit should be the maximum ability to produce offsprings. But that do not seems to fit with the real life.


      If you want that particular parameter it's called reproductive fitness, a measure of the probability any individual animal will reproduce relative to its neighbors. The maximum value is 1.0, meaning reproduction is 100% certain.

      There is also the parameter called a Darwin which is the rate of evolutionary change measured to a standard of 1 million years.

      Are those the kinds of parameters you want?

      Delete
  9. Thorton said:
    "If you want that particular parameter it's called reproductive fitness, a measure of the probability any individual animal will reproduce relative to its neighbors. The maximum value is 1.0, meaning reproduction is 100% certain.

    There is also the parameter called a Darwin which is the rate of evolutionary change measured to a standard of 1 million years."

    Not exactly I would like to see the numbers of that parametes for some specific cases like the evolution from prokariotes to eukariotes, from unicellular to multicellular, from asexual reproductive organisms to sexual reproductive ogans for example.

    Are those the kinds of parameters you want?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evolutionists are skilled at keeping the focus away from the obvious. Basic animal speciation has never actually been observed and documented, so everything that evolutionists say is simply gaseous rhetoric at one level or another in the stratosphere of nonsense.

      Delete
    2. Blas

      Not exactly I would like to see the numbers of that parametes for some specific cases like the evolution from prokariotes to eukariotes, from unicellular to multicellular, from asexual reproductive organisms to sexual reproductive ogans for example.


      What in the world makes you think science can identify the specific fitness parameters for populations of animals that lived over a billion years ago?

      I'll give you a range: from 0.0 to 1.0

      What parameters can ID provide for the same groups? You wouldn't demand something you can't produce yourself, right?

      Delete
    3. Tedford the Slow

      Evolutionists are skilled at keeping the focus away from the obvious. Basic animal speciation has never actually been observed and documented, so everything that evolutionists say is simply gaseous rhetoric at one level or another in the stratosphere of nonsense.


      Geologists and their "plate tectonics" are skilled at keeping the focus away from the obvious. Africa touching South America has never actually been observed and documented, so everything that geologists say is simply gaseous rhetoric at one level or another in the stratosphere of nonsense.

      Astronomers and their "gravitational attraction" ideas are skilled at keeping the focus away from the obvious. The formation of a new star has never actually been observed and documented, so everything that astronomers say is simply gaseous rhetoric at one level or another in the stratosphere of nonsense.

      C'mon guys, fess up. You're secretly having a "Darwin's God Dumbest Creationist" contest, right?


      Delete
    4. Thorton said

      "What in the world makes you think science can identify the specific fitness parameters for populations of animals that lived over a billion years ago?"

      Well you said darwinian evolution is a fact.

      "I'll give you a range: from 0.0 to 1.0"

      The point is if in that cases was 0.0 or grater than 0. But you said it, you do not know.

      "What parameters can ID provide for the same groups?"

      I do not know, I will let IDist to answer.

      "You wouldn't demand something you can't produce yourself, right?"

      Why not? I demand the pilot to drive the plane and I can´t do it.

      Delete
    5. Neal Tedford:

      Evolutionists are skilled at keeping the focus away from the obvious. Basic animal speciation has never actually been observed and documented, so everything that evolutionists say is simply gaseous rhetoric at one level or another in the stratosphere of nonsense.

      As proof of Neal Tedford's statement, here's Thorton's flimsy disproof (really, a side-step):

      Thorton:

      Geologists and their "plate tectonics" are skilled at keeping the focus away from the obvious. Africa touching South America has never actually been observed and documented, so everything that geologists say is simply gaseous rhetoric at one level or another in the stratosphere of nonsense.

      Astronomers and their "gravitational attraction" ideas are skilled at keeping the focus away from the obvious. The formation of a new star has never actually been observed and documented, so everything that astronomers say is simply gaseous rhetoric at one level or another in the stratosphere of nonsense.

      Delete
    6. Blas

      Well you said darwinian evolution is a fact.


      No I didn't. That evolution has occurred is a fact. Evolution via Darwinian mechanisms is a theory.

      WW2 is fact also, but no one demands that historians produce the name and birth date of every single person who participated.

      The point is if in that cases was 0.0 or grater than 0. But you said it, you do not know.

      Not knowing every last specific detail doesn't mean not knowing overall results.

      Why do you think it is proper for ID Creationism to demand such ridiculous levels of detail while providing none itself?

      I do not know, I will let IDist to answer.

      So you do demand levels of detail you can't come close to providing yourself. Got it.

      I demand the pilot to drive the plane and I can´t do it.

      But ID Creationists are demanding to 'drive the plane' when they don't have the understanding to even pedal a tricycle to the airport. That's why they get laughed at.

      Delete
    7. Hi PaV Lino!

      Why don't you give us again your stupid ID-Creationist claim that there are no verifed fossils over 1 billion years old.

      That was almost as funny as your stupid claim the Designer created the Ediacaran biota just to ready the Earth for the 50 million years later Cambrian original created "kinds".

      That's the nice thing about being an ID-Creationist. You get to make up the most ridiculous crap as you go.

      Delete
  10. Most Expensive Cars in the World, Top Concept Cars, Top Strange Vehicles in the World and Car latest hot top Wallpapers
    worldlatestvehicles.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thorton said:

    "Geologists and their "plate tectonics" are skilled at keeping the focus away from the obvious. Africa touching South America has never actually been observed and documented, so everything that geologists say is simply gaseous rhetoric at one level or another in the stratosphere of nonsense."

    There you are extrapolating actual and verified displacement over the time, it is difficult not take that as a valid hypotesis.

    "Astronomers and their "gravitational attraction" ideas are skilled at keeping the focus away from the obvious. The formation of a new star has never actually been observed and documented, so everything that astronomers say is simply gaseous rhetoric at one level or another in the stratosphere of nonsense."

    Probably yes. There is no satisfactory hypotesis how a star began.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blas

      There you are extrapolating actual and verified displacement over the time, it is difficult not take that as a valid hypotesis.


      In exactly the same manner evolutionary scientists also extrapolate actual and verified processes over time, extrapolations that match up extremely well with the empirical data. It is difficult to not take ToE as a valid hypothesis as well.



      Delete
    2. Thorton said
      "In exactly the same manner evolutionary scientists also extrapolate actual and verified processes over time, extrapolations that match up extremely well with the empirical data. It is difficult to not take ToE as a valid hypothesis as well."

      No. When I take the distance between South America and Africa and divide it by the ACTUAL displacement speed of both continents I get a logical time.
      When I try to extrapolate in the sameway Lemski experiment in order to see if it is plausible the darwinist evolution of a bacteria in an eukaryote first, I do not found what conditions would play the role of lack of glucose and abundance of citrate and second if this bacteria took 20000 generations and three mutations only for make in aerobic conditions what it already made in anoxic condition i cannot immagine what time would be needed not to became an eucaryote but just get the mRNA transfer system between nucleus and citoplasma.

      Delete
    3. Blas

      i cannot immagine what time would be needed not to became an eucaryote


      Scientific understanding is based on the empirical data and isn't limited to what you personally cannot imagine.

      Delete
    4. Thorton said

      "Scientific understanding is based on the empirical data and isn't limited to what you personally cannot imagine."

      So you can show based on empirical data how a procaryote became an eucaryote.

      Delete
  12. This post is for Nic

    Hi Nic, hope you don't mind continuing our geology discussion here. The last thread was ready to scroll off the page.

    So, have you come up with your 'catastrophe' explanation for angular unconformities yet? Here's the correct scientific explanation for the multi-step process

    1. Layers of sedimentation are laid down at the bottom of an ocean
    2. Over time the layers are metamorphosed to sedimentary rock
    3. Tectonic forces cause folding, bending, and uplifting of the layers to form mountains
    4. Erosive forces of wind and rain wear down the mountain exposing the tilted and folded strata
    5. The area is covered by another ocean which lays down additional sedimentary layers
    6. Eventually the whole shebang is eroded out for us to view.

    The overall process looks like this.

    All these processes take TIME. Lots and lots of time - Hundreds of millions of years for the metamorphic rock to form and fold, mountains to rise and erode, sediments to be laid, oceans to come and go.

    As further evidence, radiometric dating shows large disparities in the age of the multiple layers, so they definitely weren't laid at the same time in one big catastrophe.

    So please, don't give your usual hand-wave of "bad evolutionary assumptions". Give us your steps in the formation of these examples. Explain the difference in ages of the layers.

    LA was fun, Mrs. T did pretty well. One thing I did get to do was visit the world famous La Brea tar pits. Saw a huge collection of paleolithic fossils dating back over 30,000 years - Saber-toothed cats, camels, mastodons, etc.

    I'm sure there's a good Creationist explanation for the site too. ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thorton,

      Welcome back.

      "The overall process looks like this."

      Nice drawings. Care to demonstrate how all that could not happen as a result of catastrophic forces? Remember, it was you who claimed angular unconformities could not be explained any other way than long gradual processes.

      "As further evidence, radiometric dating shows large disparities in the age of the multiple layers, so they definitely weren't laid at the same time in one big "

      Radiometric dating is notoriously unreliable, but let's not go there because we will never agree.

      "LA was fun, Mrs. T did pretty well. One thing I did get to do was visit the world famous La Brea tar pits. Saw a huge collection of paleolithic fossils dating back over 30,000 years - Saber-toothed cats, camels, mastodons, etc."

      Glad you had a good time.

      "I'm sure there's a good Creationist explanation for the site too. ;)"

      I'm sure there is.

      Delete
    2. Nic

      Welcome back.


      Thanks, I appreciate it.

      Nice drawings. Care to demonstrate how all that could not happen as a result of catastrophic forces? Remember, it was you who claimed angular unconformities could not be explained any other way than long gradual processes.

      LOL! No Nic, you've got it bass ackwards again. It's not my job to prove a negative. You're the one who claims the features were formed in a single catastrophe, you have to describe the mechanism and provide some positive evidence. I already described why they couldn't be created rapidly - all those processes are known to take an extremely long time. If you claim all could happen in 40 days (or a year) you need to explain how.

      Radiometric dating is notoriously unreliable, but let's not go there because we will never agree.

      Sorry Nic, that's part of the evidence we have to account for. In science you don't get to ignore data you don't like. Tell me this at least - even if the absolute dates are wrong, why do the two layers always show vastly different dates if they were created at the same time?

      Glad you had a good time.

      Thanks again, we did, but the traffic sucked out loud and in three colors. Worst I've personally ever experienced.

      I'm sure there is

      I'm equally sure you won't be providing it. BTW, how's that reading on the K-Pg boundary layer coming? Got any explanations for it yet?

      Sharks finally broke their losing streak, maybe they can get hot like the Leafs. Next game is at Chicago so it will be tough.

      Delete
    3. What in the world does this have to do with the post? Don't be so lazy and disrespectful of the blog to just turn threads into whatever discussions you want to have.

      BTW Nic when an atheist claims dates and then links to an image don't take it as gospel. He should at the very least link to actually radiometric dates data because often rocks are dated by fossils not radiometric dating. It can be much less than what is claimed with overthrusting, problematica and out of place fossils explained away with various explanations. Sometimes its entirely circular. Not that it necessarily is in this case but its just sloppy and lazy to just link to an image with time periods written over the image than to actual real data concerning the dating.

      Delete
    4. Elijah2012, feel free to provide your scientific explanation for the angular unconformities along with your confirming evidence. Any lazy disrespectful clown can throw rocks from the sidelines.

      Delete
    5. Any lazy clown can run around the internet posting whatever he wishes on other people's blogs. NO one need run around with you on any subject that you wish to get into. This has nothing to do with the post and from now on since you need supervision I will be providing it. IF you want to talk about things that are not the subject of posts then be an adult and get your own place to do it. You do nothing but insult the owner of this blog while turning around using his site as your publishing tool on any subject you wish as if you are the blog owner, its continued a pattern of dishonesty and laziness and yes

      you need to provide data for ages. Putting up a picture and labeling the time periods is lazy and inconsequential. Now get to it elsewhere because your demand for answer will not be entertained while you have provided nothing but pictures. Science is about data not illustrations. No one need provide anything to rebut illustrations. Chop chop get busy. Dogma doesn't override detail. Thats not how science is done

      Delete
    6. LOL! Thanks Elijah2012 for showing me you're a lazy disrespectful clown who doesn't understand a single thing about the science you're attacking. You've got the pompous bluster part down just fine as most Creationists do, but also like most Creationists you can't answer the simplest technical questions.

      Let us know when you graduate from high school and learn enough to have an adult informed discussion about geology, biology, or genetics.

      Delete
    7. elijah said out of one of the sides of his face:

      "Dogma doesn't override detail. Thats not how science is done"

      Yeah, so why don't you quit being a lazy, ignorant clown and go read the MANY scientific papers and books that provide detailed data? Chop chop get busy.

      Delete
    8. Already have "whole truth" ( I like what you did there by the way - irony does work poetically). How do you think I know that its crap to claim as evidence for age a picture with time periods rather than actual detail for dating? You "lazy ignorant clowns" don't even seem to know hos strata often is dated by fossils rather than strictly on radiometric dating. Now be careful. the teacher might notice you in the back of the class not paying attention. Never had one myself but I hear Junior high detention is a real drag.

      Delete
    9. LOL! We got ourselves a really feisty teenager here folks! Still ignorant as a box of rocks but all full of piss and vinegar, ready to battle to the death for Jeebus! :D

      Hey Elijah2012, why don't you explain how radiometric dating works, how using index fossils works, and why science has both methods completely wrong.

      Give us the scientific method you use for determining the age of geologic features.

      Delete
    10. Thornton that ship has now sailed. after reading you and loius go back and forth with "ass" "fruit loops" "Chubby Joe" any claim to being an adult is forever contradicted. I know that at best your are a freshman in college (and that not a very articulate one).

      A) I have a teen age son so am well versed on how you talk -its a dead giveaway that you may not have been aware of
      B) no adult with any real studies and life has the time to run around posting multiple paragraphs of unrelated crap on every post by another blogger. Its like Cornelius is your puppet master. He just has to post to take away time in your day. lol

      Sorry but we both know you have been busted as a kid.

      Delete
    11. "Hey Elijah2012, why don't you explain how radiometric dating works, how using index fossils works, and why science has both methods completely wrong."

      Is this where I can link to an illustration and then claim to have proven the dates of the rocks? Um like you just lazily did? lol

      Balls in your court (although once again this aint your blog to be dictating subject matter). You made a claim to age so put up the data elsewhere and debate it elsewhere and stop trying to hand wave your way out it. What? The pictures was all you got?

      Delete
    12. "Still ignorant as a box of rocks but all full of piss and vinegar, ready to battle to the death for Jeebus! :D"

      Thing I like about teens is they are so young and simple they don't even realize how the way they talk gives their age away.

      Delete
    13. OK, so you're dirt ignorant of radiometric dating and index fossils too. No surprises there.

      Why don't you go ahead and give us the scientific method YOU use for determining the age of geologic features.

      I bet you can't. I bet you don't have one.

      Go ahead and prove me wrong.

      Delete
    14. opbserve the teenager all flustered and hand waving trying desperately to distract from the fact that his only evidence presented was an image with words scribbled over it. LOL. lazy. You can't demand anything when you have offered nothing yourself

      this aint a video game Thorton you can't really mash the buttons around fast enough (or in this case type) to make reality go away. The reality is posting images isn;t evidence and no amount of bluster will make it become so. NO matter how long you try it will not evolve and have life ;)

      Anyway unlike you my Mom does not pay the bills. I must go now. We will meet again. I promise. Until then My fatherly advice would be to get out - get a life- watching Japanese anime "women" online is nowhere like meeting one in real life. Trust me on that one.

      Delete
    15. LOL!

      I win my bet!

      Elijah2012 is just another mouthy Creationist who can't supply his own scientific evidence or methodology!

      I know, predicting a Creationist won't be able to back up his bluster is like predicting the sun will rise in the east, but still...

      Delete
    16. Oh my the wheels are coming off fast. We are now winning bets we made with ourself. A psychiatric trip will be soon to follow. and yet still

      No age data just illustrations. Sorry your little game of demanding data after giving none isn't going to work with me son. I left high school a long time ago.

      Delete
    17. Elijah2012

      I left high school a long time ago


      Sorry you had to drop out so early for that janitorial assignment. It does explain why you're so scientifically illiterate though.

      Pity you have zero understanding of the scientific topics being discussed here. Kinda relegates you to the role of comic relief. Problem is you have lots of other Creationist clown competition for the job.

      Delete
    18. OK Elijah2012, here's some age data for an angular unconformity in Mexico

      Detrital zircon U-Pb ages of sandstones in continental red beds at Valle de Huizachal, Tamaulipas, NE Mexico: Record of Early-Middle Jurassic arc volcanism and transition to crustal extension

      Abstract: Continental strata and volcanic rocks of the type Huizachal Group in Valle de Huizachal record arc magmatism and subsequent crustal extension prior to seafloor spreading in the Gulf of Mexico. The older La Boca Formation consists of two informal members, a lower unit of siliciclastic and volcanic rocks discordantly overlain by a predominantly siliciclastic upper member. The younger La Joya Formation is an upward-fining, alluvial-braided fluvial succession with a basal conglomerate.

      U-Pb detrital-zircon ages (n = 576) from six Huizachal Group sandstones (five from La Boca and one from La Joya) consist of four groups indicating a mixed provenance: (1) Grenville grains (∼1.3–1.0 Ga) derived from Gondwana (Novillo Gneiss); (2) early-middle Paleozoic grains (430–300 Ma) derived from peri-Gondwanan accreted rocks (Granjeno Schist); (3) Permo-Triassic grains (296–222 Ma) derived from volcanic and plutonic rocks (West Pangaean arc) and/or turbidites (Guacamaya Formation); and (4) Early-Middle Jurassic grains (199–164 Ma), locally derived from the Nazas arc. Groups 1–3 increase in abundance upsection as a result of unroofing of Jurassic volcanic and sedimentary carapace from uplifted basement.

      The Huizachal Group records three stages in the pre-breakup history of Gondwana: (1) The lower member of La Boca Formation (maximum depositional age 184–183 Ma; Pleinsbachian) indicates Nazas arc activity; (2) the upper member (maximum depositional age 167–163 Ma; Bathonian–Callovian) indicates continued arc magmatism as early crustal extension formed horsts that supplied basement grains to an incipient rift basin; and (3) the La Joya Formation represents late rift basin development and widespread exposure of flanking basement rocks. Although our La Joya sample lacks a coherent age group of young grains, its single youngest grain age (164 ± 3 Ma; Callovian) is consistent with its stratigraphic position beneath inferred Oxfordian strata. "

      Go ahead and tell me what the scientists got wrong, and back up your claims with your own evidence.

      Show us what ya got Mr. High School dropout.

      Delete
    19. lol what a dweeb (my sons word)

      A) I never said scientists got anything wrong. I said you were bone lazy for not linking to real data

      B) my turn to ask about your definitions of words - Do you have ANY idea what "mixed provenance" means? Thats what was dated in the link you gave. Hurry up and Google it. lol

      C) I don't know what Nic's position is but if I were debating it you wouldn't be able to talk any crap about ONE single catastrophe or in 40 days. You silly online Evos think there is only one take on biblical catastrophes. Surprise! the biblical account directly describes PANGEA - all the water in one place and all the land in one place and even it another chapter that leaves the door wide open for its break up. So nothing but a flood is confined to 40 days or one event within 40 days

      D) don't think even though I can run circles around your ideas regarding this issue that I have any intention of joining you trying to derail the threads to talk about what you want. Blogger gives free space and if you ask mom for extra lunch money you can even use your own domain name. Laziness cannot be entertained.

      found out what provenance in Geology means yet? :)

      Delete
    20. Double LOL!

      The latest Creationist nitwit Elijah2012 demands to see dating information on angular unconformities.

      He's provided a nice scientific paper with exactly what he demands.

      The nitwit ignores the paper, doesn't understand a word of it, keeps right on flapping his clueless gums.

      Where's your explanation backed with scientific data for the angular unconformities Elijah2012? Where's your accepted method for dating such geologic features?

      Showing scientific data to Creationists is like turning on the kitchen light to cockroaches. Watch 'em scatter!

      Delete
    21. Elijah2012

      if I were debating it you wouldn't be able to talk any crap about ONE single catastrophe or in 40 days.


      You don't have the brains or the balls to debate anything in geology or evolutionary biology. Blustering Creationist clowns like you are a dime a dozen.

      Delete
    22. LOL.....You nit wit kid a provenance is what the rocks composition is not when it is laid down. Sedimentary rocks are composed of older material. BUY....A....CLUE. The paper indicates that the dating was done to determine the provenance which is mixed from different dated older material.

      Anyway it is now beyond obvious you are a kid and I have a policy of not beating up on little kids so carry on :)

      Delete
    23. ...and another Creationist cockroach runs away as fast as he can from the light of scientific data.

      What a surprise.

      Delete
    24. Not running way but laughing away when you proved CONCLUSIVELY you have no idea about even the basics of sedimentary rock dating.

      which given how you write I might add is not too surprising.

      Delete
    25. Thorton,

      "LOL! No Nic, you've got it bass ackwards again.
      It's not my job to prove a negative."

      It is when you make the claim. It's a fallacy to argue you can't prove a negative. It's done all the time.

      "I already described why they couldn't be created rapidly..."

      No you haven't, you've simply asserted it. "

      "all those processes are known to take an extremely long time."

      They do in most circumstances, that's true. That however, does not mean they could not have formed quickly in the past and could not do so in the present.

      What we see geologically appears to be the result of catastrophic processes, not gradualism. Tectonic plate activity especially appears to be a result of a catastrophic event, or series of events.

      "If you claim all could happen in 40 days (or a year) you need to explain how."

      There was a lot more involved in the flood that forty days of rain. Perhaps you need to read the account again, my friend.

      "Sorry Nic, that's part of the evidence we have to account for. In science you don't get to ignore data you don't like. Tell me this at least - even if the absolute dates are wrong, why do the two layers always show vastly different dates if they were created at the same time?"

      There are simply too many things which can affect materials in the course of their decomposition. Again, we are simply dealing with assumptions concerning decomposition rates. Because a particular material in normal circumstances decomposes at a particular rate does not mean it will not be affected by outside forces which can affect that rate.

      "Thanks again, we did, but the traffic sucked out loud and in three colors. Worst I've personally ever experienced."

      I live in a vastly smaller city than LA, but have driven in LA. I think I prefer the drivers there over the drivers here. However, the volume of traffic can be a problem. I assume it is to that which you refer.

      "I'm equally sure you won't be providing it."

      I don't really see the necessity of long ages in the formation of tar pits.

      "BTW, how's that reading on the K-Pg boundary layer coming? Got any explanations for it yet?"

      Still reading, but I'm not being convinced that it results from asteroid impacts.

      "Sharks finally broke their losing streak, maybe they can get hot like the Leafs. Next game is at Chicago so it will be tough."

      Your Sharks are having a bit of a slump, but not to worry, they've got too much talent not to get to the playoffs. I'm trying not to get too hyped over the Leafs play yet. I've waited a long time for them to play this well, I just hope it lasts.

      One of their best players is a son of a guy I was friends with in University. That makes watching them a little more fun.

      I'm sorry It's taken so long to respond. I'm working on selling a business and it's eating up more of my time and attention right now. So forgive me if I take a while to respond for the next while.

      Delete
    26. Nic

      I'm sorry It's taken so long to respond. I'm working on selling a business and it's eating up more of my time and attention right now. So forgive me if I take a while to respond for the next while.


      No worries. A few more blustering but dirt-ignorant Creationists showed up to spice up the party. One flaps his hands and makes even more unsupported assertions than you do. ;)

      Best of luck for success in the business sale. I'll be pulling for you.

      Delete
  13. Thorton: ZOMG it's so COMPLEX!!!

    That has to mean GAWDDIDIT!

    J: Have you ever asked CH why he thinks God "did" anything? He's claimed multiple times he doesn't care if naturalistic UCA is true. So that apparently has nothing to do with his belief that there is a designer. Do you think he's lying?

    Or do you think he means that if UCA is ever explained naturalistically that he would then be a just-as-happy atheist? I've never understood him to mean that, myself. After all, there are lots of UCA'ists that are theists.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Liar for Jesus Jeff

    Have you ever asked CH why he thinks God "did" anything? He's claimed multiple times he doesn't care if naturalistic UCA is true. So that apparently has nothing to do with his belief that there is a designer. Do you think he's lying?


    Of course he's lying for his religion, the same way you do. Only difference I can see is he's getting paid, you work pro bono.

    ReplyDelete
  15. So, to be clear, what specifically do you think he's lying about?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That his extremely vocal opposition to evolutionary theory is purely from a scientific basis and has nothing to do with his religion. That's one of the biggest fattest porkies every told.

      Delete
    2. That would only be a lie if his definition of science didn't warrant his skepticism. I'm betting, by science, CH just means applying deduction and induction to the data. When this is done, there actually is no evidence for naturalistic UCA. Darwin, himself, admitted:

      “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”

      “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.”

      Delete
    3. Jeff,
      there actually is no evidence for naturalistic UCA. Darwin, himself, admitted:


      Darwin lived 150 yrs ago, some further investigation has occurred. But excellent proof that ToE is not a religion, Darwin is fallible.

      Delete
    4. So, V. What's the inductive evidence for naturalistic UCA? Many of the articles CH talks about here are about findings that over-turn over-simplistic ad-hoc hypotheses made by UCA'ists previously. All they ever do is posit even more ad-hoc hypotheses. What else can they do in the absence of a naturalistic theory that actually implies the data/event given the supposed initial conditions?

      There is no inductive evidence for naturalistic UCA. On the other hand, positing designers is not religion. It's a kind of explanation that humans use all the time to decrease the number of ad-hoc hypotheses required to explain certain events. It's quintessentially inductive in nature.

      Delete
    5. The reason why CH always says "Religion drives science and it matters" is because scientists argue as if they know how design inferences MUST work if there is a God. Those who do design inferences inductively don't assume any such thing. They infer designer attributes that seem necessary and sufficient to explain teleologically what is being explained. They don't start with a priori beliefs about divine attributes. They don't even necessarily believe there are such things as a priori beliefs about divine attributes.

      Delete
    6. jeff tries to fool people by saying:

      "They don't start with a priori beliefs about divine attributes."

      ALL IDiots start and end with a priori religious beliefs about divine attributes.

      Delete
    7. Really, TWT? You think an ID'ist had a priori religious beliefs at 2 years old? I'm pretty sure you don't know what a priori means. It's naturalistic UCA'ists who constantly speak as if they know the only way particular design inferences in biology can be conceived. Of course, maybe they're just lying.

      Delete
    8. What the hell does "2 years old" have to do with it?

      Here are some definitions of "a priori":

      a pri·o·ri (ä pr-ôr, -r, pr-ôr, -r)
      adj.
      1. Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect; deductive.
      2.
      a. Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience.
      b. Knowable without appeal to particular experience.
      3. Made before or without examination; not supported by factual study.


      Pay special attention to number 3.


      "It's naturalistic UCA'ists who constantly speak as if they know the only way particular design inferences in biology can be conceived."

      Obviously you haven't noticed that god pushers and the religious dogma they rely on describe the so-called divine attributes of their chosen sky daddies and/or mommies, and those sky daddies and mommies are always endowed with supernatural powers. The so-called christian designer-creator "God" is alleged to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, perfect, etc., etc., etc.

      When a 'UCA-ist' points out that such an allegedly perfect designer-creator "God" is obviously far from perfect at designing-creating, and that life on Earth has a UCA, they're going by the evidence that science has discovered and by the description that god pushers themselves have provided of their chosen, imaginary god(s). In other words, 'UCA-ists' rely on direct, scientific evidence and credible, provisional inferences based on scientific evidence, while godbots just make up and/or adopt fairy tale beliefs, especially about 'exceptional, special creation' of 'man'.

      The thing that bugs you god pushers the most is the connection/relationship that science has shown between 'man' and so-called 'lower life forms'. You just can't stand the thought or the the fact that you descended from apes and other 'lower life forms'. You're insecure in who or what you are so you flock to the arrogant belief that you are 'specially created' in your imaginary god's image and are 'set apart' and 'above' the rest of nature.

      Delete
    9. You're confused on elementary points, TWT:

      1) A priori belief is belief that is not a posteriori. They condition the a posteriori beliefs by definition. Belief formation can not have entailed an infinitely long historical process.

      2) You announce the same absurd straw-man that CH is talking about. ID doesn't imply that all biological conditions are intelligently designed.

      Nor does it imply that all intelligently designed biological effects are designed by God even if God created the original ancestors.

      3) Science hasn't shown any naturalistically CAUSAL relationship between lower life forms and man. You're just really confused about what is known a posteriori and what is metaphysical belief.

      Delete
    10. jeff said:

      "A priori belief is belief that is not a posteriori. They condition the a posteriori beliefs by definition. Belief formation can not have entailed an infinitely long historical process."

      Huh?

      "ID doesn't imply that all biological conditions are intelligently designed."

      Oh really? Then name ten "biological conditions" that weren't/aren't intelligently designed, according to "ID".

      "Nor does it imply that all intelligently designed biological effects are designed by God even if God created the original ancestors."

      Hogwash. And elijah disagrees with you.

      "Science hasn't shown any naturalistically CAUSAL relationship between lower life forms and man."

      See, I'm right. You can't stand that you're descended from so-called 'lower life forms'. You're exceptional, and specially created in your imaginary god's image, right?

      Delete
    11. jeff said:

      "There is no inductive evidence for naturalistic UCA. On the other hand, positing designers is not religion."

      Positing supernatural designer-gods absolutely, positively is religion. Will you emphatically state that you don't believe that a supernatural "God" or any other supernatural entity is 'the designer'?

      "It's a kind of explanation that humans use all the time to decrease the number of ad-hoc hypotheses required to explain certain events."

      Yeah, a lot of humans are uneducated, ignorant simpletons and are terrified of reality so they make up and/or adopt the simplest and most comforting explanation that is not an explanation: 'My protective sky daddy/mommie did it.'

      "It's quintessentially inductive in nature."

      It's totally BS.

      Delete
    12. "Huh?"

      Good job..That aptly expresses your cluelessness a prior is

      "Hogwash. And elijah disagrees with you. "

      is there another Elijah on here? If perchance that was a reference to me then I call hogwash because I am not in disagreement.

      Delete
    13. Jeff,

      . On the other hand, positing designers is not religion. It's a kind of explanation that humans use all the time to decrease the number of ad-hoc hypotheses required to explain certain events


      Unless the designer is Uncaused ,ID does not reduce the number of ad hoc conjectures according to this guy

      "But if I'm right, you're stuck with an infinite set of logical possibilities involving uncaused events. How do you rule these out non-arbitrarily without doing so ad-hoc'ly"

      Delete
    14. Jeff

      2) You announce the same absurd straw-man that CH is talking about. ID doesn't imply that all biological conditions are intelligently designed.


      Which are,which aren't? What is the metric? Csi?

      Nor does it imply that all intelligently designed biological effects are designed by God even if God created the original ancestors.

      Then at some point in the causal link God is the Designer, ID is therefore invoking the divine at some point,correct? God is the ultimate abiogenesis.

      Delete
    15. Jeff,

      They infer designer attributes that seem necessary and sufficient to explain teleologically what is being explained.


      This is a bit shaky,ID cannot by definition speak to anything about the designer or his abilities or motivations. ID only theorizes that the design of the feature is" best" explained by an unknown designer with unknown abilities with unknown goals

      Delete
    16. "That would only be a lie if his definition of science didn't warrant his skepticism. I'm betting, by science, CH just means applying deduction and induction to the data. '

      Well or course but Thorton is either too young or thick headed (I vote for the former or both btw) to understand that historically design was what led many people to be religious not the other way around. IF they even used their brains a little they would realize that prior to the 1800s there was little to oppose the idea of design. Their hero Dawkin's himself has admitted that prior to Darwin it was difficult to be a fulfilled atheists (not that it is now either but so says he) rejecting some form of design. So its just a fact that observation of creation led many to believe in design and so then to be religious - not as Thornton insists the other way around.

      The failing emperor with no clothes proposition is that somehow Darwin and ToE destroyed the idea of design but in fact Neither Darwin or ToE has ever done so and certainly will not even come close in persuading the truly intelligent masses without adressing abiogenesis which the non design Evos cannot touch (and the intelligent masses realize is not a seperate issue). The irony is DNA is the logical death knell of evolution sans design as far as the intelligent majority are concerned. Darwinism would have been stronger if not for unravelling the genetic code. The last 50 years of learning has made abiogenisis less and less likely to be solved by non design explanations so of course Cornelius can be rational, unbiased, religious and a proponent of ID without being dishonest.

      Thornton is just high in rhetoric and low on logic.

      Delete
    17. elijah said:

      "is there another Elijah on here? If perchance that was a reference to me then I call hogwash because I am not in disagreement."

      Didn't you say this:

      "Psst hey dummy. God as creator is the designer in the intelligent design many IDist believing..."?


      Hey elijah, will you emphatically state that you don't believe that a supernatural designer "God" or any other supernatural entity is 'the designer'?


      Will any of the other IDiots here state emphatically that you don't believe that a supernatural designer "God" or any other supernatural entity is 'the designer'?

      Delete
    18. V: Unless the designer is Uncaused ,ID does not reduce the number of ad hoc conjectures according to this guy

      "But if I'm right, you're stuck with an infinite set of logical possibilities involving uncaused events. How do you rule these out non-arbitrarily without doing so ad-hoc'ly"

      J: That guy is right. And that guy doesn't assume the designer of the universe came into existence, a-causally or otherwise. The very point of positing design of the universe IS, in part, to limit ad-hoc hypotheses to a finite number. This is what allows relatively plausibility criteria to be intelligible once you posit, further, that the designer is sympathetic, thereby correlating plausibility with satisfaction.

      V: Which are,which aren't? What is the metric? Csi?

      J: The same as that for SETI. The indication of design is the combination of the following:

      1) the inexplicability by natural causality,

      2) the inexplicability by probability,

      and

      3) the coinciding of the effect with our own satisfaction in some sense, and thus its conceivable motivational explanation.

      Even then, the inference is an inference, however plausible seeming--not a self-evident fact.

      V: Then at some point in the causal link God is the Designer, ID is therefore invoking the divine at some point,correct?

      J: For theists, yes. But God is posited to design designers (i.e., contingent beings with libertarian free-will) by many theists.

      V: ID only theorizes that the design of the feature is" best" explained by an unknown designer with unknown abilities with unknown goals

      J: What you mean, I hope, is "unfalsifiable abilities and goals." But UCA is unfalsifiable too, so what's your point? At least sympathetic, competent theism can account for an epistemology that renders discursive reasoning truth-approximating. The alternative is arbitrary belief.

      Remember, it's the UCA'ists' hero, Theobald, who claims (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html) solipsism is unfalsifiable, thereby implying that nothing anyone has ever done has corroborated the extra-self existence of ANYTHING. How could anyone have corroborated the existence of even one extra-self being if the denial of its existence (which is what solipsism means) is unfalsifiable? How do you even do meaningful probability calculations for hypotheses positing extra-self entities with that skeptical of an approach?

      This problem is created by naive people like Theobald who don't realize parsimony and its relatives (minimizing ad-hoc hypotheses, etc) constitute the only hypothesis rejection criteria possible for the human mind. But UCA'ists couldn't care less about such criteria. Theirs is a truly metaphysical research program, just as Popper admitted.

      Delete
    19. My goodness is thortnon and TWH the same person using two accounts or are the Evoheads here just more dense than the average?

      I said I was not in disagreement to this

      ""Nor does it imply that all intelligently designed biological effects are designed by God even if God created the original ancestors."

      Engage your brain. Thats not me denying a belief in God thats me saying just as I read there that believing in God does not mean that every biological effect has to be directly designed by him.

      Sheesh....I guess because Cornelius doesn't do much modding this is the place for some kids to hang out.

      Delete
    20. Vel having read a bit of your posts your logic is truly spotty

      A) you can't say That we have progressed past Darwin and then turn around and say that Darwin being Fallible proves ToE is not religious. Thats trying to eat your cake and keep it

      B) This is inoherent

      " This is a bit shaky,ID cannot by definition speak to anything about the designer or his abilities or motivations. "

      Forgot that ID is Intelligent Design? Last time I checked intelligence WAS and IS an ability so saying the ID by definition does not speak to anything about the designer's ability is gibberish.

      Delete
    21. TWT: Will you emphatically state that you don't believe that a supernatural "God" or any other supernatural entity is 'the designer'?

      J: I agree with those who say the only non-arbitrary meaning of "natural" is deterministic. Thus, by my view, even humans are super-natural if, as I believe, they are libertarianly free.

      Super-natural is just that which isn't natural. But if natural is not just deterministic, how do you define it such that it would rule out a designer of the universe? Would you just say, "Nature is the set of all contingent beings and their capacities?" If so, how does this imply that it is plausible that the "natural" set is the super set of all beings and their capacities?

      Delete
    22. Jeff,
      And that guy doesn't assume the designer of the universe came into existence, a-causally or otherwise. The very point of positing design of the universe IS, in part, to limit ad-hoc hypotheses to a finite number.


      Neither does the ToE,it says nothing about the origin of the universe. To posit design one needs to posit an unknown designer and the mechanisms he employed to implement to design since the ToE posits a known designer( natural law) and observed mechanisms.

      J: The same as that for SETI. The indication of design is the combination of the following:

      1) the inexplicability by natural causality,

      2) the inexplicability by probability,


      Neither of which can you do

      3) the coinciding of the effect with our own satisfaction in some sense, and thus its conceivable motivational explanation

      Oh, brother

      Delete
    23. Elijah ,
      Vel having read a bit of your posts your logic is truly spotty


      In regione caecorum ,rex est luscus

      Forgot that ID is Intelligent Design? Last time I checked intelligence WAS and IS an ability so saying the ID by definition does not speak to anything about the designer's ability is gibberish

      While many agree about ID being gibberish, ID theory is fairly clear
      From a link from intelligent design.org

      "As a theory, ID also does not specify the identity or nature of the designer, so it is not the same as natural theology, which reasons from nature the existence and attributes of God"

      Delete
    24. Jeff,
      V: ID only theorizes that the design of the feature is" best" explained by an unknown designer with unknown abilities with unknown goals

      J: What you mean, I hope, is "unfalsifiable abilities and goals." But UCA is unfalsifiable too, so what's your point?


      How could one falsify and unknown designer with unknown abilities and unknown goals?

      UCA is pretty easily falsified. If each species was show to have a completely different mechanism of inheritance, no common design features, evolutionary mechanisms would be insufficient to account for that fact.

      At least sympathetic, competent theism can account for an epistemology that renders discursive reasoning truth-approximating.

      Competent theism is compatible with the ToE, unless that God is limited in his choices.

      This problem is created by naive people like Theobald who don't realize parsimony and its relatives (minimizing ad-hoc hypotheses, etc) constitute the only hypothesis rejection criteria possible for the human mind.

      That is a tad arrogant. You have yet to prove that adding an unknown to the equation reduces the ad hoc. After all neither ID or, ToE claim to explain the complete history of the universe

      Delete
    25. ""As a theory, ID also does not specify the identity or nature of the designer, so it is not the same as natural theology, which reasons from nature the existence and attributes of God"

      well I can add reading to your logic as being spotty. How does not specifying the identity of the designer equal "does not speak to anything about the designer's ability"

      The gibberish is not IDs in this instance - its yours.

      Delete
    26. Elijah,
      well I can add reading to your logic as being spotty. How does not specifying the identity of the designer equal "does not speak to anything about the designer's ability"


      ""As a theory, ID also does not specify the identity or nature of the designer"

      Of course it does. Explain the abilities of the intelligent designer without reference to his nature.

      First what exactly was designed and how and when?

      Delete
    27. "Of course it does. Explain the abilities of the intelligent designer without reference to his nature. "

      Oh please. You are just trying to twist the quote to your own purposes to save face rather than take it within its context . Poor form and won't work.

      If I say humans have the ability to intelligently nurture and protect their young how does that indicate their nature over the thousands of species that do the same? If I say I have abilities of a carpenter that does not define the nature of who I am only what I sometimes do. Your point still equals fail.

      No amount of gymnastics gets you away from the fact that intelligence is an ability and ID (intelligent Design) allows and even specifies ability.

      SO this continues to be false

      "does not speak to anything about the designer's ability"

      and gibberish

      Delete
    28. Elijah,
      If I say humans have the ability to intelligently nurture and protect their young how does that indicate their nature over the thousands of species that do the same?


      Go ahead a say it,but ID cannot specify any part of the nature of a designer by design.


      If I say I have abilities of a carpenter that does not define the nature of who I am only what I sometimes do. Your point still equals fail.

      The nature of a object defines its parameters and abilities. To speak of its abilities is to speak of its nature.

      I notice that you neglected to explain exactly what was designed and how?

      No amount of gymnastics gets you away from the fact that intelligence is an ability and ID (intelligent Design) allows and even specifies ability.

      I agree,ID seems to want to have it both ways. Technically only the design shows a hallmark of intelligence. It says nothing about the ABILITY of the intelligence to implement the intelligence. Perhaps you need to define what intelligence is.

      Delete
  16. Can't Evolutionists just provide evidence for their Theory?

    If RM & NS is the primary means of achieving the functional integration we find in biological systems, then simply show an example of a NEW integrated function coming about via that process. They might say well "it doesn't work that way because Evolution works only from previous function", or "there is no selective pressure" or whatever. That obviously won't work as an acceptable explanation.
    You need to identify a potential route (and log results of each state) from point a (absence of function) to point b (fully developed and integrated function).
    And of course, don't pretend to be confused with "function", there is of course objective function at the molecular level.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lcplusplus

      Can't Evolutionists just provide evidence for their Theory?


      Yes, we can and have.

      The Scientific Case for Common Descent

      Can't Creationists ever bother to learn about the actual theory and evidence before launching their attacks from ignorance?

      Delete
    2. Sorry, but you know full well references to common descent won't fly.

      Delete
    3. I should have made this more clear, but in "real-time", Thorton.

      Delete
    4. lcplusplus

      If RM & NS is the primary means of achieving the functional integration we find in biological systems, then simply show an example of a NEW integrated function coming about via that process. They might say well "it doesn't work that way because Evolution works only from previous function", or "there is no selective pressure" or whatever. That obviously won't work as an acceptable explanation.
      You need to identify a potential route (and log results of each state) from point a (absence of function) to point b (fully developed and integrated function).


      That's already been done too.

      Lenski Long Term Experimental Evolution Project

      Does arguing from ignorance ever work for you in other areas of real life?

      Delete
    5. lcplusplus

      Sorry, but you know full well references to common descent won't fly.


      LOL!

      "I demand evidence for evolution, but you can't mention common descent!!"

      You Creationist boobs are too funny!

      Delete
    6. Common descent has nothing to do with my question.

      Why is it Evolutionists have to resort to existing designs? Those by definition, already exist.

      Start thinking like an Engineer if you want to convince the world of your ideas.

      Show something that doesn't yet exist come into existence.

      I'm sure its not easy to test but the concept is not hard to grasp, Thorton.

      Delete
    7. lcplusplus

      Start thinking like an Engineer if you want to convince the world of your ideas.


      The scientific community is already convinced, decidedly so.

      Stop thinking like an engineer if you want to actually understand the science being discussed.

      Delete
    8. lcplusplus

      Why is it Evolutionists have to resort to existing designs? Those by definition, already exist.


      Maybe because evolution works by modifying what already exists.

      Is there anything you actually understand about the topic of evolution we can discuss? Anything at all?

      Delete
    9. Convinced of what Thorton?

      I'm sure the individual members of the scientific community can speak for themselves.

      Is that all Thorton, Lenski's experiments?

      Delete
    10. I take that as a no, there is nothing at all you actually understand about the topic of evolution.



      Delete
    11. "Maybe because evolution works by modifying what already exists."

      Of course this is obvious, Thorton. Anything that is added or modified is done in the context of whatever exists.

      Do you think this little statement of yours proves something?

      Delete
    12. "Is there anything you actually agree with me about the topic of evolution we can discuss? Anything at all?"

      Fixed that for you, Thorton.

      And the answer to that is probably, no.

      Delete
    13. As I predicted, the Evolutionist will try all means to dodge the actual issue.

      Delete
    14. lcplusplus

      T: "Maybe because evolution works by modifying what already exists."

      Of course this is obvious, Thorton. Anything that is added or modified is done in the context of whatever exists.


      LOL! If it's so obvious then why don't you understand the concept?

      "Is there anything you actually agree with me about the topic of evolution we can discuss? Anything at all?"

      Fixed that for you, Thorton.


      I don't ask you to agree with me. I ask you to back up your empty bluster with some published scientific data. But apparently you're too scientifically illiterate to understand the concept of 'positive evidence' for your position also.

      You're not alone though. Most all ID Creationists are dumb enough to push the false dichotomy. If they attack ToE well enough that somehow makes their claims right by default.

      Delete
    15. I think its clear you either don't understand or pretend not to understand the actual issue.

      Sorry if I bothered you Thorton, maybe you should let another Evolutionist give it a shot.

      Delete
    16. "Is there anything you actually understand about the topic of evolution we can discuss? Anything at all?"

      I've written plenty of Evolutionary Algorithms and understand the fundamentals quite well. I put deep thought and emphasis on what I consider is most important, and that is all. I don't keep track of publications, I simply don't have time for it. I rely mostly on Evolutionists such as yourself to summarize and present the evidence for evaluation.

      Its not simply that I want to query Evolutionists for the answers, I'm interested in answering these questions myself (and would do anything if I would be guaranteed definitive answers to "close the loop"), and it has little to do with me being a Theist.

      Delete
    17. Here I'm quoting (with which I agree with for the most part) creation.com with regards to EA's or GA's:


      " A ‘trait’ can only be quantitative so that any move towards the objective can be selected for. Many biological traits are qualitative—it either works or it does not, so there is no step-wise means of getting from no function to the function.
      A GA can only select for a very limited number of traits. Even with the simplest bacteria, which are not at all simple, hundreds of traits have to be present for it to be viable (survive); selection has to operate on all traits that affect survival.
      Something always survives to carry on the process. There is no rule in evolution that says that some organism(s) in the evolving population will remain viable no matter what mutations occur. In fact, the GAs that I have looked at artificially preserve the best of the previous generation and protect it from mutations or recombination in case nothing better is produced in the next iteration. This has a ratchet effect that ensures that the GA will generate the desired outcome—any move in the right direction is protected.
      Perfect selection (selection coefficient, s = 1.0) is often applied so that in each generation only the best survives to ‘reproduce’ to produce the next generation. In the real world, selection coefficients of 0.01 or less are considered realistic, in which case it would take many generations for an information-adding mutation to permeate through a population. Putting it another way, the cost of substitution is ignored (see ReMine’s The Biotic Message for a thorough run-down of this, which is completely ignored in GAs—see Population genetics, Haldane’s Dilemma, etc.).
      The flip side to this is that high rates of ‘reproduction’ are used. Bacteria can only double their numbers per generation. Many ‘higher’ organisms can only do a little better, but GAs commonly produce 100s or 1000s of ‘offspring’ per generation. For example, if a population of 1,000 bacteria had only one survivor (999 died), then it would take 10 generations to get back to 1,000.
      Generation time is ignored. A generation can happen in a computer in microseconds whereas even the best bacteria take about 20 minutes. Multicellular organisms have far longer generation times.
      "

      Delete
    18. continued...

      " The mutation rate is artificially high (by many orders of magnitude). This is sustainable because the ‘genome’ is small (see next point) and artificial rules are invoked to protect the best ‘organism’ from mutations, for example. Such mutation rates in real organisms would result in all the offspring being non-viable (error catastrophe). This is why living things have exquisitely designed editing machinery to minimize copying errors to a rate of about one in a billion per cell division.
      The ‘genome’ is artificially small and only does one thing. The smallest real world genome is over 0.5 million base pairs (and it is an obligate parasite, which depends on its host for many of the substrates needed) with several hundred proteins coded. This is equivalent to over a million bits of information. Even if a GA generated 1800 bits of real information, as one of the commonly-touted ones claims, that is equivalent to maybe one small enzyme—and that was achieved with totally artificial mutation rates, generation times, selection coefficients, etc., etc. In fact, this is also how the body’s immune system develops specific antibodies, with these designed conditions totally different to any whole organism. This is pointed out in more detail by biophysicist Dr Lee Spetner in his refutation of a skeptic.
      In real organisms, mutations occur throughout the genome, not just in a gene or section that specifies a given trait. This means that all the deleterious changes to other traits have to be eliminated along with selecting for the rare desirable changes in the trait being selected for. This is ignored in GAs. With genetic algorithms, the program itself is protected from mutations; only target sequences are mutated. Indeed, if it were not quarantined from mutations, the program would very quickly crash. However, the reproduction machinery of an organism is not protected from mutations.
      There is no problem of irreducible complexity with GAs (see Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box). Many biological traits require many different components to be present, functioning together, for the trait to exist at all (e.g. protein synthesis, DNA replication, reproduction of a cell, blood clotting, every metabolic pathway, etc.)."

      Delete
    19. " Polygeny (where a trait is determined by the combined action of more than one gene) and pleiotropy (where one gene can affect several different traits) are ignored. Furthermore, recessive genes are ignored (recessive genes cannot be selected for unless present as a pair; i.e. homozygous), which multiplies the number of generations needed to get a new trait established in a population. The problem of recessive genes leads to one facet of Haldane’s Dilemma, where the well-known evolutionist J.B.S. Haldane pointed out that, based on the theorems of population genetics, there has not been enough time for the sexual organisms with low reproductive rates and long generation times to evolve. See review of ReMine’s analysis of Haldane’s Dilemma.
      Multiple coding genes are ignored. From the human genome project, it appears that, on average, each gene codes for at least three different proteins (see Genome Mania — Deciphering the human genome. In microbes, genes have been discovered that code for one protein when ‘read’ in one direction and a different protein when read backwards, or when the ‘reading’ starts one letter on. Creating a GA to generate such information-dense coding would seem to be out of the question. Such demands an intelligence vastly superior to human beings for its creation.
      The outcome with a GA is ‘pre-ordained’ (‘formal’). Evolution is by definition purposeless, so no computer program that has a pre-determined goal can simulate it—period. This is most obviously true of Dawkins’ ‘weasel’ program, where the selection of each letter sequence is determined entirely on its match with the pre-programmed goal sequence (see further reading below). That GAs are not valid simulations of evolution because of this fundamental problem has been acknowledged—see this 2009 quote. Perhaps if the programmer could come up with a program that allowed any random change to happen and then measured the survivability of the ‘organisms’, it might be getting closer to what evolution is supposed to do! Of course that is impossible (as is evolution).
      With a particular GA, we need to ask how much of the ‘information’ generated by the program is actually specified in the program, rather than being generated de novo. A number of modules or subroutines are normally specified in the program, and the ways these can interact is also specified. The GA program finds the best combinations of modules and the best ways of interacting them. The amount of new information generated is usually quite trivial, even with all the artificial constraints designed to make the GA work."

      Delete
    20. Thank you for C&Ping that huge steaming pile of Creationist bullcrap. I'm sure the world is a better place because of it.

      Delete
    21. "Thank you for C&Ping that huge steaming pile of Creationist bullcrap."

      Which being interpreted means - that just went so far over my head the only way to fake understanding it is to pretend like I don't need to address it.

      Delete
    22. I'm not interested in wasting hours typing out a point-by-point rebuttal of Creationist Don Batten's amazingly misinformed and downright dishonest "Gish Gallop" regarding GAs. That's the steaming pile of crap Icplusplus C&Ped above.

      Others before me have already taken this Creationist idiot Batten to task. Here is a quite detailed point-by-point dismantling of his anti-science stupidity by one experienced GA programmer:

      Creationists Found Out About Genetic Algorithms — And They Aren’t Happy

      None of the Creationist tools here will read it of course, but Batten's amazing ignorance is exposed for all to see.

      Delete
    23. lcplusplus: Can't Evolutionists just provide evidence for their Theory?

      Thorton: Yes, we can and have.

      The Scientific Case for Common Descent

      Jeff: Here's what Theobald says on that site:

      "Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless."

      What Theobald is saying, there, is that he is not providing evidence for naturalistic UCA. He's saying a set of teleological explanations can be given to account for it. Those teleological explanations take the form of ad-hoc hypotheses in naturalistic explanation. But in teleological explanation, they take the form of story-telling, where the story teller is assuming that his/her story-telling is causally-adequate to render past events causally related per the told story.

      The reason why many theists (including myself) can't get on board with this kind of teleological explanation is because we don't think even God can change the past by story-telling it. That seems logically impossible to us, given our understanding of the temporally-ordered nature of cause and effect.

      Delete
    24. icplusplus, do you actually expect Thorton or anyone else to demonstrate the common descent of every organism that has ever lived in "real time"? Do you actually think that abiogenesis, and billions of years of descent/evolution, can be demonstrated in "real time"?

      Delete
    25. "Here is a quite detailed point-by-point dismantling of his anti-science stupidity by one experienced GA programmer"

      read it. Here and there it makes a good point but hardly answers all the points and glosses over the most serious. Its a dismantling only in you own mind (not surprising) For example Batten's last point - Its not possible in any programming for the programmer to entirely isolate the information the programming itself provides so Baten's point stands. All your link's author does is wave his hand around the issue in no meaningful way that addresses the issue. GAs are a load of crap as some kind of proof of concept for evolution. Those that appeal to it can argue all day but if you have done a stick of programming in your life its virtually impossible to not bake in your own human intelligence into the process at several key points within the program.

      Not surprising Evoheads try and pretend that isn't the case just as the poster above tries to pretend abiogenesis can be demonstrated - regardless of real time or not.

      Delete
    26. elijah barfed:

      "...just as the poster above tries to pretend abiogenesis can be demonstrated..."

      I neither claimed, suggested, implied, nor pretended any such thing by what I said. I was only pointing out how ridiculous icplusplus's "real time" expectations are.

      Delete
    27. of course you implied it by saying the issue was "real time". Now did you intend to do so? I can accept that you did not but implied does not have to be intentional.

      Besides why pretend? You clearly believe that it could be if we had enough time to do so.

      Delete
    28. Jeff February 23, 2013 at 9:09 AM

      [...]

      What Theobald is saying, there, is that he is not providing evidence for naturalistic UCA. He's saying a set of teleological explanations can be given to account for it. Those teleological explanations take the form of ad-hoc hypotheses in naturalistic explanation. But in teleological explanation, they take the form of story-telling, where the story teller is assuming that his/her story-telling is causally-adequate to render past events causally related per the told story.


      We must have been reading different papers. In the one I read, Theobald makes no appeal to teleological explanations. His thesis is encapsulated in the first sentence from the quoted passage: "Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms." In other words, it is possible to infer common descent on the basis of the evidences listed, regardless of the mechanisms that may have been responsible for evolutionary change over time.

      And while scientific hypotheses and theories can indeed be gathered under the rubric of story-telling, that in no way implies that they have the same nature or perform the same function as myths, legends or or any other fictional narratives.

      The reason why many theists (including myself) can't get on board with this kind of teleological explanation is because we don't think even God can change the past by story-telling it. That seems logically impossible to us, given our understanding of the temporally-ordered nature of cause and effect.

      This sounds suspect both theologically and philosophically.

      According to the Christian belief, God created the Universe out of nothing - as far as we can tell. There is no reason to think His powers over that creation have any limits other than those that are self-imposed. He also exists outside our space and time. In other words, we can imagine that, not only is the whole physical expanse of the universe laid out before Him, but so is the whole of time, like some sort of landscape. In other words, any region of spacetime is fully accessible to Him and He can do with it anything that He chooses. If He wants to change it and, by extension, the stories we tell about it, then He can and we would be none the wiser.

      We also do well to bear in mind that our perspective on space and time is inevitably parochial and we have no reason to think it is in any way privileged.

      If we look at the span of time between ourselves and the Founding Fathers we see what is, for us, settled history or, if you prefer, well-established narratives describing what happened then. On the other hand, for Washington and Jefferson and their colleagues that same period was completely unknown. From the perspective of their 'present', the westward expansion, the building of railroads, the Civil War, the invention of aircraft, the First and Second World Wars were all invisible. By the same token, a thousand years from now, our descendants may be looking over our unknown future as settled history. Who is right? Is the course of events in a given period fixed or not? Is any one 'present' privileged over any other or do we default again to the deterministic universe implied by the existence of an God who displays, as part of His omniscience, knowledge of the future?

      Delete
    29. I: Theobald makes no appeal to teleological explanations. His thesis is encapsulated in the first sentence from the quoted passage: "Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms." In other words, it is possible to infer common descent on the basis of the evidences listed, regardless of the mechanisms that may have been responsible for evolutionary change over time.

      J: They're not INDUCTIVE evidences at all. Take cladistic tree-generation. This is not inductive evidence for naturalistic explanation at all. The rules for that generation have no known correspondence to the temporally-ordered phenotypic/extinction effects of mutations that have occurred over earth history. Thus, those rules have nothing to do with naturalistic explanation of the posited evolutionary trajectories for UCA.

      But if a putative evidence has no relation to naturalistic explanation, teleological explanation is the only kind of explanation left.

      I: There is no reason to think His powers over that creation have any limits other than those that are self-imposed.

      J: Can any creator defy the law of non-contradiction? If so, that creator, by definition, is not the explanation of the validity of rational inference. If rational inference (deductive/inductive) is truth-approximating at all, God, as designer of the fit of the human inferential nature to extra-self reality, has to be conceived as limited by logical possibilities.

      I: We also do well to bear in mind that our perspective on space and time is inevitably parochial and we have no reason to think it is in any way privileged.

      J: Then any explanatory hypotheses that are based on the idea that certain temporal or spatial relations are true are necessarily unfalsifiable and speculative. And that would be precisely all explanatory hypotheses. Explanation is causal accounting. Causal conditions always precede, temporally, effect conditions per parochial thinking. If not, we don't have any explanations that are knowably correlated to events at all.

      I: Is any one 'present' privileged over any other or do we default again to the deterministic universe implied by the existence of an God who displays, as part of His omniscience, knowledge of the future?

      J: I believe in libertarian freedom. So I don't believe God knows the outcomes of future libertarian choices. And there are Christian philosophers/theologians who agree with that view. There are non-Christian theists who do, as well.

      Delete
    30. Jeff February 23, 2013 at 5:37 PM

      I: Theobald makes no appeal to teleological explanations. His thesis is encapsulated in the first sentence from the quoted passage: "Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms." In other words, it is possible to infer common descent on the basis of the evidences listed, regardless of the mechanisms that may have been responsible for evolutionary change over time.

      J: They're not INDUCTIVE evidences at all. Take cladistic tree-generation. This is not inductive evidence for naturalistic explanation at all. The rules for that generation have no known correspondence to the temporally-ordered phenotypic/extinction effects of mutations that have occurred over earth history. Thus, those rules have nothing to do with naturalistic explanation of the posited evolutionary trajectories for UCA.


      Of course they're inductive. It is a process of inferring hypothetical relationships based on comparison of observed characters. The fact that cladograms can be generated without assuming any particular causal mechanism is what makes them useful as a test. No, they're not the God's honest truth - that's for believers. They're tentative explanations which have to be validated against further observations. Nobody's required to accept them, just be open to the possibility that they may be found to have explanatory and predictive power on furuther testing.

      They're also not the sole leg on which Theobald's case stands but just one element in a list of evidence he sets out in that paper.

      But if a putative evidence has no relation to naturalistic explanation, teleological explanation is the only kind of explanation left.

      Yet again, Theobald's case is that "...the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms." Of itself, it neither requires nor denies naturalistic explanations. Equally, it neither requires nor denies teleological explanations. In other words, the lack of a proposed naturalistic explanation does not entitle you to assume a teleological one as the default. There is nothing to prevent you making a case for teleology if you want but we are not bound to assume it either.

      J: Can any creator defy the law of non-contradiction? If so, that creator, by definition, is not the explanation of the validity of rational inference. If rational inference (deductive/inductive) is truth-approximating at all, God, as designer of the fit of the human inferential nature to extra-self reality, has to be conceived as limited by logical possibilities.

      The God I'm thinking about can no more defy the principle of non-contradiction than He can make a square circle. Omnipotence for me means that He has the power to do anything that it is possible to do.

      I don't see a any good reason for thinking that our capacity for inference can only be explained teleologically. Quine's pithy comment nailed that one, “Creatures inveterately wrong in their inductions have a pathetic, but praiseworthy, tendency to die before reproducing their kind”

      I: We also do well to bear in mind that our perspective on space and time is inevitably parochial and we have no reason to think it is in any way privileged.

      J: Then any explanatory hypotheses that are based on the idea that certain temporal or spatial relations are true are necessarily unfalsifiable and speculative. And that would be precisely all explanatory hypotheses. Explanation is causal accounting. Causal conditions always precede, temporally, effect conditions per parochial thinking. If not, we don't have any explanations that are knowably correlated to events at all.


      [Continued]

      Delete
    31. [Continued]


      No, it renders suspect our instinctive assumption that this 'present - our - present is the one and only frontier between our settled history and our unexplored future. In fact, it calls into question the belief that there is a boundary at all - other than to our knowledge.

      J: I believe in libertarian freedom. So I don't believe God knows the outcomes of future libertarian choices. And there are Christian philosophers/theologians who agree with that view. There are non-Christian theists who do, as well.

      I've no doubt there are. People believe all sorts of things. So you can believe in a God who doesn't know the outcomes of future libertarian choices but you can't avoid the questions raised by such a belief - such as, whose future doesn't God know?

      I like to think of myself as a Millian libertarian; I support the principles concerning the rights of an individual in society set out by the English philosopher John Stuart Mill in On Liberty.

      I agree with you, though, that a purely deterministic universe is a sterile concept. If we are all like little trains trundling inexorably along our predetermined lines through history then this is all pointless.

      On the other hand, we cannot deny that we are contingent beings. We cannot insulate ourselves from being influenced by what is around us. We cannot detach ourselves from our past. We are products of both nature and nurture, much of it happening before we were even aware of what was being done to us.

      Such freedom of choice as we do have - assuming we have any at all - must lie between the two extremes of absolute freedom and strict determinism.

      Delete
    32. Interesting discussion.  Jeff still sounds somewhat Greek to me but I'm slowly getting used to it. Ian is a bit closer,  maybe Polish. :)

      Delete
    33. To say that Theobald's putative evidence is evidence independent of cause is to say it's evidence whether or not events ARE caused. And that's to say that it is not explanatory all. But then, I have no idea what he's saying there's evidence FOR? That critters can be classified in trees? Who ever denied that? That the fossil record we know thus far has succession? Who ever denied that?

      It's EXPLAINING things causally where the disagreements arise. So long as people (even academicians) have the right to dissent without intimidation (precisely because of the fact that the "evidence" doesn't evince a naturalistic hypothesis), no one cares about disagreement.

      But you've made the relevant point. If Theobald's evidence isn't evidence for a particular causal mode, then I'm hardly wrong to say there is no INDUCTIVE evidence for the causal mode of deterministic mutations. And apart from a deterministic mode of evolution, there is nothing about the study of it that involves methodological naturalism. Physics and chemistry, on the other hand, typically DOES involve that methodology.

      Delete
    34. I: I don't see a any good reason for thinking that our capacity for inference can only be explained teleologically. Quine's pithy comment nailed that one, “Creatures inveterately wrong in their inductions have a pathetic, but praiseworthy, tendency to die before reproducing their kind”

      J: I forgot to address this point this morning. There are at least 2 problems with Quine's statement when used to counter a teleological explanation of the normativity or validity of inference:

      1) It assumes solipsism, epiphenominalism, etc are false as if inferences counter to solipsism, epiphenominalism, etc, per se, are necessarily valid, which is clearly false. Alternatively, you would have to embrace a foundationalism that rules out solipsism, epiphenominalism, etc categorically. But how is this logically possible to do once the intuitive is associated with the parochial which, in turn, is deemed of little worth for that very reason?

      2) Explaining an adaptive functional role for mental activity naturalistically for the typical UCA'ist would require a deductive argument with premises declaring relevant initial conditions and event regularities. But how can they do that when the premises for most UCA'ists would be void of the properties/attributes from which mere consciousness could be deduced, much less specifics of the conscious experience, like free-will. There is no naturalistic (deterministic, involving repeatable event regularities) theory that can do that, by sheer definition of deductive argument, which all explanation involves.

      Delete
  17. "Not any old complex, really COMPLEX!!!

    ZOMG it's so COMPLEX!!!

    That has to mean GAWDDIDIT!"

    We should all be entertained by this kind of buffonery. Its one of the reasons after all why atheists remain a minority. The larger population will not buy the dogma that complexity arises out of chance anymore than they do the proposition that if you put Pepsi, tin foil and dust in a can out will pop MJ doing the moonwalk if you just shake it up long enough. Since they won't buy it atheists are reduced to play an emperor with no clothes gambit of claiming that those who can't see it are less intelligent. Its all they've got to bluster up the absurd.

    This is also why they duck and run whenever abiogenesis is mentioned. they don't wish to play the emperor's new clothes gambit twice in a row and not putting the origin of DNA on the table helps them to allude the obvious - Its the laws that govern matter not merely their physical arrangement that allows for life and those laws are inexplicable baked in (even in QM) providing a consistent order and logic which the atheistic evolutionist not only cannot explain but by sheer logic never will.

    Yes I know Thornton all of that goes straight over your head but like I said its exactly why you run around on the internet because in the real world you and I both know you are in the minority

    ReplyDelete
  18. Elijah2012

    Yes I know Thornton all of that goes straight over your head but like I said its exactly why you run around on the internet because in the real world you and I both know you are in the minority


    How do you figure that the 97% of scientists in the life science fields who accept an old Earth and evolution - those who actually study and work with the data for a living - are the minority?

    Is that Creation Math just like you do Creation Science?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL. Are you guys all trained by talkorigins trotting out your poll numbers while ignoring all data that contradicts your preferred polls

      http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx

      http://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html

      and by the way go on jeopardy and buy a clue or something. There are many in ID that believe in Evolution and an old earth but also hold to design. As usual you make no point.

      Delete
    2. Psst...hey dummy...belief in a personal God and acceptance of the theory of evolution are two completely different things.

      Delete
  19. "Psst...hey dummy...belief in a personal God and acceptance of the theory of evolution"

    Psst hey dummy. God as creator is the designer in the intelligent design many IDist believing while ACCEPTING the theory of evolution. I'll even blow your feeble little mind by alerting you to the fact that there are even CREATIONISTS that accept evolution. Your juvenile assumptions were bound to bite you in the rear sooner or later as they now have. I can hold easily to forms of evolution without buying natural selections as its only driving force and be totally fine being an advocate of intelligent design.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. elijah shows his confusion by saying:

      "God as creator is the designer in the intelligent design many IDist believing while ACCEPTING the theory of evolution."

      I'll assume that you meant to say:

      'God as creator is the designer in the intelligent design many IDists believe in while ACCEPTING the theory of evolution.'

      First, that makes no sense. The ToE is non-theistic, so anyone who inserts a designer-god into the ToE doesn't accept the ToE. Some IDiots accept some sort of theistic evolution but that's not the same as accepting the ToE.

      Second, thanks for confirming that "God as creator is the designer in the intelligent design...". joey g should be along any minute now to dishonestly tell you that you are wrong.

      Delete
    2. lol... thanks for admitting your bias and double speak. If ToE is non thiestic rather than Anti theistic then there is no reason why one could not accept both. Its yu that make no sense. Furthermore Joey or whoever can feel quite fine you just can't grasp context and basic english. Thornton raised the personal God issue and I said "MANY" (have a problem with even more basic word definitions as well?) Idists NOT all. Are there many People who believe in a personal God AND adhere to ID ? Yes. DO all IDist have to adhere to a personal god? No.

      As usual you have no point.

      P.S. You demonstrate no confusion except that I am accustomed to being able to edit my posts after the fact on most other sites I participate and rely on it to pick up any errors left over when I changes the wording of sentences.

      Delete
    3. Thorton can speak for himself about what he meant by saying:

      "...belief in a personal God and acceptance of the theory of evolution are two completely different things."

      I stand by what I said. If someone inserts a designer-god into the ToE, they are not accepting the ToE, which is non-theistic. If I were to say that I accept the ToE as long as Fifi the pink unicorn god is assigned as the designer-god of evolution, would you believe that I actually accept the ToE?

      Some people compartmentalize their religious beliefs and their alleged acceptance of the ToE, but when they mix the two in their mind or out loud they are not actually accepting the ToE. Instead, they are modifying the ToE to suit their religious beliefs.

      Delete
    4. elijah said:

      "DO all IDist have to adhere to a personal god? No."

      ALL IDiots have to and do "adhere" to a supernatural designer-creator-god, whether it's "personal" or not, and whether they will admit it or not. Otherwise, who or what designed-created everything? Aliens from another planet? Then who or what designed-created those aliens and their planet, according to ID?

      joey g and other IDiots say that ID is all about origins, and why do you think that IDiots use the term "the Designer"? They don't just say any old designer, they say "the Designer". In other words, the one and only designer-creator-god. The supernatural source of the origins of everything.

      Delete
    5. "I stand by what I said. "

      Who cares what yous said? You think you are some authority? Only in your mind do you make up rules for other people. Your side is infamous for ducking and running and claiming abiogensis has nothing to do with Evolution, SO its totally incoherent for you to say that they can't believe in ToE and yet believe that God created life and gave it the capability to evolve. We hear all the time from evolutionists that ToE strictly deals with the evolution of life not its origin but here you are claiming that even if someone believes in all life being derived by ancestry from a single organism they do not believe in ToE unless they do not believe in God. Sorry thats your own idiocy talking.

      Now let me unmask your foolishness. You think you are making some great point but so what IF (and its a huge if) they all did believe in a 100% kind of God as taught by religions. SO what? You believe in a 80% kind of God. Its only a matter of degrees.

      No?

      Really? What is this idea of God in religion anyway? Lets take Christianity ( the one most of you hate because its too successful and it has morals you would rather not accept). How does it define God. Lets see

      Creator
      Omnipotent
      Omnipresent
      Eternal
      Omnsicient

      Now you take any atheists that has half a brain and has considered the matter of ultimate origins and you know what he believes in when questioned - A cosmos that is

      Creative
      Omnipotent
      Omnipresent
      and Eternal

      The only difference between theists and atheists is 20% because atheists don't believe the cosmos is intelligent so um just strike the omniscience part. For all of the clap trap about religion being so wrong about things and so given to illogical supernaturalism Atheists believe in MANY of the exact same things as Theists. The only difference is they believe in a great IT is that IT is that has no beginning, no explanation and no cause and the theists believes in an I AM THAT I AM.

      TO be continued :)


      Delete
    6. and nowadays many atheists take another step and claim that we are part of a cosmos with infinite universes, Worlds that are created or split off when we make decisions (many worlds) or that quantum fluctuation makes even Dragons appearing in the super collider possible but just terribly unlikely.

      Do you claim that none of those scientist can believe in ToE? No they are free to pursue all kinds of ideas that to any rational person are beyond (super) our universe (natural) with no problem and no label of being stupid IDiots. WHy? beause all their setups don't bring in just one thing into their imaginations - intelligence.

      Thats the SOLE illogical criteria. Meanwhle everyone of them either have to deal with infinite regress or an ultimate begining that has NO SHOT WHATSOEVER at what is now called a "Scientific" explanation. However once you have an infinite universe every possibility has already been achieved in this cosmos an infinite amount of times so oops since its high conceivable with the right amount of knowledge some civilization could create universes you just might be in one of them right now.

      Short version? for all the bluster you end up in much the same place and your objections are nonsense.

      Delete
  20. I would like to know how the adaptation mentioned in the above OP evolved by a Darwinian process.
    And it would be really refreshing if I could see some evidence that it actually evolved, not just an explanation as to how it could have evolved. And it would be really nice if the evolutionists would be very specific in their explanation, and quantify things, the way the demand ID proponents do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nat,

      And it would be really nice if the evolutionists would be very specific in their explanation, and quantify things, the way the demand ID proponents do.


      Which the ID proponents never do.

      Delete
    2. This link has already been posted by Thorton but it's still a good place to start, that is, if you are really interested in looking at the evidence.

      Delete
    3. I don't suppose it ever crossed your closed little Fundy mind even once to try actually reading the paper, which explains pretty clearly the benefits (selectable and heritable) of the variations in codon usage in producing optimal protein function.

      Delete
    4. Guys:

      I know how beneficial this adaptation is. I know about all the evidence for evolution. i asked about how this particular adaptation evolved from something simpler, more primitive, more generalist, less evolved, whatever. I would like some details about functional intermediates as well. See, whenever something like this is discovered, evolutionist say, "well it must have evolved so it did evolve." That's getting boring. For once, I'd like to see some details filled in. And I would like to see some evidence that an adaptation actually evolved.

      Delete
    5. People in hell want ice water too nat. The simple fact is science doesn't have every last little detail on every topic for events that happened billions of years ago. It's a standing joke that you IDiots keep demanding such levels of detail while providing exactly ZERO POINT SQUAT of your own.

      Delete
    6. Let me interpret that for you Nat

      "It's a standing joke that you IDiots keep asking questions that we have ZERO POINT SQUAT answers to give and never will. You Stupid IDiots should just accept our just so stories and imaginations of the gaps as simple fact. Details are unimportant to science cause we say so"

      Delete
  21. "This link has already been posted by Thorton but it's still a good place to start, that is, if you are really interested in looking at the evidence"

    Sorry but thats a lazy answer. That old and overused link does not answer natschuster direct question. You are just ducking.

    "I don't suppose it ever crossed your closed little Fundy mind even once to try actually reading the paper, "

    Don't worry about fundies. You don't even read your own links or you would have known dating the providence of a rock is not synonymous with a rock's age.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Elijah
    would have known dating the providence of a rock is not synonymous with a rock's age


    It is puts an upper limit on when the layer was put down, so it does tell a geologist something about the age of the sedimentary rock

    ReplyDelete
  23. Sorry Vel I'm afraid you can't save thornton from his display of ignorance. You cannot use provenance to date a layer. The layer itself can be even hundreds of millions younger. Nice try though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Elijah

      Sorry Vel I'm afraid you can't save thornton from his display of ignorance.


      Thorton can handle his own defense

      You cannot use provenance to date a layer. The layer itself can be even hundreds of millions younger

      But it can't be older than the datable material, it gives you an upper limit for the age. Yes it can be younger, a more precise age requires other methods.


      Delete
    2. Sorry vel. OFf point and inconsequential. No matter how hard you try the link was provided as an answer for the age of the rock. I will give you half a point for reminding us of the obvious even though it wasn't what was in question. What can I say - I am just nice that way ;)

      Delete
    3. Elijah,
      No matter how hard you try the link was provided as an answer for the age of the rock.


      I have no interest in your and Thorton's argument, my point remains is that the provenance of the rock gives you information about the age of the sedimentary layer.

      I will give you half a point for reminding us of the obvious even though it wasn't what was in question. What can I say - I am just nice that way ;)

      Your wisdom is only surpassed by your kindness

      Delete
    4. "I have no interest in your and Thorton's argument, my point remains is that the provenance of the rock gives you information about the age of the sedimentary layer. "

      Well like I said your reading is as spotty as your logic. Everything said in regard to provenance WAS ABOUT Thorton's argument so once again thank your for the meaningless out of context tangential comment that informed no one of anything new.

      "Your wisdom is only surpassed by your kindness"

      Thank you but based on the kindness I have seen you extend I must give you due credit for setting the bar low enough that anyone could exceed it.

      Delete
  24. I see Elijah2012 is still too dumb to realize the paper was dating two different formations that comprise the unconformity:

    "The older La Boca Formation consists of two informal members, a lower unit of siliciclastic and volcanic rocks discordantly overlain by a predominantly siliciclastic upper member. The younger La Joya Formation is an upward-fining, alluvial-braided fluvial succession with a basal conglomerate."

    Doesn't matter that each formation is a mixture of rocks of different ages. The lower La Boca member is still older than the overlaying La Joya member.

    Strata diagram

    Elijah2012, if these were all laid down at the same time by DA FLUD why is there such a big difference in ages?

    What is your mechanism for the formation of the angular unconformities?

    We sure have some dumbass Creationists around here.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Thorton your dumbness was revealed in linking to a paper extract that speaks only of radiometric dating directly in regard to the provenance when asked specifically for radiometric data about a layer. When asked you did not even know the meaning of "mixed provenance" but just went to the usual hand waving "you creationists are dumb" to cover your own vast ignorance (Sorry but nothing you nor side kick Vel says will save you from that display of ignorance)

    Not surprising since over half of you evoheads points are centered around calling other people dumb to cover your own ignorance. I mean seriously without that charge you wouldn't have any argument to speak of and its also one of the reasons why atheism grows so slowly and remains in the vast minority. Your Emperor with no clothes gambit of telling people the clothes are really there but they are just too stupid not to see them is an epic fail with the majority.

    "Elijah2012, if these were all laid down at the same time by DA FLUD why is there such a big difference in ages?"

    and um who said they were? not me. I told you you couldn't bring that weak crap to me. Like most evoheads you can only deal with the flood only 40 days only crowd. Don't believe several of the assumption in radiometric dating but I have no problem whatsoever with layers being different ages. Its true that a great deal of Creationists speak of the flood the most but your blithering ignorance of what you criticize fails to even realize that biblically there are two geological processes maintained by many others - the breaking of Pangea (which the bible specifically references as being the original state of the land mass) being the other besides DA FLOOD :)

    OF course you are so uneducated in what you oppose you would probably be stunned silly that a strictly biblical literalists would have no problem whatsoever with a world scores time older than 6,000 years because you think Ussher was either a writer in the bible or a modern day R&B and hip hop singer. ;)

    So since you are so slow let me break it down for you. Debating me you would have to stick strictly to radiometric dating because relative dating of one younger rock on top of older wouldn't phase my position in the least.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gee Elijah2012, in all your pompous self-righteous bloviating you completely forgot to provide your mechanism for the formation of angular unconformities.

      I suppose it's harsh of me to ask since you didn't even know what the term meant before I showed you. Just like you're too ignorant to give me a definition of 'code'.

      We sure have some dumbass Creationists around here indeed.

      Delete
    2. "Debating me you would have to stick strictly to radiometric dating because relative dating of one younger rock on top of older wouldn't phase my position in the least."

      What about several or many formations (or members, units, layers, etc.) on top of an older formation, with or without some uncomformities thrown in?

      And are you saying that just the "breaking of Pangea" and "DA FLOOD" are the reason and the explanation (including the "provenance") for all of the sedimentary, metamorphic, and volcanic formations (or members, units, layers, etc.) on Earth?


      Delete
    3. TWH Go do some reading. You are showing yourself to have no clue . You are as bad as thornton (or under a different account name the same as). Provenance is what a rock consists of. It is not an agency for anything its the result of other agencies. I read you guys and you are rude, condescending and mean spirited to the owner of this blog and then when a new term comes along you just all show your own ignorance precisely as you accuse others of.

      Delete
    4. The demand you put forward was to provide dating information on the different formations in the unconformity. That's exactly what you got you asshat. The two different formations are of course made up of rocks of different ages in their strata, but the two formations are of easily distinguishable non-contiguous ages.

      You glommed onto one unimportant word you don't understand and started screaming like a stuck pig just to create a distraction. You got even madder when no one would fall for your ignorant Creationist bullshit.

      And do lecture us about being rude when you jumped into the middle of a civil conversation between Nic and myself just to run your big mouth and take pot shots at scientists.

      Now asshat, last chance. Provide your mechanism for the formation of angular unconformities or go suck a fat one.

      Lying dishonest Creationist dumbass.

      Delete
    5. elijah, why are you afraid to answer the questions?

      The owner of this blog, along with many of his sycophants, is "rude, condescending and mean spirited to" scientists, science supporters, evolutionists, and anyone who questions or opposes his/their religious "position". Is the dumb and dumber picture Cornelius posted supposed to be complimentary? What would 'Jesus' say?

      Delete
    6. "That's exactly what you got you asshat."

      lol

      You will lie on a dime to save your face but it won;t work. I pointed out that you linking to a picture with words scribbled over it was bone headed lazy and told the person that you were responding both that the dates may or may not be accurate but that they should insist that you link to the data that determines the LAYER AGES that you used scribbled over your photo not your bone lazy pictures with geological eras scribbled on them AS evidence.

      So you are lying on not one or two issues but now four or five. I never stated anywhere the dating was definitely wrong and I said he should seek real data for the ages of the LAYERS as you stated they were. A s I have explained and you seemn incapable of grasping - Young over old relative dating means nothing to me. Sorry presents no issue

      If you had a modicum of sense you would look at the paper you looked at and see that only the PROVIDENCE is indicated to have been dated directly in that extract with actual radiometric data not the layer which sorry boy blue goes to exactly what I was stating and that is the layers are not synonymous with the dated aged of the provenance.

      Right up to this moment you are oblivious to the fact that rocks are OFTEN not dated by radiometric dating as you implied to the poor chap who might have believed you but by fossils

      In your blithering ignorance you continue to insist that the issue was relative dating when it was in fact an issue of specifically dating the LAYER that I pointed to

      and for the record I am not mad at all. I find you and your lack of self control and sensibility amusing. I even find your second account or crony above amusing that like you after completely misunderstanding the term provenance tries to sham his way through without a point.

      I also find it wildly humorous that you think that any question you could ask me after your bunglings would make me afraid. I just won't let you dodge answering questions and then demand answers in the hypocritical way that you do.

      I'll be able to return in a few days. DO try and come up with something better than the sorry excuses you have made for dodging questions while demanding answers from others.

      and TWT buy a modicum of decency somewhere. Whatever you think of the owner he allows you to post here (why I have no idea) which deserves some respect. See? Harris is incorrect. You don't display morality without God even with something as simple as respecting people's online property.

      Delete
    7. elijah, is it "provenance" or "PROVIDENCE" that I allegedly don't understand?

      Are you hittin' the sauce by any chance?

      Delete
    8. provenance


      late night and wrote Providence by mistake. referred to provenance many times. Thats your best come back point? LOl. Kiddies, At any rate given your past I would say its a save bet you understand neither

      and theres no "allegedly" you completely blew the meaning of providence. We both know that. Like Thornton you will lie on a dime to save face.

      Delete
    9. Elijah2012

      I'll be able to return in a few days.


      Don't bother until you grow a pair and come back with your Creationist explanation for the formation of angular unconformities, as well as explaining your method for properly dating geologic formations. Which of course you'll never do. Creationist dumbass.

      Delete
  26. Thorton I have debated evolutionists and Atheists when you were in diapers much less when you first heard about angular unconformities. I realize you will do any and everything to distract from your blunders but I have too much fun pointing them out to make you change the subject.

    Want to debate angular conformities in a non flood only model? (though come on we both know you don't even know where to start without just talking about DA FLOOD :) ) sure - when you stop being lazy and set up your own site to do it and stop trying to highjack other people blogs to publish what you want. We can do that at yoru new site and we can even throw in paraconformities and have you flail around for explanations as well.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Elijah2012

    Want to debate angular conformities in a non flood only model?


    Nic is the one who claimed they were Created in a one time Biblical catastrophe. You're the idiot who jumped in shooting his big mouth off, then suddenly can't provide any answers himself.

    All I want is to hear is your mechanism for the formation of angular unconformities. But apparently you don't have the brains, the knowledge or the balls to muster one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Elijah


      You were debating atheists when Thorton was in diapers?



      You must be prophet Elijah himself!

      :D

      Delete
    2. Eugen

      You were debating atheists when Thorton was in diapers?


      He means whenever I ask him for his mechanism for the formation of angular unconformities he has to put on his adult diapers. Without his Depends some of his emissions are downright nasty.

      Delete
    3. My bet is Thorton is still in his teens so it is no great feat.

      Delete
    4. Elijah2012, could you please explain to the readers the mechanisms for the formation of angular unconformities?

      Thanks!

      Delete
    5. "Without his Depends some of his emissions are downright nasty."

      See what I mean? Who writes like that as an adult? 14....17 tops. Anyway I'm bored Thorton. Have the last word I have better things to do

      Delete
    6. Gee, you're going to deny the world your sooper dooper special knowledge of geology are you???

      You're not going to give us your Creationist explanation for the formation of angular unconformities???

      You're going to let those Debbil sponsored lies told by actual geologists go unchallenged???

      My my, what a selfish little man you are.

      Delete
    7. TH answer Nats question that he asked long before and you ran from answering and when I have time and come back we can take up your question. Your strategy of not answering and trying too hide that you have not answered him by asking questions of your own doesn't work with adults.

      Delete
    8. But I did answer nat's question you selfish little man. The honest answer is science doesn't know the level of details he wants. Science may never know the details of things that happened a billion years in the past. That in no way shape or form negates what science does know.

      Now where's your Creationist explanation for the formation of angular unconformities?

      Delete
    9. "But I did answer nat's question you selfish little man. The honest answer is science doesn't know the level of details he wants."

      SO umm "I don't know.....I can't answer the question. You should not ask the question of me" is answering a question? Bye Thornton. study hard and take a course on logic when you get to college.

      Delete
    10. I realize you dirt-ignorant Creationists only understand argument from Authority, but "I don't know" is a perfectly valid and honest answer in science.

      And I never said no one should ask questions. I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of IDiots like you who demand infinite detail from science but provide NONE of your own.

      Now where's your Creationist explanation for the formation of angular unconformities?

      Dumbass Creationist.

      Delete
    11. The question is not unanswerable and he never asked for infinite detail. You are lying . go read it and stop ducking by invoking some self serving dodge while invoking science as your excuse for NOT answering. your downright hypocrisy is that if a creationist were to tell you its too long ago and no one knows for any question you had you'd be all over that and most certainly would not take that for a scientific answer. you'd be "dumbass creationist" all over that dodge. Wake up grow up and stop being a hypocrite.

      Your side's sorry rationale anytime anything real and serious is asked of you in regard to how a feature function or instinct evolved is to invoke the we don't know but we know it did Evolution of the gaps gambit. Its no better than the God of the gaps you are always claiming Creationists use but you hypocritically criticize while doing the same thing.

      like I said answer the question or you don't have a leg to stand on demanding any of your questions be answered. If you do when I come back I'll answer yours although frankly you have to have a screw loose if you think since my position does not limit me to even tens of thousands of years angular unconformities pose any problem to me.

      So answer the question, stop being a hypocrite and we can talk when I return. Try and dodge, hand wave around not answering, making more demands that when asked of you you don't live up to and no should even bother answering you on anything.

      Delete
    12. elijah, what is your "position" as to the age of the Earth?

      Delete
    13. Elijah2012

      The question is not unanswerable


      Then you answer it. I said I don't know, which is still a perfectly valid answer in science despite your Creationist asshattery.

      Your side's sorry rationale anytime anything real and serious is asked of you in regard to how a feature function or instinct evolved is to invoke the we don't know but we know it did Evolution of the gaps gambit

      Yeah yeah we know the Creationist Liar's Creedo by heart now dumbass: "science doesn't know everything so that means science doesn't know anything!!

      That's just one of many reasons why the scientific community doesn't take you clowns seriously.

      like I said answer the question or you don't have a leg to stand on demanding any of your questions be answered.

      I did answer the question. Lying about it won't help you.

      Now where's your Creationist explanation for the formation of angular unconformities? You came in here shooting your mouth off and declaring the standard geology explanation to be all wrong, so tell us what the "right" one is.

      Put up or shut up Creationist dumbass.





      Delete
  28. LOL. All the bluster in the world won't save you from your blunder of not knowing what a "mixed providence" is,pointing to providence dating as dates of layers and erroneously thinking that all layers for creationists have to be laid down at the same time.

    Multiple questions have been asked of you, answer one or you don't have any ooomph to demand anyone answer what you want to have answer. Try the duck and weave and change topics on your own blog. This aint it.

    Shucks you can even start with answering Cornelious's post with something intelligent instead of hand waving

    "ZOMG it's so COMPLEX!!!

    That has to mean GAWDDIDIT!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL! Exactly as predicted, you don't have the brains, the knowledge or the balls to give your mechanism for the formation of angular unconformities

      You Creationists are all cut from the same cloth - all mouth, no evidence.

      Delete
    2. says the person who keeps ducking question after question (like Nat above). Your funny kid. I give you that.

      Delete
    3. Elijah2012. All mouth, no evidence.

      Typical Creationist.

      Delete