Jump to content


Photo

Do You Understand Evolution Quizzes


  • Please log in to reply
152 replies to this topic

#141 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 08 July 2017 - 10:03 AM

Goku said:

Science is somewhat conservative in this sense; instead of jumping on every new idea as if it is the next breakthrough, science demands that the new idea is demonstrably better than the current paradigm before we toss out the old to welcome in the new.

Can an effect cause itself? "Science demands...?" Ridiculous. Science is a name (code) we give our reasoning process--a mental function of our software. Science can not be liberal or conservative only our mental state provides that function. I have noticed those that believe in atheism/ evolution are very down on intelligence. That does not make sense to me as they use their intelligence to c reat their jus so stories:"

Goku said: "...science demands that the new idea is demonstrably better than the current paradigm before we toss out the old to welcome in the new."

Alternative translation: Science demands that the new truth be demonstrably better than the current version of the truth before we toss out the old truth to welcome in the new truth! LOL



#142 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 08 July 2017 - 10:10 AM

What if said:

Posted 08 July 2017 - 10:51 AM
taking an evolution test based on the modern synthesis is basically a waste of time.

organisms do not "gradually accumulate" anything.
genomes show little, if any, signs of optimum design. (natural selection doesn't "explain" anything)
organisms do not progress from point A to point B to point C getting fitter and fitter in the process.


I hear you. So what do you think caused all this stuff if it didn't as evos think cause itself?

#143 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 08 July 2017 - 10:47 AM

What if said:
 

Posted 08 July 2017 - 10:51 AM
taking an evolution test based on the modern synthesis is basically a waste of time.

organisms do not "gradually accumulate" anything.
genomes show little, if any, signs of optimum design. (natural selection doesn't "explain" anything)
organisms do not progress from point A to point B to point C getting fitter and fitter in the process.



I hear you. So what do you think caused all this stuff if it didn't as evos think cause itself?

so far it's been an unanswerable question.

it seems to me that evolution is catalyst driven, various combinations of genes serve to catalyze the progress of evolution.

there also seems to be some kind of descrepancy in regards to the arrival of animal phyla.
eukaryote super groups seems to imply a homogenized group of cells, but it had to be metabolically diverse.
i have no clue what could have caused this.

meloni raises the interesting concept of "genes in context", and i'm not sure whether meloni is referring to epigenetics or something along the lines of catalyst.
both of the above is nowhere near anything you would call gradual.

#144 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 08 July 2017 - 02:18 PM

What if:

I hear you. So what do you think caused all this stuff if it didn't, as evos think, cause itself?

so far it's been an unanswerable question.

it seems to me that evolution is catalyst driven, various combinations of genes serve to catalyze the progress of evolution.

there also seems to be some kind of descrepancy in regards to the arrival of animal phyla.
eukaryote super groups seems to imply a homogenized group of cells, but it had to be metabolically diverse.
i have no clue what could have caused this.

meloni raises the interesting concept of "genes in context", and i'm not sure whether meloni is referring to epigenetics or something along the lines of catalyst.
both of the above is nowhere near anything you would call gradual.

Velly interesting. But you used the term "process of evolution" and the information I have associated to that word (code) is that the so called process is, gradual, ranmdom non-guided and essentially driven by mistakes (mutations).

I can see gradual when driven by intellegence with a goal. But with no intelligent guidance random causing sophisticated functional complexity doesn't seem plausible.

I have also argued, evven if all the
transitions ended up causing a bird, its software would have to be updated to allow operation of a new novel sppendage or function. Evos are curiously quite when it comes to how each animals sophisticated software could write and update itself.

Moreover, my experience in the material world has demonstrated it much easier to destroy complexity than to cause it.
I think the original trade centers took over seven years to build. They fell in less than a few hours. A car may take a totak if many man hours to fabricate its average 34,000 parts and put thm together. But it only takes a few seconds of an acciident to demolish its function. This seems a truth of nature. It's easier to detroy than cause complexity. Automobile accidennnts don't cause new improved cars!

You are intelligennnt and can cause complexity. Why then don't you consider intelligence a possible cause? Its what drives you!

 



#145 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 08 July 2017 - 04:08 PM

What if:

I hear you. So what do you think caused all this stuff if it didn't, as evos think, cause itself?

so far it's been an unanswerable question.

it seems to me that evolution is catalyst driven, various combinations of genes serve to catalyze the progress of evolution.

there also seems to be some kind of descrepancy in regards to the arrival of animal phyla.
eukaryote super groups seems to imply a homogenized group of cells, but it had to be metabolically diverse.
i have no clue what could have caused this.

meloni raises the interesting concept of "genes in context", and i'm not sure whether meloni is referring to epigenetics or something along the lines of catalyst.
both of the above is nowhere near anything you would call gradual.

Velly interesting. But you used the term "process of evolution" and the information I have associated to that word (code) is that the so called process is, gradual, ranmdom non-guided and essentially driven by mistakes (mutations).

I can see gradual when driven by intellegence with a goal. But with no intelligent guidance random causing sophisticated functional complexity doesn't seem plausible.

I have also argued, evven if all the
transitions ended up causing a bird, its software would have to be updated to allow operation of a new novel sppendage or function. Evos are curiously quite when it comes to how each animals sophisticated software could write and update itself.

Moreover, my experience in the material world has demonstrated it much easier to destroy complexity than to cause it.
I think the original trade centers took over seven years to build. They fell in less than a few hours. A car may take a totak if many man hours to fabricate its average 34,000 parts and put thm together. But it only takes a few seconds of an acciident to demolish its function. This seems a truth of nature. It's easier to detroy than cause complexity. Automobile accidennnts don't cause new improved cars!

You are intelligennnt and can cause complexity. Why then don't you consider intelligence a possible cause? Its what drives you!

don't confuse a simulated intelligence with the real thing.
your computer can appear highly intelligent, when in fact it has no intelligence at all.
the same thing applies to the cell.

was it designed that way?
i can't imagine how this stuff came together.
the accretion of genetic material does not explain how all of this stuff could have emerged, simply because epigenetics and the dna strand had to evolve together.
science is simply clueless in regards to abiogenesis.
sure, it has some theories and scenarios, but none of them answers the question.

my opinion is, it's like a jigsaw puzzle.
you open the box, dump the pieces out, and it immediately assembles itself as soon as it hits the table.
can the above happen naturally?
it will take a huge leap of faith to think it can, but i haven't seen anything that says it's impossible.

#146 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 08 July 2017 - 05:24 PM

What if:
You didn't answer the uestion I asked. What's wrong with using intelligence to do things? It's good enough for you to use to create your stories.



#147 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 08 July 2017 - 08:01 PM

[size=5]What if:
You didn't answer the uestion I asked. What's wrong with using intelligence to do things?

oh, nothing is wrong with using intelligence to do things, except the cell isn't intelligent.
no more than the thread sort routine used by this website is intelligent.

i think you might be asking if i think an intelligence created life.
maybe, maybe not
organic chemistry is funny business.
well, not exactly funny but i think you know what i mean.
i just cannot fathom a control program co evolving with the dna strand.
and there has to be a control program in order for the cell to maintain functionality during biomolecular changes
there is also the possibility that this control program isn't very complex.

one thing i'm comfortable with though:
the majority of evolution happened within the first 10% of the evolutionary timeline.
the diversity we see today is the result of epigenetics in combination with transposons.

#148 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 08 July 2017 - 11:27 PM

 

[size=5]What if:
You didn't answer the uestion I asked. What's wrong with using intelligence to do things?

oh, nothing is wrong with using intelligence to do things, except the cell isn't intelligent.
no more than the thread sort routine used by this website is intelligent.

i think you might be asking if i think an intelligence created life.
maybe, maybe not
organic chemistry is funny business.
well, not exactly funny but i think you know what i mean.
i just cannot fathom a control program co evolving with the dna strand.
and there has to be a control program in order for the cell to maintain functionality during biomolecular changes
there is also the possibility that this control program isn't very complex.

one thing i'm comfortable with though:
the majority of evolution happened within the first 10% of the evolutionary timeline.
the diversity we see today is the result of epigenetics in combination with transposons.

 

 

 

"one thing i'm comfortable with though:
the majority of evolution happened within the first 10% of the evolutionary timeline."

 

Oh how very convenient. "It must have happened, but we just dont see any evidence

that it ever happened in the past and we dont see any evidence of it happening today

BUT it had to have happened, because I dont want there to be a God, THEREFORE

 

I am comfortable that all of the REAL "Evolution" (Not Variation and Adaptation) occured

so long ago that all the evidence is gone!!

 

Dont you realize that that is not Logical thinking but merely the sad effects of Brainwashing

and Indoctriation in your schooling that convinced you that  Evolution Actually happened

even though  your inner being keeps on telling you that the whole Mindless MYO Mud to

Man Myth is just a Fairytale?

 

Cant you see that you arent supporting it anymore on ANY Scientific grounds whatsoever ?

But merely philosophical ones?



#149 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 09 July 2017 - 04:00 AM

What if:
You didn't answer the [q]uestion I asked. What's wrong with using intelligence to do things? It's good enough for you to use to create your stories.

.
Pot meet Kettle--it is black!!

#150 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 11 July 2017 - 12:17 AM

What if:

I hear you. So what do you think caused all this stuff if it didn't, as evos think, cause itself?so far it's been an unanswerable question.it seems to me that evolution is catalyst driven, various combinations of genes serve to catalyze the progress of evolution.there also seems to be some kind of descrepancy in regards to the arrival of animal phyla.eukaryote super groups seems to imply a homogenized group of cells, but it had to be metabolically diverse.i have no clue what could have caused this.meloni raises the interesting concept of "genes in context", and i'm not sure whether meloni is referring to epigenetics or something along the lines of catalyst.both of the above is nowhere near anything you would call gradual.

Velly interesting. But you used the term "process of evolution" and the information I have associated to that word (code) is that the so called process is, gradual, ranmdom non-guided and essentially driven by mistakes (mutations).I can see gradual when driven by intellegence with a goal. But with no intelligent guidance random causing sophisticated functional complexity doesn't seem plausible.I have also argued, evven if all thetransitions ended up causing a bird, its software would have to be updated to allow operation of a new novel sppendage or function. Evos are curiously quite when it comes to how each animals sophisticated software could write and update itself.Moreover, my experience in the material world has demonstrated it much easier to destroy complexity than to cause it.I think the original trade centers took over seven years to build. They fell in less than a few hours. A car may take a totak if many man hours to fabricate its average 34,000 parts and put thm together. But it only takes a few seconds of an acciident to demolish its function. This seems a truth of nature. It's easier to detroy than cause complexity. Automobile accidennnts don't cause new improved cars!You are intelligennnt and can cause complexity. Why then don't you consider intelligence a possible cause? Its what drives you!
don't confuse a simulated intelligence with the real thing.your computer can appear highly intelligent, when in fact it has no intelligence at all.the same thing applies to the cell.was it designed that way?i can't imagine how this stuff came together.the accretion of genetic material does not explain how all of this stuff could have emerged, simply because epigenetics and the dna strand had to evolve together.science is simply clueless in regards to abiogenesis.sure, it has some theories and scenarios, but none of them answers the question.my opinion is, it's like a jigsaw puzzle.you open the box, dump the pieces out, and it immediately assembles itself as soon as it hits the table.can the above happen naturally?it will take a huge leap of faith to think it can, but i haven't seen anything that says it's impossible.


"your computer can appear highly intelligent, when in fact it has no intelligence at all. The same thing applies to the cell.


A computer was designed by intelligence agents..

THEREFORE


"If the same thing applies to a cell"

Then you must finanally realize that the cell muat have been created by intelligence aa well..

OTHERWISE

Why on EARTH would you make a comparison / anology between a computer that was created and a cell unless you wish to imply that a cell was created as well??



"The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination."

(Dr. Ambrose Flemming, Pres. Philosophical Society of Great Britain)

#151 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 11 July 2017 - 12:44 AM

"The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination."

(Dr. Ambrose Flemming, Pres. Philosophical Society of Great Britain)


The opinion of a non biologist and devout Christian who died in 1945. Very useful BK, keep those quotes coming !



#152 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 11 July 2017 - 02:14 AM

 

 

Wibble: The opinion of a non biologist and devout Christian who died in 1945. Very useful BK, keep those quotes coming !

 

More qualified than you then. You have a phd in wibbly wobbly reasoning. "Permanantly Hardened Dogma".

 

(mikey mischief complete.)

 

;)



#153 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 11 July 2017 - 03:53 AM

"The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination."
(Dr. Ambrose Flemming, Pres. Philosophical Society of Great Britain)

The opinion of a non biologist and devout Christian who died in 1945. Very useful BK, keep those quotes coming !

I guess that once in a while, out of the 100 or so different quotes I offer free of charge, you are bound to find a Christian or Two in the Mix.. LOL..

It appears that, according to you, the only people who are qualified to have a valid opinion on the subject of origins are Biogists who happen to be Atheists...

But it appears you are missing an important detail, If it wasnt for the IMPLICATIONS, why would ANYONE care if their grandfather's were apes, fish, and worms or not? It seems apparent that 99.9999 % of the people couldn't care less if they didnt have an expiration date of 120 years stamped firmly on their psyche....


You, for one, have clearly shown that You DONT WANT TO know the truth about the subject. Your subsequent posts to me about the Prof Andy fiasco made that plain to see for everyone reading my thread about Man's organs.. I even called you out and asked you WHY you didnt want to know the truth.. But I already know the answer and so do you..

"Darwin made it possible to be an Intellectually fulfilled Atheist"
Richard Dawmins

BTW


So Ambrose Fleming died in 1945.. So he is wrong

YET

Darwin died in 1882.. So that makes him Right?

Chronological Snobbery is a form of Bigotry and doesnt become you.
Do yourself a favor and try to eliminate it from your repertoire..




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users