Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


gilbo12345 last won the day on August 16 2018

gilbo12345 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

858 Excellent

About gilbo12345

  • Rank
    Veteran Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
  • How old are you?
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
  • What is your Worldview?
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)

Recent Profile Visitors

686 profile views
  1. gilbo12345

    Atheists: Is Murder Acceptable With You?

    The fact that Goku is on this forum is a promising sign
  2. gilbo12345

    Darwin's Glaring Omission

    Irrelevant, unless you're wishing to invoke the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Educated guesswork.. Sounds like an oxymoron to me, a guess is a guess no matter how educated one might be Considering the fact that there is no verified process by which abiogenesis could have occurred once; I think it is grossly negligent or naïve for "scientists" to assume that the process could happen multiple times and in different stages of intense Earth conditions. Until they can support their claims the numbers don't mean much to me, (and I assume to anyone else either). Thanks
  3. gilbo12345

    Darwin's Glaring Omission

    Would it necessarily be so coincidental? In a fluid resource-rich environment a molecule that by virtue of its chemical composition tended toward forming chains...if such chains broke would that not be some form of self-replication? And if more than one self-replicating molecule emerged would not the survival and propagation of the more robust be a form of natural selection? Ah and yet you are missing one of the issues with Chemistry. Chirality. Compounds are chiral in that they have "left" and "right" handed forms. DNA, proteins and RNA are all made out of one type of chiral form. Yet compounds exist as a 50-50 mix of "left" and "right", adding the wrong type would destroy the continuity of the chain. So how could such compounds form naturally when there is a 50% chance of failure, (which compounds as more of the correct type is used up). How in the world can they possibly know that?... If those multiple first utterances of life were destroyed wouldn't there be no evidence? Or is this a case of "scientists" making claims to sound more important?
  4. gilbo12345

    Defining "transitional"

    Sorry Mike, I'll try and provide some more insights for you
  5. gilbo12345

    Defining "transitional"

    Thanks Piasan. I've been away for too long. Its great to be back again.
  6. gilbo12345

    Defining "transitional"

    Hey Mike I'd add -that there needs to be a "line of transition" demonstrating the changes from one organism to the other, (this would necessarily require many stages) - the fossils of all the trillions of failed "attempts" by evolution.
  7. gilbo12345

    Misleading Whale Exhibit - Update

    I'd like to see the evidence that supports this claim of humans having the genes to develop a fully functional tail, (developing a coccyx isn't a tail Goku). Missing the point.... Yet you used your intelligence to utilise the rock as a paper weight.... Hence intelligence is STILL required when there is a design involved... (There is no way for you to dodge this fact since a design by definition denotes the use of intelligence to account for said design). Actually its not a good thing since you claimed human tail, which is what you had confused the Coccyx for... The coccyx is not a tail, you need to understand that Goku. I know how much you want it to be a tail, your emotional need for evolution to be true, but you need to come to grips with reality and understand that the coccyx is simply a part of the spine and thus is not a tail. You stated.... "I would say that the fact that we have the genes for a tail, that we have a tail as an embryo, and that some people are born with a tail is more than some superficial consistent evidence for ToE, but is strong evidence in favor of it." and again "The spine may develop early, but a human embryo has extra vertebrae that are then eaten away by the body later. The tail is essentially an extension of the spine, so when a human embryo has an extension of the spine (extra vertebrae) what logical reason is there to say it only has the appearance of a tail rather than being a tail or the beginnings of a tail since it is later phased out?" Which IMPLIES recapitulation, seriously did you not read what I wrote, or do you not understand what recapitulation is? Here is what recapitulation is The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or embryological parallelism—often expressed in Ernst Haeckel's phrase "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"—is a largely discredited biological hypothesis that in developing from embryo to adult, animals go through stages resembling or representing successive stages in the evolution of their remote ancestors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory You believe that humans "evolved" from bacteria to fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals to humans. These animals mostly had tails, (and fish had gills). Now when you are talking about embryos having tails and gill slits then you ARE implying or even discussing recapitulation. I shouldn't have to explain this to you. If its a part of the spine, then it isn't a "tail".. tail 1 (tÄl) n. 1. The posterior part of an animal, especially when elongated and extending beyond the trunk or main part of the body. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tail Does the Coccyx extend beyond the trunk of the body?... No.... So its merely a part of the spine. You need to stop playing word games Goku, this may work in an atheist-centred blog or something but you're not going to fool anyone here. Which is Gokuese for 'I know that the coccyx is not a tail, but I am just going to call it one because I have an emotional investment in evolution'. And so begins the evolution evidence merry-go-round... When one piece is debunked on a thread, evolutionists point to something else, yet when that gets debunked on a different thread then they'll point to the evidence that was debunked in the previous thread... Way to dodge my point. Actually I was discussing your ability to call out something as "strong evidence"... Since if you think this is "strong evidence" and it is debunked... which it has been... Then your reliability to determine what is "strong evidence" would be called in to question, yes? Some advice, play your cards close to your chest. Don't be like other evolutionists and try and speak out with undue confidence. As Adam would say. Words they mean things. Funny how words requiring intelligence (like engineering) gets used when discussing nature and biological function... Yet then this is believed to have been caused by a blind, un-thinking, un-engineering, un-creating process. Did I say it was synonymous? (Don't put words in my mouth). I was asking you for a demonstration of this process you claim that occurred... How do you know that that methodology was used by nature unless you have some examples within nature to demonstrate?... Or was this you making a statement of faith Its not just distance but also duplication and entanglement of the artery around the vein. IF this is so simple for evolution, (not sure how you can possibly know that), then can you do as I asked and provide a demonstration of evolution designing this in action. Um... No... Since as I said, genetic algorithms are a product of human intelligence and thus cannot be a "proof of concept" for natural phenomena... IF you want evidence for nature, then go TEST nature. Which is the big issue for gradualism and why irreducible complexity was invented to attempt to solve that problem. Just a question, what viability was there for cells to shift from a single celled organism (the most efficient organism known to humankind), to a multi-celled organism (inefficient and thus reduces fitness). Did I say that equations are not blind or were sentient? Or are you attempting to put words in my mouth.... (Why do you keep doing this? It only makes you look dishonest...) Which is what I said.... The algorithms are a product of human thinking, not evolution. Wrong.... Nature doesn't have the intelligence or sentience required to use algorithms... All you are doing is spouting airy rhetoric. Now I must ask you, do you understand that your "blind and unthinking" process is actually BLIND and UNTHINKING? Since how can you claim that nature uses genetic algorithms with the understanding that nature isn't sentient? Its called the Coccyx not "the tail"... Again stop playing word games. Again, if its a part of the spine then why not call it "the spine"? Why create a differentiation when there is none? And since the coccyx IS a section of the spine, you've just contradicted your own claims... So embryos have "tails" which then actually develop into the spine.... I think its a bit anal to be calling shots on organism parts when the organism is still in development. The fact that the "tail" of the embryo develops into the spine demonstrates that it wasn't actually a tail after all. Also still waiting for your examples of humans having tails today.... (I've already seen them a few years ago, but am curious as to what argument attempt you'll use with them).
  8. gilbo12345

    200,000 Convert To Christianity

    Certainly, as someone who used to be forceful in attempting to convert, I've seen first-hand how doing such can actually push people away from God.
  9. gilbo12345

    Kent H*vind Released

    I think Mark may have been pointing to "Obama's" attempt to weaponize the IRS against right-wing groups.
  10. gilbo12345

    Misleading Whale Exhibit - Update

    When an "explanation" is being assumed as an explanation that does make it an assumption Goku. You can't just wish this fact away because you don't like it... And just how does this make your assuming "evolution did it" not an assumption? Does you assuming that an old Earth is a given somehow make your assumptions about evolution valid? Not sure how you think this is logical?!? Well since the coccyx (not tail) performs a function then..... it is a part of a design... If you believe that the coccyx (not tail) is merely an evolutionary left-over then I offer to pay for you to have yours surgically removed. Perhaps consider the fact that the coccyx (not tail), is an anchor for important muscles pertaining to motion.... Hmmm so if it does serve a purpose, then on what basis are you assuming that its merely an evolutionary left-over from ancestry?... You may find this link educational http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_function_of_the_coccyx?#slide=2 Wonder no more since you made an answer in the very post you ask this question... "I would say that the fact that we have the genes for a tail, that we have a tail as an embryo, and that some people are born with a tail is more than some superficial consistent evidence for ToE, but is strong evidence in favor of it." and again "The spine may develop early, but a human embryo has extra vertebrae that are then eaten away by the body later. The tail is essentially an extension of the spine, so when a human embryo has an extension of the spine (extra vertebrae) what logical reason is there to say it only has the appearance of a tail rather than being a tail or the beginnings of a tail since it is later phased out?" What you call "tail" in an embryo I call "developing spine".... I'd love to see examples of people being born with "tails"... Keep in mind, I remember someone attempting to pull this a few years ago... But before I go into that I would ask you to admit something. IF you claim that these are "strong evidence" in favour of evolution, then if said "strong evidence" gets quashed then wouldn't that A- Make evolution debunked in terms of this "strong evidence" of yours. B- Make your claims of "strong evidence" mean very little in terms of actual evidence or something of substance. Oh come off it Goku, you just did the same thing with "tails" in embryos... Also folds of skin =/= gill slits... There are no gills in human embryos. Wrong. The term "gill slit" is false and misleading. There are no "gill slits" in an embryo since a slit is an opening by definition. (I suggest you read the definition... here http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slit) Folds of skin are not openings aka slits. Therefore an embryo contains NO GILL SLITS, by definition... Because "Engineering" itself requires planning and intelligence... Evolution has no plan or intelligence, therefore is unable to engineer anything. I just love it how evolutionists write with over-reaching confidence.. Perhaps you'd care to demonstrate the process that was "more or less guaranteed" to demonstrate the engineering solution that is the penguins foot and arterial design. http://blogs.britannica.com/2011/01/penguin-feet-avoiding-frostbite-in-the-antarctic/ Firstly so you think that there being genetic algorithms is evidence for evolution... a blind.. unthinking... process being able to plan and engineer creations?.. Seriously... Perhaps you should EXPLAIN how your said evidence is actual evidence for what you are claiming. Secondly where do you think these "genetic algorithms" come from?.... HUMAN INGENUITY, (aka intelligence)..... So why not call it "the spine" instead of redefining it as a "tail"?
  11. Simplistically yes. In reality no. At least Christians have a causal agent for the creation of life. Atheists believe it all just "happened naturally", despite being unable to demonstrate a viable natural process nor demonstrate how the natural laws and prerogatives (chirality, thermodynamics) which contradict abiogenesis are overcome. Which is worse than magic since at least with magic you have a causal agent, the magician; you'd have us believe something happened naturally despite it defying nature and having no natural process.... Therefore the Christian position is much more logical and tenable than the atheist one...
  12. Which are all examples of "looking".... These I agree with, however with that said cause and effect will be difficult to determine. If that is the case then I retract the hubris statement.
  13. Where do you think the elements / minerals / compounds for abiogenesis came from?..... Rock.... So you do believe in mud becoming people.
  14. I haven't read the study, (using phone internet), but from what I have read it seems to me like an example in hubris. Simply because the mice with the deleted non-coding regions didn't look different... Doesn't mean that the non-coding region is junk. Indeed, their "study" hinges on assuming that the non-coding regions would demonstrate a physical difference in the mice... Surely these scientists (and I use that term loosely), know that DNA codes for more than just physical appearance... Surely...
  15. .... Show me a paper / article discussing the validity of evolution that DOESN'T presuppose that evolution is real or is a "fact".... What do you think Darwin did? Did he not presuppose? Or did Darwin conduct 150 years of research BEFORE he wrote his book?... (Funny since he died when he was 73, and the fact that he had zero training in science and scientific methods, what-so-ever). What "research" was conducted? (And before you do I don't want articles that are based on the presumption that "evolution is true", since that would be proving Mark, Gneiss Girl and myself correct). Perhaps you can answer this with your examples of "research"... A scientific hypothesis is created from an observation, and is then tested via experimentation. Observation- Similarities in fossils. Hypothesis- Evolution was the cause of similarities. Experiment- ???? Now what experimentation, or research, was conducted to determine that evolution was indeed the cause of similarities in fossils? If you can't answer this simple question then on what basis can you claim "Evolution is not presupposed. It has been concluded after 150 years of research."

Important Information

Our Terms