Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


bov930527 last won the day on November 15 2014

bov930527 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

25 Excellent

1 Follower

About bov930527

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Computer science, software engineering. Trying to write and publish a sci-fi novel.

Previous Fields

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

Recent Profile Visitors

95 profile views
  1. Yes, Dataforge... There is only one way to intelligent in. After all, we all know that, say... physics is the only way to show that someone is intelligent. Biology, chemistry, art, music, one can never show intelligence by studying/doing anything else than physics... Silly question, silly answer. Dataforge, you are now beginning to play dumb and we are starting to go in circles. I'll give you the best compliment I can: you are not dumb. Why pretend to be it then? I'm going to be honest, this is the last reply I'll give you on this subject. In fact, I will not be checking forums for a couple of weeks since it's holidays soon and I would like to do something else other than debating evolution on an internet forum. I believe our discussion have served a purpose, and that regardless of whether or not we agree with each, I hope you can extract something useful from it. I know I can. Even though I sometimes make it appear as though this was a waste of time I truly appreciate your honesty in these matters and that you never back down from a discussion. I surely respect that. In order to have a personal gain one must first have a "personality", to which that specific gain is meaningful. Ergo, you have just ascribed personality to molecules and atoms--> pantheist. Which is also my reply to your previous sentence. I did not bring conscience into the discussion, you did. One cannot be an atheist and not ascribe conscience to inanimate matter. It is logically impossible. Because it is logically impossible. Ergo, it's not something I believe, or want to believe, it's something which is. I have no idea whether or not this is a trick question. What is closer to life, gold, or uranium. Ergo, position of gold on the periodic table is proof of the fact that life can only happen on planets that contain gold. What's closer to gollum, a rock or no rock? Ergo, if I have a rock, it's proof of gollums... You saying that proof of something doesn't make it proof of something. Ergo, it's not a proof just because you say it is. But you already know this, so what I actually mean is: stop playing dumb. No, that is not what I said. What I said what that you believe in "non-intelligence" to "intelligence" by a natural process without any evidence. A statement that you are yet to acknowledge. --> my emphasis. I hope this is a joke, or just something you said in a hurry. Because on the previous page of this very same thread, I have written 5 pages, extensively explaining, through dictionary definitions, exactly what "features of intelligence are". Precisely! There is no model. Thus, you believe without evidence. Thus, in this specific matter, you are being a hypocrite. Accept Jesus Christ into your heart as your Lord and Savior and mean it. (I know what you're thinking: "no true scotsman". To this I answer: if you have someone tell you they dropped an apple and it fell up, would you believe them unless they show it to you? Therefore, why should I believe you if you say that you really "ment" it and nothing happened, if I know that that is not how things work.) Try it and see it for yourself. You think you are logical, yes? You think you are rational, yes? Then why would you believe a hearsay? Have an experience that is not a personal feeling, and then decide for yourself what you should believe. I say this, because, no matter what I say, you will cook up an answer in your head how you can explain different things naturally, resisting the truth. I know that is what your atheist brain will do automatically. Ergo, there is no point. Either you love the truth and righteousness, and become loyal to Jesus and see how that works out for you. Or you don't. It's like that old saying: "do" or "do not", there is no "debate". Regards
  2. bov930527

    Macro And Micro

    Isn't the intent to survive? You've already admitted in the other thread that it would be "beneficial". If something can be "beneficial" for a cell, it proves a.) cells have conscience to see what is and what isn't beneficial to them b.) there is a clear intent, which is survival. This is a logical fallacy. Just because the total number of mutations increases does not prove that their effect does. It's like that example that gilbo gave some time ago: you can jump 100 times but you will not be 100 meters above ground after that. You will still be on the ground. This is what I mean by accumulation. Increase in the number of mutations is not the same as a build-up to a new organ. Unless you can prove otherwise, unless you can show that mutations have a "direction" in which they "drive". Like if you could show that over certain generations a new organ has started to develop, and that primary cause of this were "random" mutations. Yet now, they're no longer random. Ergo, evolution is contradictory. Regards
  3. bov930527

    Macro And Micro

    But the problem is that you are assuming "accumulation of genetic change". That is a positive claim, i.e. genetic change accumulates. The burden of proof is therefore on you, to show that such a thing happens. I simply say it doesn't accumulate. Show me that it does. Regards
  4. Witchcraft. With all due respect, as a Christian, the best proof you could ever have is to try it for yourself. Or, you can befriend a witch, or a wizard, or a satanist, and convince them to make things appear out of thin air in front of you. This test is available for any scientist to perform. The only problem is... principals at large scientific institutions are all satanists themselves. Chiefs of papers publishing new scientific discoveries are aswell. Ergo, the truth will never come to the surface that route. Regards
  5. I'm afraid we are starting to derail this thread, so I will try to be concise. Your understanding of "scientific" is correct. BUT, you are forgetting some important details (clearly with an agenda, I might add, since what I am about to tell you falls under "common sense"). In order to reproduce certain experiments you need certain technology. For example frame-dragging cannot be tested by "anyone" in their living home. Particle accelerators are another good example. They require billions upon billions of dollars of investment, and the machines are not available for "anyone" to operate. Yet, you would still consider their experiments to be "scientific", wouldn't you? Ergo, if we follow rules of intellectual honesty, witchcraft should be considered as scientific as anything, even if there would only be one person on the entire Earth who've made a pact with satan. Regards
  6. I disagree. To a degree that I would call witchcraft scientific. Regards
  7. Yes. Bacteria have ability to develop resistance to antibiotics (which works in the same way as human immune system): "Resistance may take the form of a spontaneous or induced genetic mutation," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance This is contradictory. Because you say "most of the molecules in a cell depend on the cell for survival, for them it is beneficial" . The only way it can be "beneficial" for the molecules, is if molecules have a personal gain of staying in the cell, instead of becoming a part of a different molecular structure outside of the cell. If molecules do what is "beneficial" to them, they must have "conscience". Thus, congratulations! You have finally admitted your pantheism. (Which is what I believe all atheists deep down are.) No, it's not. Well, I believe there is a slight confusion here. Since you have provided no natural process what-so-ever that can produce intelligence out of non-intelligence, what other process can we talk about? Evolution? Again, give me a technical description of at least a medium-long paragraph on how evolution made intelligence out of non-intelligence. Yes, mutation-by-mutation, feature-by-feature. If you can't, then you must admit that you believe that evolution did this based on no evidence, not even theoretical "evidence". Lets see... scientific evidence? That's like making a hypothesis, testing this hypothesis, confirming the physical events (sometimes supernatural) happening in front of my own two eyes, making a theory explaining the physical (or supernatural) events with the help of the Bible and other religions. Giving instructions to my friends on how to test the hypothesis, them testing, coming back to me saying that it's all true, becoming Chrisitans (i.e. "believers" in the said theory). Is that what you call "personal feelings"? Regards
  8. bov930527

    Macro And Micro

    Okay, how about this. Give me a mechanism, at least a theoretical one, that is capable of "evolving" an organism without lever into one that has lever. That is just one organ, lever. Description of such a mechanism should be 2-3 paragraphs long, specifically describing how and which parts of a lever form first, and how the organism goes from one system of blood cleansing to another. If an organism had no blood cleansing operatus before, then that is okay. How about this: how are Audi and BMW different cars? They are both cars, right? So... they're the same car. Right? Cause they're both cars, right? Clearly this is a logical fallacy. Just because it is claimed that micro and macro are said to perform by the same mechanism does not make them the same thing. Audi and BMW are different cars despite the fact they are both cars. In the same way, micro and macro evolution are different evolutions, despite the fact that they are both evolution. Get it? Yes, we do. There is an entire field called "information theory". Otherwise you might say that noone knows what "gravity" is, or what "force" actually is. This doesn't mean that we don't have a logical and valid theoretical framework around them, a.k.a. "science". Yes, we do. In fact we even have a unit (in fact several of them, depending on the field of applicaiton). It's called "bit". 8 bits = byte (as in "16 MB", or "560 GB"). How did you thought that your computer measures "information"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory#Quantities_of_information I have already done this twice in two separate threads. Why, why, why do you continue to say this? Regards
  9. In my example I wasn't talking about immune system of the cells, but of organisms as a whole. However, stem cells --> all cells in your body are potential lymphocytes --> all cells in your body are intelligent (or at least have capacity to be, if required of them). And yes, big portions of the cell do lack intelligence, but that's the same with entire organisms aswell. Take humans as an example. Our intelligence "comes" out of our brain, while other organs are systems made specifically to keep the brain alive. We say that humans are intelligent, but that doesn't mean that our lever, or our feet are (unless you count in the intelligence of every separate cell, of which those feet are made). How about the survival of the components inside the organism? Organism = a bunch of molecules. Surviving benefits an organism = surviving benefits a bunch of molecules. How? Why is it beneficial to the molecules within an organism that the organism survives? Once again, do they care? Do the molecules in DNA have conscience? Pretty much. What evidence? There is no evidence what-so-ever for abiogenesis, nor a natural non-intelligence to intelligence process. Creating non-living, non-intelligent molecular structures out of non-living, non-intelligent molecular structures. (As opposed to creating living, (artificially) intelligent molecular structures out of non-living, non-intelligent molecular structures.) Because a.) the "steps" are no "steps", unless you count picking up a stick as a "step" in creating a gollum; and b.) Once you'll get to know Jesus and once you realize that the supernatural is all around us, you will have all the proof you need that God can, and does, perform supernatural miracles on a daily basis. Regards
  10. My argument is not "there are no unintelligent cells today, ergo there have never been". My argument is "since there is no evidence for unintelligent cells, why should I assume that they existed?". Please don't try this trick again. I assert that evolution requires intelligent cells based on the fact that there are no living cells which are not intelligent. My hypothesis can be proven false by you presenting me a single cells which does not match our definition of "intelligence", which I have provided in this very topic. (You know what, this argument is pretty identical to your claim that no creationist understands evolution. Granted, I should learn from your mistake, but on the other hand, why should I assume existence of things for which there is no evidence?) Intelligence is requirement for a cell to work. Without intelligence inherent to DNA, there would be no living cells at all. This is the same claim as I made above. Obviously I cannot prove a negative, i.e. that evolution cannot run on unintelligent cells. Therefore, it is your job to prove that it can. I agree. Which is why your argument has nothing to do with anything. I rephrase what I stated before: "What does it matter to atoms and molecules in our DNA whether we survive or not? If they don't "care", why bother forming intelligent systems to begin with?" You stated earlier that we can both agree that it would be beneficial for a cell to have intelligent systems. It's true, I agree. But remember, what is a cell made of? Atoms and molecules. What does it mean that the cell survives? It means that those atoms and molecules, of which the cell consists, get to keep their position in said structures. How is it beneficial to those atoms and molecules? Actually, you did mention liquids. DNA is a liquid. In fact, basically all of the things in a cell are in liquid form. So as long as we are talking about cells, we are talking about liquids. But, if you wish to provide an example of a gas or a solid going from non-intelligence to intelligence, be my guest. As I stated several times, I am not looking for an abiogonesis specifically. The process which gives matter behavior that we can call intelligent doesn't necessarily has to be a part of abiogenesis, or evolution. It can be a different process entirely. It would prove that abiogenesis is just a word, and that you take it on faith when scientists tell you that that is what happened. It would also prove that you are a hypocrite when it comes to evidence. You don't demand evidence in certain cases, while in others you do. Either start demanding evidence from evolutionists before believing things, or stop demanding them from creationists. ... "My friend is a wizard that makes golums. He can make rocks and liquids become intelligent and make them move and do things." "How do you know this? Have you ever seen him do it?" "Nope." "Has anyone else ever done this?" "Nope." "Then why do you think it's true." "Because I have seen him picking up that stick. Picking up a stick is a step in the process of magically turning a rock into a living creature and giving it life. Noone else has ever picked up a stick as part of the process of making stones alive. This is enough for me to accept his claim as the most likely option." Does this analogy seem familiar? Regards
  11. bov930527

    Mike The Wiz From Evc

    To be honest, I think this is the only forum I've ever been to that is not anti-religion. And yes, I believe the fact that Chrisitians aren't as ridiculed here as they are on other forums is much thanks to people like gilbo, bonedigger, mike summers, and others. Anyway, welcome!
  12. bov930527

    Howd Ya Be

  13. bov930527

    What Did Jesus Mean In Mark 16: 17-18

    I would be interested in taking a look aswell - My emphasis. Hi want the truth. If I may be honest with you, I don't think the reason you should be Christian is because "Christ makes sense". Jesus is not something that "makes sense". That would be like saying "I love my mother and want to have a relationship with her because she makes sense to me". Wanting to have a relationship with Jesus is not based on "sense", rather it is based on trust. I, for example, trust Jesus with all my heart and soul when He claims to be who He claims to be. And throughout my life, I've had countless confirmations from Him that, both natural (weird coincidences) and supernatural (help with fighting demons and poltergeist). I decided to follow Jesus because I have realized that I love truth, while the world loves lies, I love righteousness, while the world loves betrayal and selfishness. Ever since I became a Christian and asked Jesus to come into my life and help me to become a good, honest, and righteous person, and help me to stop commiting sins, I can tell you honestly that He has done just that. That's why I wholeheartedly believe that the reason why you should follow Jesus is in my signature. Regards
  14. bov930527

    Human Sneezing

    I apologize if I may seem ignorant, but... What exactly is the base for discussion in this thread? Regards
  15. I will explain at the end of this post. Yes. There are no living cells, or organisms of any kind, alive today, whose DNA and internal working does not resemble an intelligent behavior. Therefore, why should I assume that evolution can "run" on unintelligent cells? If it could, why aren't there any unintelligent DNAs around? Neither. This is a thread exploring existence (or lack thereof) of a natural process that has capability to create (artificial) intelligence out of molecules and liquids, which previously showed no signs of intelligence. Such a process could be a part of evolution, or abiogenesis, but doesn't necessarily have to be. Yes, because why then do they assemble themselves to form intelligent systems in order to help the cell to survive? What does it matter to atoms and molecules in our DNA whether we survive or not? If they don't "care", why bother forming intelligent systems to begin with? That is barely half of a sentence! It's just you claiming that genetic mutations result in intelligent behavior in liquids. That is no explanation at all! Let me provide an example: "How do we make non-organic, non-intelligent molecules behave intelligently? Well, we build electric circuits, in which the route of the electric current resembles simple logical operations, such as and, or, etc. By weaving these simple operations together we can build a complex net of electric currents that can perform complex operations. By letting electric current "start" at a certain specific point, we can direct the result of a logical operation. When the flow of the current changes direction, we can "save" those specific configurations in the circuits, thus giving "knowledge" to the previously "unknowing" non-organic molecules. By programming them into performing certain operations, based upon this "knowledge", we can make the molecules and electrons seem to behave intelligently." This, I would say, is a good summary of how humans make intelligence out of non-intelligence? Can you give me one on how nature does it? No, you can't... Which brings me to my next point. You don't even know of one process. Abiogenesis is not a process. It's just a word. There are no papers written, no extensive academic literature on how intelligent behavior can be produced naturally. Nothing. Nor have we ever observed intelligence being produced naturally. We've never seen a rock starting to move and perform complex tasks due to a natural process (emphasis so as to eliminate any confusion with the dark magic? ). Or a liquid. Or a gas. Therefore, my question: why do you give a "pass" to abiogenesis/evolution/[insert intelligence-creating process here]? Shouldn't you withhold your belief till evidence have been presented to you? Regards

Important Information

Our Terms