Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum


Advanced member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About hooberus

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

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)
  1. hooberus

    Squaring A Circle

    What we wouldn't expect is a testable valid genetic model for getting a human from an ape like common ancestor. Genetics has given evolutionists the problems of high deleterious mutation rates combined with low possible numbers of "beneficial" substitutions. Either one kills the evolutionary scenario. See Sanfords Genetic Entropy book.
  2. As a last resort there is always random chance with the use of trillions of universes to get around probabilities.
  3. Atheists have little problem making something unfalsifiable that has been falsifiied. Won't loose any sleep. They will discard falsification as a criteria of science if they need to. ReiMine documents this in his book.
  4. I'm number 868. I hope they post it. Anyway if they don't here it is. The "National Center for Science Education" (NCSE) is administering the collection of signatures. http://sciohost.org/states/?p=3#comment-1314
  5. hooberus

    What Is Wrong With Stenger's Analogy?

    Even given vast oceans and "a billion years" it is still hightly unlikely to find functional sequences-in fact its unlikely to even find very many non-functional sequences of any length. Monomers do not tend to form sequences (polymerize) at all in a water environment, but instead tend to depolymerize by hydrolysis in such an environment. Some evolutionary sites like TalkOrigins omit this fact and instead make the incredible assumption that all the monomers (amino acids etc) are going to somehow self-polymerize into 32 (or whatever) acid length chains and then based on this they then start their search sequence calculations.* Actually, if by chance a sequence came about that did "happened to be right" the fact remains that it (and even any few descendants if it got that far) would most likely be rapidly destroyed in such hostile environments by hydrolysis, UV radiaton, error catastrophe, etc. etc. Therfore, abiogeneis most likely really requires numerous successful starts, not merely one as is often assumed. ReMine in his book "The Biotic Message" has some excellent information on how rapidly the oddds against a situation accumulate even given such mitigating factors. *They also omit chirality issues in their calculations and apparently assumes 100% L amino acids in this early earth (under most conditions amino acids form in 50%/50% L and R ratios (proteins such as the above ligase probably require 100% L amino acids). If one assumes chance formation this factor alone could reduce the odds of getting the small 32 acid protein by up to 2 to the 32 power.
  6. hooberus

    What Is Wrong With Stenger's Analogy?

    The AiG Author (Dr. Batten) was clearly referring to the hypothetical outcome of functional life forming when he said: "there need not necessarily be an outcome. Indeed the probabilities argue against any outcome. That is the whole point of the argument" not to there being no outcome whatsoever (such as dead arrangements). UNDER CONSTRUCTION Hans
  7. hooberus

    What Is Wrong With Stenger's Analogy?

  8. hooberus

    What Is Wrong With Stenger's Analogy?

    Due to human reproduction (which involves gene randomization through recombination and mutation), starting with reproducing ancestors it is highly unlikely that a certain specific sequence (ATGCATCG +three billlion more, etc.) will be generated in a distant future descendant. However, it is still very likely that some specific functional sequence will be generated and exist because people are likely (due to favorable mortaility)to have functional decendants (despite the occasional loss of a person due to stray bullets). Therefore, while a cartain specific functional nucleotide sequence may be highly unlikely in a given future descendant, the fact remains that some functional specific nucleotide sequence is still likely to exist (and has a 100% chance of existing in a current extant descendant like you). This is due to the fact that functional sequences are likely (given the general functional stability of the genome from one generation to the next over such timespans), combined with the fact humans are likely to have descendants. Such things are not analogous to abiogenesis or similar evolutionary scenarios (such as various protein sequence scenarios) in which the non-functional sequences vastly exceed the relatively few functional sequences,* and thus there is no inherit likehood of descendants with any specific functional sequence ever existing. Even when mitigating factors such as multiple sequential trials, vast times spans, etc. are factored in the odds of any functional sequences are still unlikely. That said creationists need to be careful to not use the odds against a specific protein sequence being generated (as there are multiple sequences that may work) as evidence against evolution, but instead use the odds against functional sequences as evidence against evolution (and of course polymerization problems, chiraility odds, etc. can also be properly used). *For example according to evolutionist study only 1 combination ith 10 to the 65 power will function as a properly folding functioning protein. see page 122 of the following: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...in_Families.pdf
  9. hooberus

    Interesting Admission From Eugenie Scott

    I think that the documentation provided (from Menton- a credentialed scientist who himself attended the conference, and provided direct quotes along with the his summary of their context) is sufficient for an informal discussion forum such as this. The official NCSE site itself not infrequently gives summaries of peoples arguments at conferences (creationists) without direct links (or even direct supporting quotes) for example: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/...n_7_11_2001.asp
  10. Situations like this could be be damaging for the evolutionary version of history. However, in such as situation the dogmatic evolutionary proponets would probably do the following -in order of "descent" (pun intended): Example situation: Human bones found in strata containing dinosaur and other cretaceous creature remains: OPTIONS: 1. Keep current version of evolutionary history: *Claim that the human bones were a Stratigraphic leak ("downwash") into Cretaceous strata (allows strata to be still dated old). or *Claim that the specific strata is more recent and that dinosaur and other remains were "reworked" into this recent human containing strata. 2. Slightly modify current evolutionary version of history: *Claim that dinosaur and other creature life ranges extended into more recent times and that the specific strata is recent. 3. Larger modification of evolutionary version of history: *Claim that all evolution still occurred-but that it happened earlier than now thought. Mammals/humans still evolved from reptiles (over millions of years). However when burial occurred (still allows strata to be dated old) both were then living at the same time (there is no requirement in evolution that prevents ancestors and descendants from being found together). The human/dinosaur strata are thus reflection of a later time of burial following evolution (which occurred earlier and "which probably was recorded in previous sediments but that were eroded", etc.). Evolutions dogmatic proponets are certainly more than willing to change it in order to accomidate virtually any data.
  11. hooberus

    Interesting Admission From Eugenie Scott

    Anyway (regardless of the views of Scott), in response to the more general point about evidence "against evolution" also being used to support creationism: Evidence against evolution should be considered as strong evidence for creation (at least the act of creation by a creator in general*) since some type of creation is by far the only remotely likely alternative to evolution.** *Though based on logic alone such evidence may not necessarily prove biblical creationism per se (though it would likely be consistent with it). **If you disagree then please list a credible non-evolutionary alternative (besides creation) for the formation of hightly complex objects such as camera type eyes, bio-sonar systems, etc.
  12. hooberus

    Interesting Admission From Eugenie Scott

    Read more carefully. The statements contain quotes from Scott (as recorded by Menton) and not merely just "an opinion on Eugenie Scott by AIG" For example: http://www.metrovoice.net/2006/0706_stlweb...mens_souls.html
  13. hooberus

    Interesting Admission From Eugenie Scott

    From Eugenie Scott's website: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_con..._12_30_1899.asp As alluded to before: On on hand (when trying to deny the value of negative evidence) evolutionists such as Scott proclaim that it is "false" to claim that "arguments against evolution are arguments for creationism" On the other hand (when trying to censor even just problems with evolution from being presented to students) evolutionists -such as Scott then proclaim that even evidence against evolution should be excluded because it also implies creationism!
  14. hooberus

    Need Your Advice

    Next time before you make a post take the time to read what people say. Once again here my previous comment: "Though mutations may have also added an additional limited amount of variety to the population since the flood -such mutations need not have been anything more than the frequently observed neutral or deleterious types. This is not to say that a mutation adding a trivial amount of information is impossible- but that the process is overwhelmingly in the opposite direction."
  15. hooberus

    Need Your Advice

    The problem with this example is that the descent of varieties of dogs from an original wolf/dog kind (which is compatible with the Biblical creation and flood) probably came about primarily by the recombination and sorting of existing genetic information* already possessed by the original pair-whereas "evolution" the disputed "molecules-to man" sense (not compatible with the Bible) would have also required the addition of large amounts new genetic information that codes for brand new complex structures (e.g. new eyes) , new bio-chemical pathways, etc, etc. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...od/chapter2.asp *Though mutations may have also added an additional limited amount of variety to the population since the flood -such mutations need not have been anything more than the frequently observed neutral or deleterious types. This is not to say that a mutation adding a trivial amount of information is impossible- but that the process is overwhelmingly in the opposite direction.

Important Information

Our Terms