Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

TheJarJam

Member
  • Content Count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About TheJarJam

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
    Male
  • How old are you?
    25
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    no affiliation
  • What is your Worldview?
    Theistic Evolutionist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    Indy
  1. TheJarJam

    Systems In Nature

    Excellent point. Is there actual evidence for said "intermediates," or is Kenny Miller presupposing them knowing that, if they don't exist, his arch-nemesis Michael Behe is right? A List of Selected Responses to Kenneth R. Miller - Evolution News & Views
  2. It's called biogeography and it's severely flawed, much to the Darwinists' denial, shockingly enough. Casey Luskin has an excellent three-part series of articles from last spring in which he rips the N.C.S.E. to shreds for demonstrably lying about the strength of biogeography's support for Darwinian evolution. He gives ample evidence of species which refute the N.C.S.E.'s claims while also questioning their ridiculous scenarios for explaining how identical species came to be in entirely isolated locations separated by oceans. Their "begging the question" circular reasoning brings to mind that famous Einstein quote: “If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.†Testing Common Descent via the Continuity Between Biogeography and Evolution Sea Monkey Hypotheses Refute the NCSE's Biogeography Objections to Explore Evolution Sea Monkeys Are the Tip of the Iceberg: More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism Here's a couple of other articles, one by Jonathan Wells and another by Luskin, which deal with biogeography: Biogeography -- Where Darwin Does Theology (Poorly): Why Darwinism Is False The Biggest Problem in Asking About Life Is Botching Evolutionary Science, Not Attacking Religion (Updated)
  3. TheJarJam

    The Brain

    I've been following discussions on this at a couple of other places and the Darwinists there are sweating bullets. The level of sophistication of the brain is so advanced that even they know, deep-down inside of themselves, that their fairytale explanation is a complete joke. They wont admit─they can't admit it─but they know it.
  4. TheJarJam

    Modern Biology Text Books Answer Critics

    The D.I.'s Casey Luskin has an excellent five-part series on the "theory" semantics game that Darwinists play. It's a very enlightening read. I'll quote the most pertinent paragraph, located towards the end of part five: I love this take on things. Essentially, the whole debate on evolution being "just a theory" is irrelevant since the controversial aspect of evolution, that which is up for debate─the extrapolation of minor changes to explain all of life─doesn't even qualify as a theory. "Things change." Whoopdy-freakin'-doo. Give a reasonable explanation for why you believe the mechanisms behind those minor changes are capable of accumulating over time to create the breathtaking technology we now know life is made up of. A good hoofed mammals & whales critique can be found here. A perfect example of the contra evidence dino-to-bird delusion can be found here. (Excellent look at how Darwinists fit the evidence around the theory, rather than the theory around the evidence) A fantastic, highly detailed definition of I.D. can be found here. The author is creating an I.D. vs. common descent false dichotomy, as if both couldn't be true. Or, the inverse; that common descent proves unintelligent design: Evolution News & Views: Confusing Evidence for Common Ancestry With Evidence for Darwinian Evolution I would say the overwhelming majority of I.D. proponents accept common descent, however, the pattern found in the fossil record supports, not gradual change as Darwinism requires, but sudden bursts of creative changes. The exact type of changes one can find in the "common descent" of known intelligent designs; automobiles, televisions, refrigerators, phones, etc. If it was designed and has been around for multiple generations, the pattern of those generations will be identical to the fossil record pattern which is alleged to disprove design. It's just pure nuttiness that Darwinists try to use these things as evidence of there being no real design in life. If anyone cares: I find both most of the fossil finds and their chronological placement to be highly dubious, and in some cases outright dishonesty, in a pathetic attempt at making Darwinian evolution look true. We all know this has been repeatedly refuted by people much smarter than the authors of said shoddy textbook, so I wont even waste my time. I wonder: If I were to play poker with this gentleman, ended up pulling 10 consecutive royal flushes, winning six-months of his salary and the keys to his car in the process, would he stick by his "you cannot use probability to argue backwards" claim? Would he suddenly grow a brain and realize the difference between whether something happened and how that something happened? I'm sure he would. He'd accuse me of cheating (long before royal flush #10...). He'd recognize that what he had witnessed, while physically possible, was so logically improbable that it defied chance and was the result of a purposeful arrangement of cards. In other words─he'd use probability to argue backwards, all the way to a design inference (my cheating). Notice, too, the difference between landing 10 consecutive specific hands (royal flushes) and 10 consecutive unspecific hands. This is a big part of the equation. The probability of the former is astronomical, whereas the probability for the latter is... 1. Thus lies the fatal flaw in the student analogy. There's no specification involved. The probability of 20 students having 20 unspecified birthdays is 1. But what if the 20 students all had specific birthdays, say, New Year's Day. Would we conclude that it was a happy little coincidence, or would we realize the jaw-dropping improbability of this occurrence and then use probability to argue backwards, again, to a design inference? I think those of us with sanity would agree with the latter. We'd realize that this was a class for students born on New Year's Day, for whatever reason (maybe the local school board arranged students class assignments by birthdays?).
  5. TheJarJam

    Expelled

    This is the part where the raving anti-design lunatic will link to the "Expelled Exposed" website. Thankfully, the brilliant folks at the D.I. have created a website to refute the distortion, lies and victim blaming of the "Expelled Exposed' website. It's a nice little read. "Expelled Exposed" Exposed - N.C.S.E. Exposed: No Victim Blaming Allowed
  6. TheJarJam

    Is This Logical

    Allele frequencies play no role in body-plans nor organelle development, they only produce cosmetic changes (shape/size/color of already existing features; i.e., microevolution), thus they're irrelevant to the debate. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either ignorant of the debate or, unfortunately, trying to trick you for (ir)religious purposes. Any discussion of evolution which doesn't involve the previously mentioned (body-plans and organelle development) is entirely irrelevant to the debate, in my opinion.
  7. TheJarJam

    The Challenge

    I believe that Stephen C. Meyer's argument for intelligence being responsible for life via the fact that it is an information-processing nano-computer is the strongest argument for I.D. out there, by far. Point out that such a discovery strongly points to design based on two reasons: i) It's precisely what we'd expect to find if life were designed via the fact that it matches the patterns that intelligence creates; an arrangement of parts (complexity) which presents a function (functional specification). Intelligence is the only known force in the universe capable of transcending the laws of nature, and in doing so we produce very detectable patterns. For example, you've detected intelligence via the pattern my text has created with the pixels of your monitor. S.E.T.I. uses this exact paradigm in attempting to detect intelligence across the cosmos, and in fact it's accepted everywhere... except in biology. In biology it suddenly becomes an outrageous idea that's a so-called "threat to science." Of course, this is just propaganda; cheap scare tactics used to discredit design detection in biology based, not on logic, but on emotion, emotion that's the result of atheists' gross disdain for the thought of life being designed. Also, notice that all of this is an argument from knowledge, not ignorance, as the anti-I.D. strawman usually goes. Knowledge of both what is needed for life to exist (high levels of specified information) and what produces said specified information (intelligence). There is no "we don't understand, therefore intelligence." We do understand, and therefor intelligence. ii) Point out that the alternative hypothesis, that life formed in the total absence of intelligence, is in fact the argument from ignorance. Such capabilities have never been witnessed in nature. The amount of specified information needed for even the most simple of life is beyond the probabilistic resources of our entire universe (hence pleas to a multiverse), and there are no known natural laws which support the formation of life. If there were, then it would beg the question of why nature was biased towards life. Point out that the entire case for an intelligence-free origin of life is based upon an a priori excluding of design as a potential candidate. Point out that this not only putting science in a straight jacket, but that it's also concluding their own presupposition─special pleading. To these enemies of reason, life wasn't designed, not because the evidence says it wasn't, but because their worldview says it couldn't be. Their "logic" is no different than the mother who denies the guilt of her suspected criminal son, based not on an evaluation of evidence, but on her own view of her son as being incapable of committing the charges levied against him. Rule something out from the get-go and no amount of evidence could make it acceptable. That's not science. That's dogma. Also, if the I.D. opponent claims that I.D. is supernatural, be sure to point out that I.D. is a plea to INTELLIGENCE. Ask him to point out just what it is about intelligence that he considers supernatural, and, since we ourselves are intelligent, does that mean we are supernatural? In that case, we know supernaturalism exists, thus there's no reason to object to it. If he insists that intelligence is not supernatural, then ask him why he concludes that I.D., which only requires intelligence, would require the supernatural. If he insists that any other intelligences in the history of our cosmos must be supernatural, then make him back up this assertion. He will not be able to, and his "supernatural" objection to I.D. will be fully exposed as a load of horse *censor*. Meyer's book Signature in the Cell has already reached legendary status. Since I assume you don't have the time to read it, I'd recommend watching some of his videos. I dedicated a YouTube channel to his work a while back if you're interested.
  8. Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other way around?
  9. TheJarJam

    Question For Creationists

    Shallit's usage of the weather to "refute" complex, specified information was one of the most embarrassing things I've ever seen. He needs a new profession, something he stands a chance of being actually good at. Might I suggest professional "Hacksaw" Jim Duggan impersonator?
  10. TheJarJam

    Question For Creationists

    The Discovery Institute has always been open about their beliefs. Even the infamous "Wedge Document" was released voluntarily. We see the exact opposite behavior in Intelligent Designophobics, where bait & switch, conflation, and other trickery is used on a regular basis. Of course the paper was "poorly received", it presented a challenge to Darwinian evolution. Thankfully how it was received is irrelevant. All that matters is the quality of the work, which the paper passed with flying colors. All three of the paper's reviewers recommended it be published, with the journal's president verifying that the publication was appropriate. Rather than discrediting Meyer's paper, your dishonest rambling instead reflects upon just how corrupt and politicized the peer-review process has become. This isn't to say that all of the peer-reviewed literature is bad, but there can be no question minority viewpoints are being suppressed due to insecurities. This was further validated with Climategate, the uncovered conspiracy in which scientists were not only caught plotting against opposing viewpoints via destroying the peer-review process, but were also caught lying about data. If you would've bothered to have followed the link you would've seen that Mr. Torley cites all of his references.
  11. TheJarJam

    Question For Creationists

    Which makes his idiotic statements all the more alarming. He either slept through most of his classes as a student or, like I said before, he's lying. Incorrect (strike 1). Regarding Meyer: The journal's editor, Richard Sternberg, was harassed and demoted for his publishing of Meyer's article. You can read about Dembski's peer-reviewed work here (strike 2). U.D. FAQ: Dembski’s idea of “complex specified information†is nonsense! In short, the concept of complex specified information helped these investigators understand the difference between (a) the highly informational, highly contingent functional macromolecules of life and ( crystals formed through forces of mechanical necessity, or © random polymer strings. In so doing, they identified a very familiar concept  at least to those of us with hardware or software engineering design and development or troubleshooting experience and knowledge. Namely, complex, specified information, shown in the mutually adapted organization, interfacing and integration of components in systems that depend on properly interacting parts to fulfill objectively observable functions. For that matter, this is exactly the same concept that we see in textual information as expressed in words, sentences and paragraphs in a real-world language. Furthermore, on massive experience, such CSI reliably points to intelligent design when we see it in cases where we independently know the origin story. What Dembski did with the CSI concept in the following two decades was to: (i) recognize CSI’s significance as a reliable, empirically observable sign of intelligence, (ii) point out the general applicability of the concept, and (iii) provide a probability and information theory based explicitly formal model for quantifying CSI. You can also go here and read a series of posts by the user vjtorley which gives one of the most detailed explanations of specified information I've ever seen. He sites the work of 12 different scientists, all agreeing on the concept of specified information, with only very minor differences between their definitions. That's strike 3 my friend... All of this has already been refuted, however let me add that if you don't understand the concept of specified information, then you couldn't understand the very message you're currently reading nor could to differentiate a house from a heap of bricks, a slab of marble from Michelangelo's David, etc. The depths Darwinists must sink to... shameful. Both yourself and Mr. Shallit need to step out of the ignorance of the 19th century and into the enlightenment of the 21st century. Only then will you be taken serious and not looked at as circus clowns.
  12. TheJarJam

    Question For Creationists

    Jeffrey Shallit has repeatedly proven he's both dishonest and ignorant, thus his thoughts on I.D. aren't worthy of respect. Shallit’s Chronic Foot-in-Mouth Disease Here's Stephen C. Meyer explaining specified information (thanks to U.D.'s vjtorley): Specified information is something even small toddlers understand, so for Jeff Shallit to show such a gross misunderstanding of it would suggest that he's either dangerously stupid or fibbing for Charlie.
  13. Thomas Nagel on Dover Either both intelligent design and unintelligent design are science, or neither is science. There is no third option.
  14. TheJarJam

    Scientists Find Evidence Of Design?

    The origin of life required C.S.I. - complex, specified information. What's interesting is that this same concept is used by S.E.T.I. as a means of attempting to detect intelligence throughout the cosmos. The problem is that, while C.S.I. is considered well accepted science in S.E.T.I., when it's presented in biology it suddenly becomes the most outrageous idea ever conceived, an idea considered so "far out there" that it could kill science. Isn't that incredibly telling? Not only the huge double-standard, but the appalling level of spin attached to the double-standard. Some quotes from origins of life researcher Charles Thaxton: ...and thus it becomes crystal-clear why designophobics must resort to censorship (including peer-review corruption) and lies to pseudo-refute Intelligent Design. It's all they've got. We also see that Hawkins ' claim that there is no evidence for Intelligent Design is false, and that he's either dishonest or simply ignorant of the subject.
  15. TheJarJam

    Science Proves Design...

    Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design For those of you who would like to dismiss "complex specified information", understand that doing so would be rejecting well established science. That's a no-no, right?
×

Important Information

Our Terms