Christianity QA

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – NIGM-the Hope of Evolution Evolution belief depends upon new information being manufactured through accidental mutations.  This opinion is based what is called a natural information-generating mechanism(NIGM) and is actually another term for the evolutionary god of radom chance and accidental occurance. We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated – too statistically improbable – to have come into being by sheer chance. How, then, did they come into being? The answer is that chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance. Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small enough to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence. <snip Please post the exact sequence, in full scientific detail, of one of your alleged "series of tiny chance steps" that produces, say, a bacterium with a flagellal motor from a bacterium without one. Then we will have some real evidence to evaluate. Until then, thanks for the fantasies. LOL. All living things suddenly appear from an invisible guy waving a magic wand. Where do I send my cheque.

Not invisible, no magic wand, and all your cheques come from Him.

Response:

"Keep everything vague and bluff everyone by demanding disproof". That’s the motto of evolutionism. Evolutionism is a shadowy, fuzzy fantasy. There’s no evidence for it whatsoever. It’s not a quantitative theory at all, and at best belongs alongside "phrenology" as yet another whimsical pseudoscience.

Evolution is the best current theory to describe what is being observed. If you want to avoid delusion, learn what null hypothesis is all about. If you want to delude yourself then learn what religion is all about. Joe

Response:

Please post the exact sequence, in full scientific detail, "Scientific" is a meaningless adjective when applied to "detail".  A proposition may contain great detail and yet not be scientific.  A hypothesis or theory may be broad and general, without detail, and yet be scientific.

Pick whatever term you like, you know what is meant. of one of your alleged "series of tiny chance steps" that produces, say, a bacterium with a flagellal motor from a bacterium without one. Here is some preliminary thinking on the matter.

http://rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/ribozone/resource/transport/Ian%20Musgrave… As you can see, it doesn’t detail the exact steps between a secretory system and a propulsion system, but it outlines component relationships which can be independently verified, and it narrows the scope and scale of the problem.  It is not quite yet a model, it is more of a proto-model at the moment, but that is commonly how science proceeds.  Many of our models are the result of a multitude of refinements, revisions, and additions to earlier proto-models. Science itself is an evolutionary process.

Bah, hinted promises of future knowledge are not equivalent to "facts". Let the posers who whine on and on about the "fact of evolution" produce the exact sequence of  genetic mutations of even one organism that transforms it into a new kind of organism. Then we will have some real evidence to evaluate. If we develop a detailed sequence of development for one of the flagellar systems, then we who are willing to consider it will have something to evaluate, but you will not.  Creationists have a long history of throwing down a gauntlet challenge–"how could X have evolved in small steps?"–only to have the challenge met, followed by the Creationists retreating from that defeat and moving on to the next challenge–"how could Y have evolved in small steps?".  The sort of creator God of the gaps you cling to gets smaller and smaller (now down to being the God of bacterial flagella) and you willfully ignore the shrinkage.  The steady string of defeats itself should be a clue that you are on the wrong path.

More bluffing. Your own example supports our assertion, that there does not exist any such sequence of "X evolving in small steps". Not one. There are only fuzzy, vague guesses, full of missing "steps" and ideas like "somehow…", or "although there are still many details to be worked out……". – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Until then, thanks for the fantasies. Those thanks should go to your supplier. LOL.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – NIGM-the Hope of Evolution Evolution belief depends upon new information being manufactured through accidental mutations.  This opinion is based what is called a natural information-generating mechanism(NIGM) and is actually another term for the evolutionary god of radom chance and accidental occurance. We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated – too statistically improbable – to have come into being by sheer chance. How, then, did they come into being? The answer is that chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance. Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small enough to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence. <snip Please post the exact sequence, in full scientific detail, of one of your alleged "series of tiny chance steps" that produces, say, a bacterium with a flagellal motor from a bacterium without one. Then we will have some real evidence to evaluate. Until then, thanks for the fantasies. LOL.

All living things suddenly appear from an invisible guy waving a magic wand. Where do I send my cheque. Joe

Response:

  <snip

http://rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/ribozone/resource/transport/Ian%20Musgrave… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – http://www.idthink.net/biot/flag1/ You also need to understand that just because every little detail of the evolution of the creatures on earth can’t be  explained to your satisfaction doesn’t have any effect on the TOE whatsoever. Another bluff. I didn’t ask for "every little detail of the evolution of the creatures on earth". I only asked for one complete and definite scientific description of an unbroken evolutionary sequence of genetic mutations on one of the simplest known organisms that would change it into another simple organism. No definite sequence, no evidence. Only bluffing fantasies. And I told you that the TOE doesn’t depend on your whims as to what you wish explained. Did you go to the URL’s? Hell no you didn’t because nothing will change your closed mind will it DeVol? This will change my mind: one complete and definite scientific description of an unbroken evolutionary sequence of genetic mutations on one of the simplest known organisms that would change it into another simple organism, as per the example of the bacterium. If you claim evolutionism is a fact, but can’t produce a complete detailed scientific description of even one small example of it, then you’re bluffing. We want our taxes back. Taxes for what?

Taxes for supporting the National Science Foundation, the various public school science curricula, National Public Radio, etc. All the federal and state grants which have been spent on pseudosciences like evolutionism. "We" who? No, the science of evolution is not bluffing as is shown by the Steve’s who support the science of evolution:

To back up your claim, all you have to do is produce the sequence.  http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp I find it rather amusing that someone who would believe that a god need the universe by the sound of his voice with absolutely no idea of how he made it would dare question any field of science. Now, did you go to the god damn sites or not???

What’s amusing is that for all your empty rhetoric, you still haven’t produced the sequence that will put all argument to rest.

Response:

<snip – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And I told you that the TOE doesn’t depend on your whims as to what you wish explained. Did you go to the URL’s? Hell no you didn’t because nothing will change your closed mind will it DeVol? This will change my mind: one complete and definite scientific description of an unbroken evolutionary sequence of genetic mutations on one of the simplest known organisms that would change it into another simple organism, as per the example of the bacterium. It wouldn’t change your mind, you’d simply move the goalpost and claim it was "micro" evolution and not "macro" evolution.

I don’t think anyone would consider the transformation of a bacterium with no flagellal motor into one with a motor to be "microevolution". I certainly wouldn’t. Organisms can change within certain limits through natural or unnatural selection (i.e. controlled breeding). That’s "microevolution". But organisms developing entirely new structures through random genetic mutation, structures that didn’t exist in them before, even embryonically, and that make them into entirely different kinds of creatures from their ancestors, is what is being touted as the "theory of evolution" by the atheistic, mechanistic crowd. Despite all the glib showmanship, there does not exist a single example of such an evolutionary change which can be verified to be possible by producing the exact sequence of genetic mutations needed to produce it. We want our taxes back.

Response:

Please post the exact sequence, in full scientific detail,

"Scientific" is a meaningless adjective when applied to "detail".  A proposition may contain great detail and yet not be scientific.  A hypothesis or theory may be broad and general, without detail, and yet be scientific. of one of your alleged "series of tiny chance steps" that produces, say, a bacterium with a flagellal motor from a bacterium without one.

Here is some preliminary thinking on the matter. http://rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/ribozone/resource/transport/Ian%20Musgrave… As you can see, it doesn’t detail the exact steps between a secretory system and a propulsion system, but it outlines component relationships which can be independently verified, and it narrows the scope and scale of the problem.  It is not quite yet a model, it is more of a proto-model at the moment, but that is commonly how science proceeds.  Many of our models are the result of a multitude of refinements, revisions, and additions to earlier proto-models. Science itself is an evolutionary process. Then we will have some real evidence to evaluate.

If we develop a detailed sequence of development for one of the flagellar systems, then we who are willing to consider it will have something to evaluate, but you will not.  Creationists have a long history of throwing down a gauntlet challenge–"how could X have evolved in small steps?"–only to have the challenge met, followed by the Creationists retreating from that defeat and moving on to the next challenge–"how could Y have evolved in small steps?".  The sort of creator God of the gaps you cling to gets smaller and smaller (now down to being the God of bacterial flagella) and you willfully ignore the shrinkage.  The steady string of defeats itself should be a clue that you are on the wrong path. Until then, thanks for the fantasies.

Those thanks should go to your supplier. LOL.

That smugly superior laughter is the same as what a modern day flat-Earther would have for you, if you were to suggest the world is more like a sphere than a plane. Kronk

Response:

  <snip http://rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/ribozone/resource/transport/Ian%20Musgrave… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – http://www.idthink.net/biot/flag1/ You also need to understand that just because every little detail of the evolution of the creatures on earth can’t be  explained to your satisfaction doesn’t have any effect on the TOE whatsoever. Another bluff. I didn’t ask for "every little detail of the evolution of the creatures on earth". I only asked for one complete and definite scientific description of an unbroken evolutionary sequence of genetic mutations on one of the simplest known organisms that would change it into another simple organism. No definite sequence, no evidence. Only bluffing fantasies. And I told you that the TOE doesn’t depend on your whims as to what you wish explained. Did you go to the URL’s? Hell no you didn’t because nothing will change your closed mind will it DeVol? This will change my mind: one complete and definite scientific description of an unbroken evolutionary sequence of genetic mutations on one of the simplest known organisms that would change it into another simple organism, as per the example of the bacterium. If you claim evolutionism is a fact, but can’t produce a complete detailed scientific description of even one small example of it, then you’re bluffing. We want our taxes back.

Taxes for what? "We" who? No, the science of evolution is not bluffing as is shown by the Steve’s who support the science of evolution:  http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp I find it rather amusing that someone who would believe that a god need the universe by the sound of his voice with absolutely no idea of how he made it would dare question any field of science. Now, did you go to the god damn sites or not???

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – NIGM-the Hope of Evolution Evolution belief depends upon new information being manufactured through accidental mutations.  This opinion is based what is called a natural information-generating mechanism(NIGM) and is actually another term for the evolutionary god of radom chance and accidental occurance. We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated – too statistically improbable – to have come into being by sheer chance. How, then, did they come into being? The answer is that chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance. Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small enough to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence. <snip Please post the exact sequence, in full scientific detail, of one of your alleged "series of tiny chance steps" that produces, say, a bacterium with a flagellal motor from a bacterium without one. Then we will have some real evidence to evaluate. Until then, thanks for the fantasies. LOL. I would hardly call Richard Dawkins’ work ‘fantasies’ even if I didn’t agree with him. Your contempt for him doesn’t strengthen your position.  And besides, the exact sequence, in full scientific detail, of a development that took probably millions of generations, would be indeed difficult, for many reasons…time, to pick but one example… And that’s the bluff of the evolutionists: it took too long to observe, and it involved too many steps to specify. In other words, it’s complete, total speculation, and anyone who asserts it as a scientific fact is bluffing.. but the inability to answer that request does not consitute a negation of what Dawkins postulated (neither does it constitute a proof of what he said). There is no burden of disproof of a positive assertion. The burden of proof is on those who assert it. Let the atheistic, mechanistic crowd give us the goods, or else let them give back the money. The guy’s an Oxford professor – that DOES unfortunately count for something. And unfortunately you’ll find he has an extremely large amount of "real evidence" to back his statements up…the crude cut and paste of the article rather didn’t do justice to that. No. Sorry. Unless someone can produce real science in the form of a complete and demonstrably possible sequence of genetic mutations, with no missing or "assumed" steps, no vagueness, of one organism "evolving" into another, radically different organism, then there is no "evidence for evolution". You don’t get much simpler than a bacterium, and if you can’t show precisely how one of those can "evolve" a new structural feature like a flagellal motor by intermediate steps, then you’ve got nothing. Only fantasy. Really Chris? What is you area of expertise in this matter. Normally I don’t ask for such things as the poster usually displays his expertise but in this instance all we have is your assertion. So, in that case, unless you are an expert in the area, your assertion is worthless. Going to these URL’s might help with your education, although I highly doubt it

http://rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/ribozone/resource/transport/Ian%20Musgrave… la.htm – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – http://www.idthink.net/biot/flag1/ You also need to understand that just because every little detail of the evolution of the creatures on earth can’t be  explained to your satisfaction doesn’t have any effect on the TOE whatsoever. Another bluff. I didn’t ask for "every little detail of the evolution of the creatures on earth". I only asked for one complete and definite scientific description of an unbroken evolutionary sequence of genetic mutations on one of the simplest known organisms that would change it into another simple organism. No definite sequence, no evidence. Only bluffing fantasies. And I told you that the TOE doesn’t depend on your whims as to what you wish explained. Did you go to the URL’s? Hell no you didn’t because nothing will change your closed mind will it DeVol? This will change my mind: one complete and definite scientific description of an unbroken evolutionary sequence of genetic mutations on one of the simplest known organisms that would change it into another simple organism, as per the example of the bacterium.

It wouldn’t change your mind, you’d simply move the goalpost and claim it was "micro" evolution and not "macro" evolution. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you claim evolutionism is a fact, but can’t produce a complete detailed scientific description of even one small example of it, then you’re bluffing. We want our taxes back.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – NIGM-the Hope of Evolution Evolution belief depends upon new information being manufactured through accidental mutations.  This opinion is based what is called a natural information-generating mechanism(NIGM) and is actually another term for the evolutionary god of radom chance and accidental occurance. We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated – too statistically improbable – to have come into being by sheer chance. How, then, did they come into being? The answer is that chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance. Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small enough to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence. <snip Please post the exact sequence, in full scientific detail, of one of your alleged "series of tiny chance steps" that produces, say, a bacterium with a flagellal motor from a bacterium without one. Then we will have some real evidence to evaluate. Until then, thanks for the fantasies. LOL. I would hardly call Richard Dawkins’ work ‘fantasies’ even if I didn’t agree with him. Your contempt for him doesn’t strengthen your position.  And besides, the exact sequence, in full scientific detail, of a development that took probably millions of generations, would be indeed difficult, for many reasons…time, to pick but one example… And that’s the bluff of the evolutionists: it took too long to observe, and it involved too many steps to specify. In other words, it’s complete, total speculation, and anyone who asserts it as a scientific fact is bluffing.. but the inability to answer that request does not consitute a negation of what Dawkins postulated (neither does it constitute a proof of what he said). There is no burden of disproof of a positive assertion. The burden of proof is on those who assert it. Let the atheistic, mechanistic crowd give us the goods, or else let them give back the money. The guy’s an Oxford professor – that DOES unfortunately count for something. And unfortunately you’ll find he has an extremely large amount of "real evidence" to back his statements up…the crude cut and paste of the article rather didn’t do justice to that. No. Sorry. Unless someone can produce real science in the form of a complete and demonstrably possible sequence of genetic mutations, with no missing or "assumed" steps, no vagueness, of one organism "evolving" into another, radically different organism, then there is no "evidence for evolution". You don’t get much simpler than a bacterium, and if you can’t show precisely how one of those can "evolve" a new structural feature like a flagellal motor by intermediate steps, then you’ve got nothing. Only fantasy. Really Chris? What is you area of expertise in this matter. Normally I don’t ask for such things as the poster usually displays his expertise but in this instance all we have is your assertion. So, in that case, unless you are an expert in the area, your assertion is worthless. Going to these URL’s might help with your education, although I highly doubt it

http://rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/ribozone/resource/transport/Ian%20Musgrave… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – http://www.idthink.net/biot/flag1/ You also need to understand that just because every little detail of the evolution of the creatures on earth can’t be  explained to your satisfaction doesn’t have any effect on the TOE whatsoever. Another bluff. I didn’t ask for "every little detail of the evolution of the creatures on earth". I only asked for one complete and definite scientific description of an unbroken evolutionary sequence of genetic mutations on one of the simplest known organisms that would change it into another simple organism. No definite sequence, no evidence. Only bluffing fantasies. And I told you that the TOE doesn’t depend on your whims as to what you wish explained. Did you go to the URL’s? Hell no you didn’t because nothing will change your closed mind will it DeVol?

This will change my mind: one complete and definite scientific description of an unbroken evolutionary sequence of genetic mutations on one of the simplest known organisms that would change it into another simple organism, as per the example of the bacterium. If you claim evolutionism is a fact, but can’t produce a complete detailed scientific description of even one small example of it, then you’re bluffing. We want our taxes back.

Response:

snip For your information, the number of Christians that accept the fact of evolution is greater than the number of atheist who do.

Really?  Got any cites on that?  Just curious. Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – NIGM-the Hope of Evolution Evolution belief depends upon new information being manufactured through accidental mutations.  This opinion is based what is called a natural information-generating mechanism(NIGM) and is actually another term for the evolutionary god of radom chance and accidental occurance. We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated – too statistically improbable – to have come into being by sheer chance. How, then, did they come into being? The answer is that chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance. Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small enough to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence. <snip Please post the exact sequence, in full scientific detail, of one of your alleged "series of tiny chance steps" that produces, say, a bacterium with a flagellal motor from a bacterium without one. Then we will have some real evidence to evaluate. Until then, thanks for the fantasies. LOL. I would hardly call Richard Dawkins’ work ‘fantasies’ even if I didn’t agree with him. Your contempt for him doesn’t strengthen your position.  And besides, the exact sequence, in full scientific detail, of a development that took probably millions of generations, would be indeed difficult, for many reasons…time, to pick but one example… And that’s the bluff of the evolutionists: it took too long to observe, and it involved too many steps to specify. In other words, it’s complete, total speculation, and anyone who asserts it as a scientific fact is bluffing.. but the inability to answer that request does not consitute a negation of what Dawkins postulated (neither does it constitute a proof of what he said). There is no burden of disproof of a positive assertion. The burden of proof is on those who assert it. Let the atheistic, mechanistic crowd give us the goods, or else let them give back the money. For your information, the number of Christians that accept the fact of evolution is greater than the number of atheist who do. The guy’s an Oxford professor – that DOES unfortunately count for something. And unfortunately you’ll find he has an extremely large amount of "real evidence" to back his statements up…the crude cut and paste of the article rather didn’t do justice to that. No. Sorry. Unless someone can produce real science in the form of a complete and demonstrably possible sequence of genetic mutations, with no missing or "assumed" steps, no vagueness, of one organism "evolving" into another, radically different organism, then there is no "evidence for evolution". Not according to scientists. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and is readily apparent to anyone who does not have motivation to be blind to the evidence.

Then all you have to do is present the evidence, namely, a complete quantitative scientific description of an unbroken sequence of definite genetic mutations that will change one simple organism like a bacterium without a flagellal motor into another simple organism, like a bacterium with a flagellal motor. If you can’t produce in this way an actual example of an evolutionary sequence, then stop calling it "science" and give back the research funds. You don’t get much simpler than a bacterium, and if you can’t show precisely how one of those can "evolve" a new structural feature like a flagellal motor by intermediate steps, then you’ve got nothing. Only fantasy. We don’t know all of the details of how gravity exists, the fact that gravity exists is accepted even by poorly educated Christians because the evidence for it is overwhelming. The evidence for evolution is also overwhelming. The difference between the two is that gravity does not seem to be contradicted by the Christian Bible. If it were, I am sure poorly educated Christians would be arguing against it’s existence as well.

There are equations and algorithms that completely describe the effects of the thing called "gravity", to within limits that are too small for anyone to measure. Where are the equations that describe how evolution works? For example, what equations express the relationship between the mutation rate and the number of generations it takes to produce a bacterium with a motor from a bacterium without one? "Keep everything vague and bluff everyone by demanding disproof". That’s the motto of evolutionism. Evolutionism is a shadowy, fuzzy fantasy. There’s no evidence for it whatsoever. It’s not a quantitative theory at all, and at best belongs alongside "phrenology" as yet another whimsical pseudoscience.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – NIGM-the Hope of Evolution Evolution belief depends upon new information being manufactured through accidental mutations.  This opinion is based what is called a natural information-generating mechanism(NIGM) and is actually another term for the evolutionary god of radom chance and accidental occurance. We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated – too statistically improbable – to have come into being by sheer chance. How, then, did they come into being? The answer is that chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance. Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small enough to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence. <snip Please post the exact sequence, in full scientific detail, of one of your alleged "series of tiny chance steps" that produces, say, a bacterium with a flagellal motor from a bacterium without one. Then we will have some real evidence to evaluate. Until then, thanks for the fantasies. LOL. I would hardly call Richard Dawkins’ work ‘fantasies’ even if I didn’t agree with him. Your contempt for him doesn’t strengthen your position.  And besides, the exact sequence, in full scientific detail, of a development that took probably millions of generations, would be indeed difficult, for many reasons…time, to pick but one example… And that’s the bluff of the evolutionists: it took too long to observe, and it involved too many steps to specify. In other words, it’s complete, total speculation, and anyone who asserts it as a scientific fact is bluffing.. but the inability to answer that request does not consitute a negation of what Dawkins postulated (neither does it constitute a proof of what he said). There is no burden of disproof of a positive assertion. The burden of proof is on those who assert it. Let the atheistic, mechanistic crowd give us the goods, or else let them give back the money. The guy’s an Oxford professor – that DOES unfortunately count for something. And unfortunately you’ll find he has an extremely large amount of "real evidence" to back his statements up…the crude cut and paste of the article rather didn’t do justice to that. No. Sorry. Unless someone can produce real science in the form of a complete and demonstrably possible sequence of genetic mutations, with no missing or "assumed" steps, no vagueness, of one organism "evolving" into another, radically different organism, then there is no "evidence for evolution". You don’t get much simpler than a bacterium, and if you can’t show precisely how one of those can "evolve" a new structural feature like a flagellal motor by intermediate steps, then you’ve got nothing. Only fantasy. Really Chris? What is you area of expertise in this matter. Normally I don’t ask for such things as the poster usually displays his expertise but in this instance all we have is your assertion. So, in that case, unless you are an expert in the area, your assertion is worthless. Going to these URL’s might help with your education, although I highly doubt it

http://rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/ribozone/resource/transport/Ian%20Musgrave… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – http://www.idthink.net/biot/flag1/ You also need to understand that just because every little detail of the evolution of the creatures on earth can’t be  explained to your satisfaction doesn’t have any effect on the TOE whatsoever. Another bluff. I didn’t ask for "every little detail of the evolution of the creatures on earth". I only asked for one complete and definite scientific description of an unbroken evolutionary sequence of genetic mutations on one of the simplest known organisms that would change it into another simple organism. No definite sequence, no evidence. Only bluffing fantasies.

And I told you that the TOE doesn’t depend on your whims as to what you wish explained. Did you go to the URL’s? Hell no you didn’t because nothing will change your closed mind will it DeVol?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – NIGM-the Hope of Evolution Evolution belief depends upon new information being manufactured through accidental mutations.  This opinion is based what is called a natural information-generating mechanism(NIGM) and is actually another term for the evolutionary god of radom chance and accidental occurance. We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated – too statistically improbable – to have come into being by sheer chance. How, then, did they come into being? The answer is that chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance. Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small enough to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence. <snip Please post the exact sequence, in full scientific detail, of one of your alleged "series of tiny chance steps" that produces, say, a bacterium with a flagellal motor from a bacterium without one. Then we will have some real evidence to evaluate. Until then, thanks for the fantasies. LOL. I would hardly call Richard Dawkins’ work ‘fantasies’ even if I didn’t agree with him. Your contempt for him doesn’t strengthen your position.  And besides, the exact sequence, in full scientific detail, of a development that took probably millions of generations, would be indeed difficult, for many reasons…time, to pick but one example… And that’s the bluff of the evolutionists: it took too long to observe, and it involved too many steps to specify. In other words, it’s complete, total speculation, and anyone who asserts it as a scientific fact is bluffing.. but the inability to answer that request does not consitute a negation of what Dawkins postulated (neither does it constitute a proof of what he said). There is no burden of disproof of a positive assertion. The burden of proof is on those who assert it. Let the atheistic, mechanistic crowd give us the goods, or else let them give back the money. The guy’s an Oxford professor – that DOES unfortunately count for something. And unfortunately you’ll find he has an extremely large amount of "real evidence" to back his statements up…the crude cut and paste of the article rather didn’t do justice to that. No. Sorry. Unless someone can produce real science in the form of a complete and demonstrably possible sequence of genetic mutations, with no missing or "assumed" steps, no vagueness, of one organism "evolving" into another, radically different organism, then there is no "evidence for evolution". You don’t get much simpler than a bacterium, and if you can’t show precisely how one of those can "evolve" a new structural feature like a flagellal motor by intermediate steps, then you’ve got nothing. Only fantasy. Really Chris? What is you area of expertise in this matter. Normally I don’t ask for such things as the poster usually displays his expertise but in this instance all we have is your assertion. So, in that case, unless you are an expert in the area, your assertion is worthless. Going to these URL’s might help with your education, although I highly doubt it

http://rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/ribozone/resource/transport/Ian%20Musgrave… http://www.idthink.net/biot/flag1/ You also need to understand that just because every little detail of the evolution of the creatures on earth can’t be  explained to your satisfaction doesn’t have any effect on the TOE whatsoever.

Another bluff. I didn’t ask for "every little detail of the evolution of the creatures on earth". I only asked for one complete and definite scientific description of an unbroken evolutionary sequence of genetic mutations on one of the simplest known organisms that would change it into another simple organism. No definite sequence, no evidence. Only bluffing fantasies.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – NIGM-the Hope of Evolution Evolution belief depends upon new information being manufactured through accidental mutations.  This opinion is based what is called a natural information-generating mechanism(NIGM) and is actually another term for the evolutionary god of radom chance and accidental occurance. We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated – too statistically improbable – to have come into being by sheer chance. How, then, did they come into being? The answer is that chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance. Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small enough to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence. <snip Please post the exact sequence, in full scientific detail, of one of your alleged "series of tiny chance steps" that produces, say, a bacterium with a flagellal motor from a bacterium without one. Then we will have some real evidence to evaluate. Until then, thanks for the fantasies. LOL. I would hardly call Richard Dawkins’ work ‘fantasies’ even if I didn’t agree with him. Your contempt for him doesn’t strengthen your position.  And besides, the exact sequence, in full scientific detail, of a development that took probably millions of generations, would be indeed difficult, for many reasons…time, to pick but one example… And that’s the bluff of the evolutionists: it took too long to observe, and it involved too many steps to specify. In other words, it’s complete, total speculation, and anyone who asserts it as a scientific fact is bluffing.. but the inability to answer that request does not consitute a negation of what Dawkins postulated (neither does it constitute a proof of what he said). There is no burden of disproof of a positive assertion. The burden of proof is on those who assert it. Let the atheistic, mechanistic crowd give us the goods, or else let them give back the money. The guy’s an Oxford professor – that DOES unfortunately count for something. And unfortunately you’ll find he has an extremely large amount of "real evidence" to back his statements up…the crude cut and paste of the article rather didn’t do justice to that. No. Sorry. Unless someone can produce real science in the form of a complete and demonstrably possible sequence of genetic mutations, with no missing or "assumed" steps, no vagueness, of one organism "evolving" into another, radically different organism, then there is no "evidence for evolution". You don’t get much simpler than a bacterium, and if you can’t show precisely how one of those can "evolve" a new structural feature like a flagellal motor by intermediate steps, then you’ve got nothing. Only fantasy.

Really Chris? What is you area of expertise in this matter. Normally I don’t ask for such things as the poster usually displays his expertise but in this instance all we have is your assertion. So, in that case, unless you are an expert in the area, your assertion is worthless. Going to these URL’s might help with your education, although I highly doubt it http://rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/ribozone/resource/transport/Ian%20Musgrave… http://www.idthink.net/biot/flag1/ You also need to understand that just because every little detail of the evolution of the creatures on earth can’t be  explained to your satisfaction doesn’t have any effect on the TOE whatsoever.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – NIGM-the Hope of Evolution Evolution belief depends upon new information being manufactured through accidental mutations.  This opinion is based what is called a natural information-generating mechanism(NIGM) and is actually another term for the evolutionary god of radom chance and accidental occurance. We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated – too statistically improbable – to have come into being by sheer chance. How, then, did they come into being? The answer is that chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance. Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small enough to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence. <snip Please post the exact sequence, in full scientific detail, of one of your alleged "series of tiny chance steps" that produces, say, a bacterium with a flagellal motor from a bacterium without one. Then we will have some real evidence to evaluate. Until then, thanks for the fantasies. LOL. I would hardly call Richard Dawkins’ work ‘fantasies’ even if I didn’t agree with him. Your contempt for him doesn’t strengthen your position.  And besides, the exact sequence, in full scientific detail, of a development that took probably millions of generations, would be indeed difficult, for many reasons…time, to pick but one example… And that’s the bluff of the evolutionists: it took too long to observe, and it involved too many steps to specify. In other words, it’s complete, total speculation, and anyone who asserts it as a scientific fact is bluffing.. but the inability to answer that request does not consitute a negation of what Dawkins postulated (neither does it constitute a proof of what he said). There is no burden of disproof of a positive assertion. The burden of proof is on those who assert it. Let the atheistic, mechanistic crowd give us the goods, or else let them give back the money.

For your information, the number of Christians that accept the fact of evolution is greater than the number of atheist who do. The guy’s an Oxford professor – that DOES unfortunately count for something. And unfortunately you’ll find he has an extremely large amount of "real evidence" to back his statements up…the crude cut and paste of the article rather didn’t do justice to that. No. Sorry. Unless someone can produce real science in the form of a complete and demonstrably possible sequence of genetic mutations, with no missing or "assumed" steps, no vagueness, of one organism "evolving" into another, radically different organism, then there is no "evidence for evolution".

Not according to scientists. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and is readily apparent to anyone who does not have motivation to be blind to the evidence. You don’t get much simpler than a bacterium, and if you can’t show precisely how one of those can "evolve" a new structural feature like a flagellal motor by intermediate steps, then you’ve got nothing. Only fantasy.

We don’t know all of the details of how gravity exists, the fact that gravity exists is accepted even by poorly educated Christians because the evidence for it is overwhelming. The evidence for evolution is also overwhelming. The difference between the two is that gravity does not seem to be contradicted by the Christian Bible. If it were, I am sure poorly educated Christians would be arguing against it’s existence as well.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – NIGM-the Hope of Evolution Evolution belief depends upon new information being manufactured through accidental mutations.  This opinion is based what is called a natural information-generating mechanism(NIGM) and is actually another term for the evolutionary god of radom chance and accidental occurance. We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated – too statistically improbable – to have come into being by sheer chance. How, then, did they come into being? The answer is that chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance. Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small enough to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence. <snip Please post the exact sequence, in full scientific detail, of one of your alleged "series of tiny chance steps" that produces, say, a bacterium with a flagellal motor from a bacterium without one. Then we will have some real evidence to evaluate. Until then, thanks for the fantasies. LOL. I would hardly call Richard Dawkins’ work ‘fantasies’ even if I didn’t agree with him. Your contempt for him doesn’t strengthen your position.  And besides, the exact sequence, in full scientific detail, of a development that took probably millions of generations, would be indeed difficult, for many reasons…time, to pick but one example…

And that’s the bluff of the evolutionists: it took too long to observe, and it involved too many steps to specify. In other words, it’s complete, total speculation, and anyone who asserts it as a scientific fact is bluffing.. but the inability to answer that request does not consitute a negation of what Dawkins postulated (neither does it constitute a proof of what he said).

There is no burden of disproof of a positive assertion. The burden of proof is on those who assert it. Let the atheistic, mechanistic crowd give us the goods, or else let them give back the money. The guy’s an Oxford professor – that DOES unfortunately count for something. And unfortunately you’ll find he has an extremely large amount of "real evidence" to back his statements up…the crude cut and paste of the article rather didn’t do justice to that.

No. Sorry. Unless someone can produce real science in the form of a complete and demonstrably possible sequence of genetic mutations, with no missing or "assumed" steps, no vagueness, of one organism "evolving" into another, radically different organism, then there is no "evidence for evolution". You don’t get much simpler than a bacterium, and if you can’t show precisely how one of those can "evolve" a new structural feature like a flagellal motor by intermediate steps, then you’ve got nothing. Only fantasy.

Response:

Evolutionary religionists worshipping at the church of chaos…

…do not exist. 12 – 9 = ? <– unsolvable mystery for the living chicken tract — TOP TEN SIGNS YOU’RE A (CHRISTIAN) FUNDAMENTALIST (found on www.evilbible.com) 10 – You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours. 9 – You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt. 8 – You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God. 7 – Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don’t even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" — including women, children, and trees! 6 – You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky. 5 – You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a couple of generations old. 4 – You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs — though excluding those in all rival sects – will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving." 3 – While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity. 2 – You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God. 1 – You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history – but still call yourself a Christian.

Response:

Have you ever heard the term natural selection? —– YOELK – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – NIGM-the Hope of Evolution Evolution belief depends upon new information being manufactured through accidental mutations.  This opinion is based what is called a natural information-generating mechanism(NIGM) and is actually another term for the evolutionary god of radom chance and accidental occurance. Evolutionary religionists worshipping at the church of chaos know they have no firm foundation of evidence so they manufacture some by smuggling intelligence into their arguments opining that somehow information came into being on its own, i.e. DNA contains a program (intelligence-information-code) for directing the development of an organism of one kind into a different kind.  Experimental evidence with fruit flies and other creatures has not confirmed any of these assumptions and in fact shows just the opposite(which is why they are no longer discussed in the Darwinist camps). Information is lost each time a mutation occurs and is either of no observable effect or is harmful unless the developmental repair mechanism(which is more critical embedded information itself) can repair it. The whole system of non-emperical, non-scientific assumption of evolution is backrupt and totally without evidencial substance yet it is believed by those who practice this religion with great vigor. When one states that NIGM is a "fact" and must be swallowed whole by everyone it is time to put some real estate between them and you.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – NIGM-the Hope of Evolution Evolution belief depends upon new information being manufactured through accidental mutations.  This opinion is based what is called a natural information-generating mechanism(NIGM) and is actually another term for the evolutionary god of radom chance and accidental occurance. We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated – too statistically improbable – to have come into being by sheer chance. How, then, did they come into being? The answer is that chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance. Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small enough to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence. <snip Please post the exact sequence, in full scientific detail, of one of your alleged "series of tiny chance steps" that produces, say, a bacterium with a flagellal motor from a bacterium without one. Then we will have some real evidence to evaluate. Until then, thanks for the fantasies. LOL.

I would hardly call Richard Dawkins’ work ‘fantasies’ even if I didn’t agree with him. Your contempt for him doesn’t strengthen your position.  And besides, the exact sequence, in full scientific detail, of a development that took probably millions of generations, would be indeed difficult, for many reasons…time, to pick but one example…but the inability to answer that request does not consitute a negation of what Dawkins postulated (neither does it constitute a proof of what he said). The guy’s an Oxford professor – that DOES unfortunately count for something. And unfortunately you’ll find he has an extremely large amount of "real evidence" to back his statements up…the crude cut and paste of the article rather didn’t do justice to that.

Response:

NIGM-the Hope of Evolution Evolution belief depends upon new information being manufactured through accidental mutations.  This opinion is based what is called a natural information-generating mechanism(NIGM) and is actually another term for the evolutionary god of radom chance and accidental occurance. Once again, you fail to realize that ‘information’ is a human abstraction that is used to describe actual physical events. In this case the event is biochemical reactions.

Only a bluff. Atheistic, mechanistic evolutionists believe that "human abstractions" are also products of material evolution, and thus result from random genetic mutations which are "naturally selected" to propagate through generations. Thus, according to atheistic, mechanistic evolutionists, "information" is also a material evolutionary phenomenon, and in that respect is no different from "biochemical reactions". The bait-and-switch dance to make "information" somehow fall outside the purview of science fails. It’s a distinction without a difference. <snip

Response:

The whole system of non-emperical, non-scientific assumption of evolution is backrupt and totally without evidencial substance yet it is believed by those who practice this religion with great vigor. When one states that NIGM is a "fact" and must be swallowed whole by everyone it is time to put some real estate between them and you.

By your logic how much more "without evidential substance" are the claims of Pauline Christianity, how much more in need of absolute rejection is Atonement and Salvation Theology and the unfounded crap that Fundamentalism promotes as its dogma. Look stupid, belief is not about loyalty to wishful thinking, nor is it about faith in things unseen.  It is about using your God given brain to reason, a brain that has evolved in accordance with the laws of a physical universe that may well have God at its core.   Natural selection is a way in which we understand part of the pattern whereby an apparent chaos evolves form.  In understanding the mechanisms of evolution we gain an insight  into how God’s universe operates, how out of chaos we are formed and how through the processes of a developing consciousness we evolve understanding In this we gain insight into the processes that lead to what we understand in HUMAN terms as such items as "Justice" and "Compassion" which in their Divine form may be of a more complete nature and reflecting of a physical harmony. The contents of your head are meant to be used as something more than a door stop.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – NIGM-the Hope of Evolution Evolution belief depends upon new information being manufactured through accidental mutations.  This opinion is based what is called a natural information-generating mechanism(NIGM) and is actually another term for the evolutionary god of radom chance and accidental occurance. Once again, you fail to realize that ‘information’ is a human abstraction that is used to describe actual physical events. In this case the event is biochemical reactions. Only a bluff. Atheistic, mechanistic evolutionists believe that "human abstractions" are also products of material evolution, and thus result from random genetic mutations which are "naturally selected" to propagate through generations.

I’ve never heard that claimed. Can you explain it further? Thus, according to atheistic, mechanistic evolutionists, "information" is also a material evolutionary phenomenon, and in that respect is no different from "biochemical reactions".

Not as I understand it. Would you please cite your source of information. The bait-and-switch dance to make "information" somehow fall outside the purview of science fails.

Outside the purview? No, I’m just pointing out that the "information theory proves there is no evolution" argument is, at best, absurdist theatre. It’s a distinction without a difference.

"I think I understand the analogy, so I must understand the underlying phenomenon," strikes again.

Response:

pdr

Response:

NIGM-the Hope of Evolution Evolution belief depends upon new information being manufactured through accidental mutations.  This opinion is based what is called a natural information-generating mechanism(NIGM) and is actually another term for the evolutionary god of radom chance and accidental occurance.

Once again, you fail to realize that ‘information’ is a human abstraction that is used to describe actual physical events. In this case the event is biochemical reactions. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Evolutionary religionists worshipping at the church of chaos know they have no firm foundation of evidence so they manufacture some by smuggling intelligence into their arguments opining that somehow information came into being on its own, i.e. DNA contains a program (intelligence-information-code) for directing the development of an organism of one kind into a different kind.  Experimental evidence with fruit flies and other creatures has not confirmed any of these assumptions and in fact shows just the opposite(which is why they are no longer discussed in the Darwinist camps). Information is lost each time a mutation occurs and is either of no observable effect or is harmful unless the developmental repair mechanism(which is more critical embedded information itself) can repair it. The whole system of non-emperical, non-scientific assumption of evolution is backrupt and totally without evidencial substance yet it is believed by those who practice this religion with great vigor. When one states that NIGM is a "fact" and must be swallowed whole by everyone it is time to put some real estate between them and you.

You have no idea what you are talking about, so I see no way to explain to you how many different ways you are wrong.

Response:

Related Posts