News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Please link to this page using this simple URL:
http://urlbam.com/ha/M0024


A Brief Discussion About The Mathematical Absurdity of Evolution

Fragility and Irreducible Complexity

Beneficial mutations cannot cause complex subsystems to form in a single step, so you—as an evolutionist—would have to accept the idea that small parts of these subsystems would form first and then mutate into further complex-subsystems.

Two problems with this idea are:

(1) The small non-complex mutations that are becoming part of a complex system would certainly be harmful, useless mutations and would be selected out long before they ever had a chance to develop more complexity.

(2) Math. (see below)

If it takes 1,000,000 harmful mutations to form a part of what will become a complex subsystem later (and for some strange reason it is not selected out), we now have a situation where there is a much stricter requirement about what type of mutation will be "beneficial".

Why?

Because the first "part" of the "developing" complex machine has a much smaller range of attributes (or "designs") that would constitute a "beneficial" mutation to itself. For this reason, we can no longer say that it will only take 1,000,000 (a very conservative number to begin with) mutations to come up with a beneficial mutation. Now that we have the first "part" of the coming complex subsystem, it may take 1,000,000 times 1,000,000 mutations to come up with the second "part" of the machine.

Thats 1,000,000 x 1,000,000 or 1,000,000,000,000.

Now, lets say that the second "part" of the complex machine did form. Now there is a much narrower range of mutations that could be considered "beneficial" for the next part of the subsystem to form. Furthermore, the likelihood that the current state of the mutation is beneficial (with these two parts hanging off) is far lower than it is when it contains only the first original "part".

So, now let's say that this DID occur for the sake of argument. The third part that needs to be created has to be within a much narrower specification in order to be considered "beneficial", so in this case, it's likely that the number of mutations necessary to form a "part" of the developing system would be (VERY VERY CONSERVATIVELY) 1,000,000 times more specified.

So now, we are dealing with a chance factor that looks like this:

1,000,000,000,000 x 1,000,000 or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000

And now that we have these three mutations hanging off this organism, what are the chances that it is even remotely beneficial in its current state.

Think about this for a second. Can you design a machine with even 100 parts that is fully functional with only 1 part, and then with only 2 parts, and then with only 3 parts, all the way up to 100?

OK, so now let's get to the fourth part, then the fifth, sixth, all the way to the one-hundredth part.

Do you know how narrow the specifications for the last part would be?

and as a result...

Do you know what kind of numbers we would have as a chance-factor for even the fourth and fifth part developing, not to mention the fiftieth or sixtieth?

Furthermore...

What about a subsystem with 1,000 parts, or 10,000 parts?

The unlikelihood of just the right kind of mutation to complete the subsystem increases multiplicatively (or much more likely factorially) as each new part is added along the way. (My estimates in this post have been conservative to give evolution a broad edge.)

We also need to remember to consider this all-important question:

What are the chances that the unfinished subsystem would be considered "beneficial" and would not be selected out throughout every single step along the course of the construction of this subsystem?

You see, when you look carefully at evolution, it becomes exactly what I've called it all along:

Positively ridiculous.

Why would it be harmful? I assume you are not talking about a mutation that would result in a change in a complex system that would already exist...like a slightly longer neck on a tortoise. Do you have a hypothetical example that you could provide?

This statement is predicated upon the assumption that harmful mutations are required to provide the small changes that result in a big change which is beneficial. However, a mutation is classified as "harmful" if it hinders the ability of the organism to produce offspring. Most mutations are actually neutral, not harmful. So, if that small change does not affect the ability of the organism to produce the same average number of offspring in its lifetime as the others in its population then there is no harmful mutation.


Could you explain how you came up with the idea that the first "part" of the "developing" complex machine has a much smaller range of attributes?
Why do you consider 1,000,000 mutations to come up with a beneficial mutation "very conservative"? Do you have some statistics from geneticists to substantiate this claim?



Perhaps this isn't the math that you asked me to comment on, because it is not very well laid out for a math proof.

Honestly, none of the questions you raise have any real bearing on the outcome of the conclusion, except possibly this one:



It is immensely ironic to hear an evolutionists say this because it completely flies in the face of the evolution faith.

For example, if what you say is true, and most mutations are not harmful and remain, then all life would consist of very, very much disorder with very little order; Like a mole on a mole on a mole...a million times over.

We would look like giant blobs of disorder because the vast number of mutations have no appearance of order (like a mole).

In fact, the mutations would eventually kill us, which—ironically—is the basis for natural selection; A foundation of evolution itself.

Is not the irony staring you in the face?

I noticed that no evolutionists have bothered to tackle this thread, except you.

I suspect this is because this subject is impossible to tackle for an evolutionist, and is better left—in the evolutionist's mind—in distant hopes of fading away.

Indulge me. Please.

Tell me what's wrong with it.

(Did you notice that you're doing exactly what you've accused me of doing over and over: Making broad—opinion based—statements without providing evidence to back it up?)

Well, to be honest, there are only a couple evolutionists left on here so not sure who else but LL would respond?? Unless DavidG is an evolutionist? But I have a question for those who are left.... I know there is an apparent variance from the original thoughts concerning evolution with the soup to man theory (which IMO is bogus or at least I don't believe it - don't like being insulting about it, but it doesn't even seem logical to me). But RAZD has stated that is not the case (now) at least or in all schools of thought. I'm assuming this "so called" back tracking is an "evolution" of science and is legit and is what is now called abiogenesis, correct?? I still don't accept that species have jumped....or even or especially that man came from a lower being no matter what science supposedly states, but do concede that a certain amount of evolving and/or adaption occurs.

Unfortunately our genetics expert has gone. I am not a genetics expert. But the people who are making claims here about what should result from mutations are not experts either. Most mutations occur on such a small scale that we don't even notice them, and sometimes they are not expressed either. Genetics is my weak point but do you really think any scientists at all would accept evolution the way Russ defines it, with weird mutations happening the way Russ defines them? Is that what we see in real life? No. Does that mean that most scientists are simply idiots? That's what some on this forum would have you believe but I think the reality is obvious to most people.

Where should I start.

Your first assumption is that it takes 1,000,000 harmful mutations that have to build up to form a beneficial mutation. You say this as if it were fact but don't explain or support it.

What do you mean by this assumption? Are you saying that harmful mutations are required to work together to form beneficial ones. If so, what evolutionist scientists or papers have you seen in your vast research that actually say this?

If not, then what are you saying?

You say with this math that harmful mutations would build up in the population before a beneficial one would be realized. Is that what Darwin's theory says? Could you quote Darwin or any evolutionist scientist on this?

Without supporting your premise, your math, whether correct or not, is worthless. Faulty premise results in faulty conclusion. I am not proving your premise false because the burden is on you to show it to be true.

Until you show something besides your own assertion concerning how beneficial mutations would occur, there is no use moving on to the math.

Actually it is not opinion-based and I will share my evidence when you provide yours. I see no reason why I should waste time providing evidence that will be ignored when you have not provided anything more substantial than Hovind videos. You realize that Hovind doesn't support any of his sweeping statements either, don't you?

Please explain how the burden of proof can be on Russ, yet there is no burden to substantiate the assumptions required to generate evodates.

I do not say this in order to discuss evodates here. This issue is that of an apparent double standard applying to burdens of proof.

If they are allowed to freely incorporate any premise they want, why not Russ? If the only restriction is that they cannot incorporate a disproven premise, the same should apply to Russ, and the burden must fall to those who dispute what he says.

Also, RAZD was fond of maintaining that there are no burdens of proof for scientific theories. Are you not already in disagreement on that point? Or is there something you'd like to clarify?

I don't know what "evodates" are any more than I know what "evopriests" or "evogoggles" are. If I made up silly names for creationists I'd be told I was slandering them, but unlike you I do not have an irresistable desire to belittle my opponents rather than engage with what they are saying.

Geologists don't make lots of guesses. One type of dating they use is radiometric. If you're going to wave away scientists whose life's work this is and who compare data and peer review each other rigorously, then you sure as heck need to cough up some evidence that they are in fact simply making assumptions.

First, you are incorrect about the burden of proof in regards to the dating systems used by geologists.
The burden of proof always resides with the person who makes the initial claim. His apparant claim that harmful mutations are required build up to a beneficial mutation is not part of any evolution theory that I know of. If he got it from some biology texts or papers it would be much easier for him to provide the reference than for me to go looking at all biology texts and papers to show that it is not a part of the theory of evolution.

No double standard. You just seem to be unaware of the support that was required to substantiate the dating methods used.

Faulty premise as shown above, therefore faulty conclusion. So we are back to Russ supplying some substantiation for his statements regarding mutations. If you want to discuss why your premise was faulty you can start a thread on whatever dating method you like.

RAZD stated that scientific theories are not ever completely proven. That does not eliminate the requirement of the burden of proof for particular statements within or regarding that theory. This is especially true of statements of fact...like the ratio between harmful, neutral and beneficial mutations.

It would be extraordinary indeed if you somehow had more than 100% certainty about anything.

Evolutionists make up new words all the time. You've been to talkdeceptions; you must've seen quite a few of them.

Worse yet, they redefine extant terms and try to belittle anyone who isn't with their program.

'Homology' is a fine example of both. When it was invented, it just meant 'similarity'. There was no need at all for a new word, other than to apply a "scientific" veneer to bogus arguments. BUT the story doesn't end with that. After the terms "parallel evolution" and "convergent evolution" came along, it was decided that homology that resulted from them couldn't be called 'homology'. 'Homology' was redefined as similarity resulting from regular evolution, and the term 'analogous' was pressed into evoservice to describe the other equally similar traits that have been found. This renders 'homology' dependent on evolutionism being true in order to even be a word. So 'homology' arguments are circular (for an additional reason; they already were circular).

No joke? Can any of the assumptions behind radiometric dating be proven? That's the issue you're trying not to answer without appearing not to answer.

Life's work? How do you know it's his life's work? How do you know he gives a hoot about evolutionism, when he has to support it if he wants to be confident he'll have a job next month? You have a lot of nerve trying to evoke sympathy for junk science by appealing to anyone's "life's work".

The cowardly underpinnings of evolutionism are based to a very large extent on threatening to prevent a person from achieving their "life's work" if they don't comply. The intimidation we've all seen to one extent or another starts in school and never stops.
It is common knowledge that assumptions are involved. There are assumptions in all science. Good scientists seek to keep them to a minimum. Poor scientists pile them on just to pile them on.

The misnamed "Copernican Principle" is an example of an unwarranted, unneeded assumption that has been incorporated just to keep from finding truth. It serves no other purpose. There is no basis for it whatsoever, and it is contrary to observation. The "life's work" of those who support it is making up fiction. The idea has more accurate names, but I shan't confuse you by using them. I employ the common evoterm for your benefit.

Now, would YOU care to explain why the assumptions behind evodates don't need to be proven, but Russ' assumptions do? Nothing in your post comes even close to explaining away the double standard. Russ has a life's work too. We all do. That does not make one subject to rules of science and reason and another exempt. If anything, one might expect a professional scientist to meet a higher standard in such matters, rather than being excused. You object to my appeal for balanced treatment!

But then you don't seem to have much choice, do you? The game must be rigged. Now if only you can prevent me from pointing out the rigged condition of the game...

As you have not exempted them, I look forward to addressing these assumptions in the appropriate thread when it shall be convenient.

Bex listed some of them in the past, but the post may have been overlooked or forgotten.

Thank you for responding. It may prove interesting to compare statements sometime. His statements were somewhat more unorthodox than you seem to recall.

Folks might could stand reminding about your philosophy of science. If Russ can substantiate his premises, this counts as evidence that his conclusion is true, according to LinearAQ's methodology.

Wow CTD. Impressive. And so much moreso when penned with respect!

Thank you for your sincere flattery.

Ok. The means by which he substantiates his premises must be something I can verify.

This is surprising.
You consider statements like:
and to be respectful?

Perhaps he would find it difficult and dishonest to feign respect for for a theory that he finds an insult to basic intelligence/ common sense and true science....I don't know Linear, but if you feel he should be slapped over the wrist or banned, you must insist Russ incur the same.

Russ is no less candid.

PS, I assume Jeanie was not being sincere Linear, but rather sarcastic...;)

In reading the responses to my founding post (the post starting this thread), I can only say that my original post stands. There has been no information presented that refutes it.

I believe this is because, perhaps deep in their minds, evolutionists know that the chance that random mutation can form highly-complex, symmetrical, self-replicating, sexual (male and female) machines is not just unlikely, it is absurd at its foundation.

The fact is, when considering complex machines, the odds of mutation creating ever-more specialized parts—of the machine or system—decrease dramatically (to say the least) as the number of parts increases. To deny this is to deny basic logic.

The widespread acceptance of evolution it little more than a demonstration of the sheep-nature of humans.

And I have.
Both of them would take great offense if someone were to speak the same way about their beliefs. In fact, Russ did complain about Russell2's statement that Russ's beliefs bordered on paranoia. Russell2 got banned for that.

So I am supposed to feel it is ok when they basically say belief in evolution indicates that I am "controlled", "dishonest" and "stupid"? I guess that type of behavior is only worth acting on if it is done to Russ or CTD.

Ya think?!! Certainly confirmed by his next message.

...And here comes my next message now!



Russell2 was lying, and I have found no less then 8 accounts now that are his, and they have all been banned.

I also have no tolerance for people referring to conspiracy research as paranoid, nor will I in the future. Russell2 knows nothing about conspiracy research and has done none of his own research and was simply attempting to slander my character and the character of other people who have done their homework.

Paranoia is associated with the character of a human.

Stupidity is associated with either a person or an idea.

Big difference.

I have done my research in relation to evolution, and hence I have earned a right to an opinion on it. Russell2 has done no research in relation to conspiracies and has therefore earned no right to anything more than a distant opinion, again, his reference to paranoia being towards ME, not the idea at hand.

The mathematical absurdity of evolution is clearly apparent. Those who continue to believe in it are exhibiting a mythological/religious faith that exceeds the belief that the world is flat.

In fact, the current redefinition of evolution (as natural selection) is clearly a lie...nothing more than a retreat designed for damage control necessitated by the fact that people are finally opening their eyes to the sheer stupidity they've been presented with in evolution.

http://urlbam.com/ha/M000Z

Let's be honest here.



I certainly don't intend or enjoy seeing people get insulted, however, it is often healthy to be insulted. I was insulted when I first read the Bible, then, as I continued to research, I found the information in the Bible to be accurate, so my insult turned to humility.

The truth often offends us, and if so, then let it. It is our response to this insult that trains the attitude of our destiny.

I don't intend to call you personally stupid when I say that evolution is a stupid idea, but I am unwilling to sacrifice the truth for the sake of my emotional comfort, or yours.

Unfortunately, the majority of people today are willing to sacrifice truth for the sake of their own emotional comfort—their desires, and this is at the heart of our global issues today:

We lie to ourselves. And why do we do this? Because we covet the things we imagine.

Let us grow out of our childhood and into maturity and stop bowing to the religion of self indulgence, but rather view truth for what it is, after all, this is the process of true science:

"Viewing truth for what it is."


"For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work."
(James 3:16)

Eachtime one gets banned, whether it's him or Pwcca - we get another one joining up. The last one was "Nina". I wonder who will be next?

Then if I said that those who believe in Project Bluebeam are either deluded, stupid or controlled by conspiracy theory rumor mongers, then you wouldn't take offense?

You assumed that Russell2 has done no research because his opinion didn't agree with yours. You really don't know what he knows about any particular conspiracy.

You say you have done your research in relation to evolution but your posts don't reflect it. They are mostly rebuttals to charactures of evolution. Therefore, I doubt that your research was in depth enough to place any validity on your opinions about the subject.

I've looked at your mathematical "support" for this claim and have found it wanting. It is difficult for me to critique your math when you won't provide support for your assumptions that are the basis for your calculation.

You haven't provide support for your contention that the definition of evolution has ever been redefined within the theory of evolution. Laymen and junior high school book publishers may have played fast and loose with the definition and even the scope of the theory. However, they aren't the ones who do the experiments and research in the field, are they?

So the opinion that something is stupid is only truth when it comes from your (and sometimes CTD's) mouth, otherwise it is an insult. Thanks for being so even-handed.

If I said that young earth creationism is a stupid idea, you are now saying that you would not be offended?

Besides that, you said the the people who believe in evolution are stupid. I think that is as much a personal insult as Russell2 calling conspiracy believers paranoid.

"Nina" was Russell2 or PWCCA? I agree that people who are banned shouldn't post anymore.

Linear, I can't say for certain. It's difficult to take any member that enters the forum seriously after such games have been played and the multiple accounts created by the banned.

Quite possibly she was a genuine member of the forum, but if one emulates the banned (as CTD said) then they're baiting the moderator for the same.

I am uncomfortable with any new member who gets on this forum now. Even if they are a "creationist". Since we've seen how Pwcca has played that card already under "Alia" fooling a few apart from CTD, who picked a mole early on. Unless of course the other evolutionists were also in on the joke....

Who knows?

The new definitions are the "charactures". Those who publish them don't even use them in practice.

Why "provide support" for universal knowledge? If there's been no change, we need only to prove Darwin wrong. I don't think too many evolutionists would claim there's been no change.

In fact, we see time and again "that's how science works", do we not? But the only official text available is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life by Charles Darwin.

If this is untrue, I shall recommend that you be banned at once. In this context, where the use of the term 'stupid' is being discussed, and what has and has not been said is being discussed, such a misrepresentation cannot be permitted. You don't get to blatantly misquote another person's words post-clarification, in other words.

If it can be established to be true, it is my opinion that Russ deserves a warning, and such is for his own good. It is misleading and inaccurate to label evolutionists 'stupid', as a group, and this is well-known. I believe Russ has acknowledged this himself.

I have used the 'find' feature to scan for the word 'stupid' in Russ' recent posts, and have not found an occasion where he said evolutionists were stupid. It would be very time-consuming to scan every post Russ has ever made; I have not done so.

CTD, I have to say that I don't think what Linear said could be considered as misrepresentation. Russ may not have used the word stupid itself - but he does imply it seemingly, at least, when he refers to things as being rediculous, etc. etc. Linear if anyone has tried to be polite even when upset. I don't see how you can "warn" Russ with it being his own forum....but I personally appreciate the new tone of holding all of us responsible for using blatantly insulting inferences. It really has gotten old and detracts from making it any place you want to be. (Unless you just enjoy fighting which some do, apparently). People ought to be able to voice their own perspectives and perceptions IMO, though, without being treated with blatant disrespect. The one thing that has gotten to me on this forum is that so much of this is done in the name of Christianity or even to defend it. We really ought to take a deep breath and ask ourselves how Christ himself would respond. We are all capable of human reaction and emotion especially when not feeling well, when feeling insulted or made fun of (including Russ...) but it just leads to a tit for tat spiral which is what it has pretty much turned in to. You're doing a good job to me so far as moderator CTD!!

Such does not fly. Russ has clarified what he meant when he used the term. It's too late to twist it. There remains no room for misunderstanding. Scroll up if you think there is.

But then look at what Linear wrote.He even used bold. His statement stands or falls as written. Equivocation cannot be justified.
I do not see how I'd have any choice.

Given the preceding text (and precedent seen elsewhere), I cannot tell whether this is sarcasm or not.

Appeals to the emotional concept that this is all give-and-take are very unlikely to convince me of anything other than the source's uninformed status. There is no tit-for-tat, give-and-take history to be found. If one starts from the beginning, and pays attention to what's actually said, it's pretty clear.

The attentive historian would also take note when promoters of a belief indicate directly, or indirectly, that they don't actually believe it.

I have looked also and haven't found it either. Frankly, I am at a loss for words because I would have sworn in court that he said followers of evolution were stupid. Since there is no evidence, I have to concede my error and apologize. So, RussT, I ask your forgiveness for unintentionally misrepresenting what you said.

Additionally, I am glad for the clarification that calling a belief stupid isn't considered an insult to those who adhere to that belief. Thus far I have not said young earth creationism is stupid, because wanted to treat those who believed it with a certain amount of respect. If I am not banned for this latest mistake, I may want to strengthen my argument against young earth creationism by using more passionate modifiers.

I am very careful not to call people stupid. I have no problem calling a belief system stupid.

I would also add that I am not a young-Earth creationist. I tend to believe in an old Earth that experienced a Divine renewal, along with the rest of the solar system, as mentioned in this post:

http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=44901&#Post44901

I do respect young-Earth beliefs as they have a lot of evidence behind them. The honest assessment is that the court is still out on this one.

In reading the responses to my founding post (the post starting this thread), I can only say that my original post stands. There has been no information presented that refutes it.

I believe this is because, perhaps deep in their minds, evolutionists know that the chance that random mutation can form highly-complex, symmetrical, self-replicating, sexual (male and female) machines is not just unlikely, it is absurd at its foundation.

The fact is, when considering complex machines, the odds of mutation creating ever-more specialized parts—of the machine or system—decrease dramatically (to say the least) as the number of parts increases. To deny this is to deny basic logic.

The widespread acceptance of evolution it little more than a demonstration of the sheep-nature of humans.

Looks like you just did a copy and past of message #44786.

So, lets start with your first declarations from the founding post of this thread.


What evidence do you have that the mutations which are becoming part of a complex system must be harmful?
What part of the natural world requires the harmful mutations to remain in in the population in order for a complex system to form from "non-complex" mutations.
Mutations typically appear in small numbers of the population initially. The harmful mutations are the ones that hinder the production of offspring by the individual with the mutation. So the harmful mutations are weeded out or minimized within the population.
The vast number of mutations are neutral within a particular environment. However, they can become an asset to the individuals with them if the environment changes.

Please show the above statement of yours to be true.



This is a big if. Without showing that the harmful mutations must remain in the population in order for a complex subsystem to form, your math example does not hold up.

The widespread acceptance of Literal Genesis Creationism in the face of mountains of evidence to refute it, is little more than a demonstration of the sheep-nature of Evangelical Christians.

What's Wrong with You Linear

You seem to be so bent on believing that evolution occurs, yet you fail to acknowledge the mountains of mounting evidence that demonstrates that so-called evidence for evolution has been regularly produced fraudulently.

As I have explained in great detail in previous posts, evolution is a social control being used to dethrone the God of the Bible and to put the current banking elite in His place.

Of course, the Bible predicted that this would happen thousands of years ago, but so many stubbornly refuse to examine this evidence. Have you?

Not surprisingly, this stubborn refusal to view evidence that opposes their preferred faith is a common attitude of faithful followers of the evolution religion, yet refusing to view this evidence is intellectually dishonest.

Let's look at good scientific truth.

I previous said:

"The small non-complex mutations that are becoming part of a complex system would certainly be harmful, useless mutations and would be selected out long before they ever had a chance to develop more complexity."

This speaks upon one of the many fundamental problems with evolution. With exploding information about the cell, we know that Darwin had no idea how complex things are, and as a result, his opinions about mutations and natural selection have long since become outdated.

Nevertheless, those refusing to abdicate their power which relies on the acceptance of the evolution religion continue promoting and marketing false evidence to support their antiquated religion (evolutionism).

Nevertheless, the truth that small mutations, although nearly always harmful, form components that are beneficial to the organism, is now discredited because of what we now know about the cell.

In short, regardless of the alterations of genetic information, the parts that are constructed of proteins are themselves dependent on an immensely complex array of nanomachines that produce proteins and facilitate protein folding, not to mention those nanomachines involved in DNA duplication and transport. The chance that this multilayered machinery that is interdependent across multiple layers formed by mutation is, in all honestly, completely on par with a belief in magic.

Furthermore, when you add the requirement that each part of a mutation must be beneficial as a more complex system develops as is required by natural selection, you have exceeded the bounds of absurdity.

Irreducible complexity is one of many brick walls to natural selection, and intellectually honest scientists must humbly let the data lead them rather than relying on fanatical arguments like so-option to save their dying faith.

My position stands.

I also made this statement:

"If it takes 1,000,000 harmful mutations to form a part of what will become a complex subsystem later (and for some strange reason it is not selected out), we now have a situation where there is a much stricter requirement about what type of mutation will be "beneficial"."

You have failed to show any fault in this simple logic. Please show me exactly what you believe to incorrect and I'll respond.

Or do you believe that complex systems become easier and easier to design as their complexity increases?

My position stands. (That was easy)

You said:

"The widespread acceptance of Literal Genesis Creationism in the face of mountains of evidence to refute it, is little more than a demonstration of the sheep-nature of Evangelical Christians."

(1) As you explore the "mountains of evidence to refute it", you discover that each and every one of these arguments break down into fantastically ridiculous assumptions.

(2) You have yourself put your faith in those who have attempted to discredit intelligent design, and as ironic as it is, you have not studied ID enough to make a good argument against it. Ironically, this is your faith.

Do you also have faith in those who have produced mountains of evidence showing that NutraSweet is perfectly safe?

Do you also have faith in those who have produced mountains of evidence showing that mercury-amalgam dental fillings are perfectly safe?

Do you also have faith in those who have incessantly claimed that GMO foods are perfectly safe?

Shall I go on?

The ironic fact is, your faith in the integrity of mankind is a faith unequaled in it's assumptions and failed history. Ironically, the Bible warns against putting such faith in the integrity of men with agendas. With all due respect, you would do well to check it out.

And concerning your statement about faith in Genesis, the ironic truth is, the more we learn about the design, complexity, capabilities of reproduction, and symmetry of biological systems, the more intelligent design becomes obvious.

You may want to check this out:

Russ Explains His Position on Creation

All the best!

Evolution is a social control.

Name 20 evidences for evolution and your verifiable evidence that they have been produced fraudulently.

No. You have stated that evolution is social control but produced no evidence that can be verified in support of your statement.

The Bible doesn't state the means by which the major apostasy will occur. Why do you presume it is the promotion of evolution that causes it. Maybe the insistence by the fundamentalists that belief in evolution means you must deny God, is the cause of people turning away because they see the evidence supporting that evolution occurred.

This is different than the statement above. Small harmful mutations do not remain in the population. Small beneficial mutations do.


But you do believe in magic and miracles so this can't be much of a stretch.

Could you go into detail concerning this statement? What specifically within this "complex array of nanomachines" prevents alterations of genetic "information" from being passed on to offspring?

How far beyond the bounds of absurdity does it take us? Can you quantify where those bounds of absurdity exist insofar as cellular biology is concerned?

I guess most scientists are not intellectually honest by your assessment.
Please point out 1 irreducibly complex system within any creature then show me what makes it irreducibly complex.

I will not address the second statement because you seem to be having trouble supporting the first one.

When you provide an example of a "ridiculous assumption" and a refutation of it, maybe I could accept this statement as something other than a mere assertion.

I have studied it enough to know that the "theories" and "evidences" provided to support it, don't meet the criteria to even call it a viable hypothesis much less a theory. Michael Behe, himself stated on the witness stand in Dover, PA that the requirements of science would have to be lowered in order for ID to be considered a theory. In fact, he agreed that if the standards were lowered enough for ID to pass the test, then astrology would also meet the criteria for a viable theory.

I read it. I guess you don't believe in a Literal Genesis Creation since you don't think the stars were put in on day 4.

Another unsubstantiated assertion.

Evidence please.

No.

I'm not going to do your homework for you, friend.

I am well aware that no matter what information I give to you, you will discredit in your own mind if it conflicts with your preexisting emotional bias.

How do I know?

Because I've already provided you with rock-solid evidences and you've denied their credibility without explanation.

I've found the evidence myself (there are many more points of evidence against evolution than 20), but I learned a long time ago that giving knowledge away for free to those who have no intention of following up is a waste of time.

Those who have done their own homework have already discovered the mountains of lies behind the evolution religious movement. The evidence is easy to find.

Those who have done their own homework do so because they want to know the truth; They are motivated.

When you have the motivation to learn the truth, and when you lose the emotionally-based bias you have toward your religion, only then will you find the motivation you need to do your homework. Then, when you do your homework without bias, you will see what I (and so many others) have found.

Enjoy!



Same application of human bias applies here.

When you're ready to see, you will see. Furthermore, you will discover that the evidences have always been right before your eyes.



Yes it does: "The lie". (See Romans and Hebrews.)



Because I know the evolution faith was created for this very purpose. Furthermore, when you do your homework, it becomes blatantly obvious and very clear that evolution is no different than any of the other current scientific lies, such as mercury in dental fillings, toxins in vaccines, MSG, Fluorides in water, and on and on.



Nice try.

Evolution is an affront to science just as the use of Thimerosal in vaccines is an affront to life.

Again, it's right before your eyes.

God wants and intends for humans to be logical, curious, explorative, intelligent, and informed.

Again, when you lost your bias, you will begin to be able to see these deceptions and their purposes and their benefactors.



You're clearly misunderstanding my statement. Hopefully others won't.



Funny you should say that.

Are you misrepresenting yourself? You said you were a Christian, but how can you make a statement like this and be a Christian?

It's interesting that most of the other evolutionists on this forum have been not only intellectually dishonest, but have grossly misrepresented themselves.

What is it with the evolution religion and immorality?

Furthermore, miracles are simply observed technology misunderstood. God works within His own system according to His own rules. We just haven't learned all the rules yet.

You see, science is the process of discovering God's "natural" rules.



Sure:

Math.

I spelled out the math behind this "absurdity" earlier. You just need to make the connection between that explanation and this statement.



You seem to continue missing this point.

Think "The Emperor's New Clothes". I spelled this out clearly previously as well.

It's also about job security. You see, the evolution clergy will fire you if you disagree with them.



OK:

All of them.

Now, your turn...

You point out a single system that is not irreducibly complex. C'mon. Just one. I promise that I'll be impressed.



Even though one rise from the dead you would not be convinced.



So, since your attempting to quote Mike.

Do you believe Mike to be honest?

If so, do you believe he is qualified to make that statement?

If so, is he an evolutionist?

If not, then why are you referring to him at all?

(Seems a little contrary to your position, don't you think?)

Ironic.

((Russ shakes his head while his eyebrows hit the ceiling))



Hmmm. I guess you didn't understand it since I clearly explained that. (Think "Earth Perspective"... Ring a bell?)

What exactly did you miss? I only hope others don't make the same mistake.


LinearAQ, you're in serious denial or you're posing as someone you're not (evolutionists have a history of that here).

All the best!

I'll be giving this some thought. There's a good chance it's so. I'll kick myself if I overlooked it.

Actually, he doesn't quote Mike. The whole argument there is an appeal to emotion and ignorance.

It plays on people's aversion to astrology, which we're told has been debunked by science. If astrology were immune to scientific inquiry, science would be powerless to debunk it. The conclusion that astrology can be investigated scientifically is unavoidable. The very people who present this argument claim it's already been done. The argument logically defeats itself, but oh! The emotional pull... it's just so irresistible ...someone help me!

Pfft!

I chose 20 because I know you can't come up with 20. Even "Lies in the Textbooks" (your primary source it seems) doesn't have that many.

Surely, there have been frauds. The question is: What percentage of the evidence for evolution is fraudulent? If most of the evidence is faked, then surely you could come up with 20 verifiable examples.

I am sure you cannot.

No. I will agree if the evidence is in your favor and discredit it right here on this forum if the evidence is not in your favor.

No. I have asked for evidence to support your initial assumptions in most cases. You failed to support your initial assumptions so your conclusions based on those, no matter how rock solid, are worthless. You've said it about evolution, wild assumptions and speculations....therefore bad conclusions. What? You can't follow the same rules you require for your enemies?


Blah-blah-blah Same old con-man baloney. "I know the truth and it is important but I'm not gonna support my truth unless you pay me. You have to take my word for it"

"Once you believe me, you will believe me". La-de-dah.


Romans 1:25? It talks about worshiping the creature or creation rather than the creator. Tell me, how is knowledge about how life on Earth developed considered worshiping the creation any more than knowledge about how gravity works?

It seems important to you to spread the truth about evolution, yet you don't want to provide support for your statements. Seems rather contradictory to me.

Remove my bias with evidence. Nothing truly worthwhile is gained through inaction. Even God's gift of salvation requires you to accept it.

Clear up my misunderstanding by providing a clear explanation. Obviously, you have never been a teacher.

My statement was about you, not me. What I believe is not on the table here. I also stated after your inquisition that I would no longer write about my faith. I would appreciate it if you would not ask me about it again.


Just can't keep yourself from insulting those with whom you disagree.

A fan of Arthur C. Clark are we? Or are you a Scientologist?

Help me by actually showing the connection, instead of hiding behind the curtain.


Ah! So they are fools who think they don't see the truth but are unwilling to say anything about it, and only those with no scientific reputation to damage can really see the truth about evolution.

Additionally, they are liars who would do anything to save their jobs because they get paid so much more than James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Rick Warren.

Sorry, it's not dodge ball that we're playing here, although you seem particularly adept at it.

Let's see: The clotting mechanism for blood is not irreducibly complex. I guess you were wrong.

You could at least cite the quote. I take it that this response means you don't plan on providing evidence for this assertion either.

I believe he is honest within his belief system.

He is one of the founders of ID. He wrote "Darwin's Black Box" in which he coins the phrase "irreducible complexity". He is a molecular biologist. I would say that he is qualified to speak for ID. He was the star witness for the defense.

He has stated that ID is not incompatible with evolution but he believes that evolution did not occur.

Because even though he is one of the star scientists that support ID, he admits that it is not robust enough be a scientific theory and evolution is robust enough to meet all the criteria for a scientific theory.

Please explain how my use of Mike's abysmal performance at the Dover trial is contrary to my position.


I guess I missed the part where you explained that God could make the stars on day 4 yet they could be so far away that the light wouldn't reach Earth for 100,000 years or more but we could see them now.
Genesis 1:14-19 (Bolding mine)


Have a nice day!

I did not claim to "quote" Dr. Behe. However you can look at the transcripts for the trial here. Try Day 11 PM starting on page 33.

Please quote a scientist who said that astrology cannot be scientifically investigated?

That's my point exactly! You criticize the position that astrology is subject to scientific investigation, yet you dare not come out and say it isn't. The argument is based upon scaring people with the bug-a-boo word "astrology".

It is perfectly correct to say science can investigate astrology, so why mock someone for saying so?

It's a cheap knock-off of agrumentum ad Hitlerum.

Any definition of 'science' which excludes investigation of astrology must be defective - not the other way around.

Where did I criticize the position that astrology is subject to scientific investigation? Please provide quotes from me that support your assertion.

Just thought I would start doing what has worked for you.

I didn't.

The definition of "theory" in science does not exclude investigation of astrology. It just excludes astrology from being a theory because it has been falsified.

I never said anything about nor alluded to the definition of "science".

I never said nor alluded to the idea that astrology cannot be investigated.

Has reading comprehension always been a problem with you or is this just a recent phenomenon?

Okay. Find the post in this thread where you started this nonsense.


It's not even accurate, if anyone cares to read what was actually said. It's not "the requirements of science" he's discussing; it's a legalistic "official definition" that's in question.

I didn't say you did. Plenty of evolutionists do, and anyone who buys your self-defeated argument mocks reality. Even to repeat such garbage as if it had merit is to mock the readership.

Evobabbling double-talk. There are no falsified theories? How dumb do you think we're willing to believe you are?

I know what's not a recent phenomenon: Evolutionists contradicting themselves. We already have quite a showcase. Do we need more?

Your argument is that investigating ID is equivalent to investigating astrology, is it not? Or do you just post links to liars making this argument for our amusement? This is not a corrupt courtroom setting. I can and do challenge this brazenly bogus argument.

An official definition put forth and agreed to by the majority of scientists. Who do you think should decide definitions in science? Michael Behe? Kent Hovind? Pat Robertson? The Pope? You?

Nothing I repeated or provide reference to said that astrology cannot be investigated by science. You brought it up out of thin air or a lack of reading comprehension. You apparently believe I said it or repeated it but have failed to provide a direct quote concerning it.

Does it take a lot of effort to be as dense as you appear? Where in the above statements does it say there are no falsified theories except in what you wrote? And you say I put words in people's mouths.

You saying that I am contradicting myself here is a brazen lie. I will maintain that it is a lie until you provide the quotes where I contradict myself in this thread.

I did neither and it would be easy for you to provide the quotes to show that I did. You did not, so I believe this is also a misrepresentation of what I did.

For the record, please, do you believe that Michael Behe is a liar? He is the one who said that changing the definition of "theory" within science would make astrology a valid theory. He did not say that investigating ID is the same as investigating astrology.

Challenge away!!!

BTW, what is wrong with investigating ID using the same scientific requirements that are used to investigate chemistry, physics, Germ Theory of Disease, or astrology?

No. They make fun of a man for saying it can. Every last cowardly one of them knows very well astrology can be investigated by science.

The press who hyped it know this. The judge knows this. The sniveling lawyers - everyone!

The argument is not made on its merit; I never said it was. It is a pure, distilled appeal to emotion.

We're supposed to believe the National Academy of Sciences constitutes a majority of scientists?

Are we to believe an organization with a Steering Committee devoted to exterminating creationism would publish a definition of 'science' that wasn't carefully worded to exclude Intelligent Design and Creation Science?

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066


I have no interest in drinking such Koolaide. Those who do, they're responsible for their decision.

The distortion arises from taking what Michael Behe said out of context. He does not believe the standards of science need to be "lowered". He believes I.D. meets the current standards employed by scientists.


He states quite clearly that I.D. is a scientific theory. Is - not "could be", or "would be".

And he explains that the problem with the "official" definition presented was that it required "acceptance"


The bogus definition can be interpreted as requiring a proposal to become popular. Of all the absurd requirements you can list, a known logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum! Removing this ambiguous wording constitutes "lowering standards"?

Absolutely! If you're an evolutionist, and can't think of anything valid to say.

Astrology!

That's the bug-a-boo point of the whole argument. They talked about this junk for hours just so the press could scare people with the word 'astrology'. And the reports did not relate the truth of the matter any more accurately than Linear has. No, they distorted and omitted plenty.

You just got done saying astrology can't be a theory because it's been falsified. If your attention span can't handle the strain of remembering what you just said, the sentence is available for review.

If you don't like the words that come out of your own mouth, don't blame me. Nobody's forcing you to say this junk.

Well, maybe...

Again?

Who do you think is asking the questions? That's what all the little "Q's" stand for, "question". Are we to believe it's all on the up-and-up, this business about astrology? Make a legit case, if you can. I defy you. Or show me where the case made by the lairs at the trial was anything other than an appeal to emotion.

No he did not. He clearly explained himself; nobody has any excuse for pretending they misunderstood - NOBODY.

Nothing whatsoever. Nobody who supports I.D. ever said there was, to the best of my knowledge.

Perhaps you confuse I.D. with the ideas that have to be protected from scrutiny and questioning? An odd mistake, but not one that would surprise me at this point.

No. They point out that if the requirements for a valid theory are changed to include ID, they would also include astrology as a VALID theory. In other words, ID doesn't pass the current requirements for a VALID theory. Nothing was said at all about whether either one could be investigated by science. If you disagree with my description of the court records please provide a quote from the records to refute my assessment.

You do realize that the founder of the Discovery Institute was a lawyer, don't you? Regardless, no-one knows that Michael Behe was being made fun of because he said that astrology could be investigated by science. Michael Behe never said that because that was not brought up in the testimony or the cross-examination.

You haven't shown that this argument was made at all. Please try again.

Which requirements? The real-world requirements, or screwball requirements that include popularity?

Ha! Your own post said
He never said anything about lowering standards, and you have nothing there but a scare-word argument - nothing at all.

You may wish he had said standards would need to be lowered, and clearly an attempt was made to bait him into saying it. The press reported it as if this attempt had been successful, after it failed. It is not in his testimony, and evowishing does not change the situation.

Who brought up astrology, and why was it brought up?

Does he snivel?

Plain as day, he was asked about astrology. Plain as day, he answered honestly.

Oh really? Would you mind stating exactly what your argument is, now that you know Michael Behe didn't say the standards of science would need to be lowered?

And if it's not too much trouble, it might be helpful if you can point out any changes in your position now that your know the facts.

The fact is, evolution is a religion, and when you begin showing someone that their religion is based on falsified information, believers in that religion become very offended.

This we know about the Bible (at least those who have studied the subject know this):

The Bible has predicted multiple archeological sites.

The Bible has predicted future events thousands of years in advance.

The Bible contains numerological features that defy human capabilities.

Multiple sources confirm Christ's location and timeline.

Multiple sources confirm Biblical manuscript accuracy.

All the books of the Bible written thousands of years apart adhere to the same system of numerics.

Our Solar System: Scientific Evidence for Creation (video)[/b]
This video provides scientific information directly from a space sciences engineer that strongly evidences creation. He continues by providing statements by evolutionists that clearly reveal their inability to reconcile even the most fundamantal scientific information regarding our solar system. An excellent video for all to watch.

[b]Redefining Evolution: The Grand Retreat Begins (video)[/b]
This is a 10-minute video demonstrating how the compliant media is working together with pop-science to rescue evolution. This video reveals the blatant retreat underway from evolution's original claims.

[b]Creation vs Evolution - Part 1 of 2 (video)

Creation vs Evolution - Part 2 of 2 (video)
An excellent video exposing the media lies promoting the theory of evolution. This video also speaks about junk science and its incessant promotion in public text books.

Lies In the Textbooks (video)[/b]
Kent Hovind provides and excellent expose of the junk-science and outright lies that are being forced upon schoolchildren in a blatant attempt to discredit the Bible using public tax dollars.

[b]Evolution's Moral Implications (video)[/b]
Every belief system has an implicit set of consequences. Many people are now realizing that a belief in evolution has the ability to profoundly affect personal behavior and the foundations of society as a whole.

[b]The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved in 50 Arguments
This is a very interesting article from the 1920's that is certainly worth reading. The information is quite in-depth and it provides a well-rounded view of evolution's many fatal flaws.

Why Was the Flat-Earth Myth Promoted? (video)
This video exposes the real reason why evolutionists claim that Christians used to believe that the Earth was flat. This video exposes yet another lie used to defame Biblical integrity in the minds of those who have no knowledge of the Bible.

The Irrational Atheist
"The Vox is in the henhouse, with the scent of Dawkins’s blood in his nostrils and a mouthful of Hitchens’s feathers! Harris, alas, doesn’t make it out of the book alive and the emergency team is still waiting to see if Dawkins will pull through after receiving one of the most visceral literary lobotomies ever inflicted in publishing. In the culture wars between New Atheism and The Rest of the World, The Irrational Atheist is 'must-read' material."
—Ian Wishart, Investigate Magazine

[b]Astounding Computer Animation of DNA-Related Processes (video)[/b]
Amazing CGI visualization of molecular biology's central dogma. It shows animations of DNA coiling, replication, transcription and translation. It was created by Drew Berry of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research.

Do you know what the criteria are for "acceptance by the majority of the scientific community"? You treat it as if it were a high school election.

I guess I should have said valid or accepted theory. Certainly, there are theories that have since been invalidated and are no longer accepted. So there are falsified theories.

He actually said "changed" not lowered, ok. The problem remains that if the requirements for a valid theory were "changed" such that ID can be considered a valid theory then astrology would also be a valid theory. The point is that ID is no more robust a theory than astrology.

It was brought up by the cross-examining lawyer to provide the court and the public with a point of reference for how poorly ID is supported by evidence. If Michael Behe didn't agree that astrology would also become a valid theory by his own standards then he should have said so. He did not. Instead, he agreed...as a scientist, he agreed.

I don't know. It didn't seem that the lawyer cross-examining Dr. Behe was sniveling. What is it about his actions that prompted you to label him as a "sniveling lawyer"?

He was not asked if it could or could not be investigated by science.

The argument was that changing the requirements for a valid theory such that ID could be labeled as such, would also make astrology a valid theory.

I no longer hold that Dr. Behe considers his changes in the requirements for a valid theory to be a lowering of the requirements. I used the word "lowering" when I should have said "change". I still consider the changes suggested by Dr. Behe to be a lowering of the standards.

Having been in the scientific herbal research industry for over 11 years now, I know very well that research and information differs in the scientific community on many levels.

First, it can differ between the scientists and the political interface to the scientists. A perfect example of this is the FDA. The scientists attempt to tell the truth but they are muted by the political arm of the corrupt organization:

See:

FDA scientists revolt against corrupt bosses

This also is business-as-usual for nearly all of the major health organizations. For documentation, see:

See Mercury, Autism & The Global Vaccine Agenda

It is fantastically naive to blindly believe whatever you're told. It does not matter how large or powerful organizations are. They have the potential to be as corrupt as any man can be. This is a hard lesson that huge numbers of people have finally started learning in the recent past.

So, the perception of "scientific acceptance" you speak of is flawed at its very core.



You know nothing about ID.

Please prove me wrong by sharing something profound about it.



How can you remark about the validity of a subject (ID) when you know nothing profound about it.

Let me end with this:

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."

—Albert Einstein

It seems that you believe we cannot trust anyone even if we have access to the data that they used. So why should I trust your conclusions when you provide none of the data that you used to draw those conclusions?

The definition used by the Discovery Institute for Irreducible Complexity is a biological organ or process that could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.

The Discovery Institute has no scientists and certainly no biologists on its board of directors or its senior fellows. There are lots of lawyers, businessmen, and political people on there though. Not the kind of people I would turn to for any research into biology. It fits with their methodology of using political muscle and persuasion to get ID taught in schools as if it were a valid theory.

I have not found any research done to support the idea that certain biological systems were designed by a higher power. Nor have I found any research done to show a system to be an IC system. Perhaps you could point me to papers by research scientists that supports ID or IC. You have been looking into it for longer than I have.

I wasn't remarking about the validity of ID except to say that the changes in the standards for a scientific theory required to categorize ID as a VALID theory would also make Astrology a valid theory. That is an admission from the poster boy of ID, not me. I simply remarked that I consider those changes to be a lowering of the standards.


You assume that I have done no investigation of ID without any investigation of my knowledge of ID. It seems you are caught in your own condemnation.

Linear continues to assume "the standards of science" are defined by his atheist friends. Common sense tells one popularity is not an appropriate standard.

Just think if it were! This idea's popular in America, but not in Asia. Does that make it true (or scientific) in one place and not another?

My position stands.

If LinearAQ chooses to continue believing in the magic of evolution without any evidence that you would expect from such a far-reaching claim (myriads of transitional forms, for example), that is his choice.

I choose to believe that chance and error does not create highly-complex, sexual (different organisms with perfectly matched reproductive parts), symmetrical, self-reproducing machines.

Intelligence does.

I did not say that atheists determine the standards of science.

It seems that you believe the standards for categorizing a set of ideas as a theory should be changed. Maybe we shouldn't have any criteria for calling something a theory. Just come up with an idea and the education system will teach it in science class. Auras? Sure, teach about them. Perpetual motion machines? Yeah, that's real too, 'cause someone, somewhere believes it. Evidence? We don't need no stinking evidence!! Teach it.

What are the "standards of science" in Asia? How are they different than the standards of science in the USA?

Did you plan on replying to my posts or just making declarative statements?

You have not even decided to grace us with your definition of transitional forms. You obviously won't accept the transitional forms that paleontologists have categorized as such.


Yet, NASA uses evolutionary methods for antenna design. Maybe chance and error are more capable than you think.

Believe what you want. Just don't expect science to buy it without some evidence.

Here's another example showing the use of elements from the theory of evolution to design circuits.

Placing fossils in a catagory of "evolution" does not = evidence that such a scenario ever took place. Similarities between creatures does not indicate that one evolved from the other.



I clicked the link, but the page will not load. At what point in the design of the antenna did they stop to give the rest up to process/chance/error? I'd imagine anybody employing such methods with passenger airline Jets would not be employed for long But I'd be interested in how using evolution methods produced the final product...

One doesn't even have to look. Trial-and-error is "evolution" in evospeak these days. That's a pretty old design method, but they're not big on history, as we know.

The comment was not directed at you but you seem to be saying that there is no way to determine what a transitional creature would look like. If this is so, then how can you be so positive that the transitional forms put forth by paleontologists are not transitional forms? What do you use to determine the creature is not a transitional between x and y?

It didn't work for me this time either. Try the second link and look in section 4 where they describe the process that was used.
Basically, a set of constraints is defined (the parameters for a successful design). The initial structure is put in place and then the program inputs random changes to the design and tests them against the parameters. Any design that shows some success against the parameters gets to be used in the next random change (gets to "reproduce"). Designs that don't show success is discarded.

Trial and error is nature's methodology. I thought you understood the basics of the theory of evolution. This puts a new light on things.

I can't speak for others. I use my brain, and such common sense as I have obtained one way or another.

When a story is internally inconsistent, I reject it. Same happens when it includes special pleading or other fallacies.

"Dinosaurs evolved into a 'primitive bird', which was the ancestor of all birds at a time when 'modern birds' already existed." That's an internally inconsistent story. I don't think anyone can actually believe it on their own. Those who make a large enough effort may receive divine assistance.

Enter special pleading: "The 'primitive bird' had actually been around longer - it just doesn't turn up in the fossils". On the principle that things can exist without leaving fossils, the whole evostory can be discarded if one so chooses. Or is there some rule that special pleading is valid in emergency situations to salvage failing faith?

We have at least a couple of threads already. I'm thinking most of this ground's been covered. Every evolutionist dreams of the day when they'll find a "transitional" series. If one is ever found, they won't need to quibble over what "transitional" or "intermediate" means any longer.

Trial-and-error is guided by intelligence in every example of "evolutionary design". This (for those who understand valid vs. false analogies) is not analogous to 'natural selection'. It might be argued that it is "automated 'artificial selection'", but I'll worry about that when an evolutionist comes along who's honest enough to make the argument.

Well said.

The other question to consider is how natural selection can even engage before an organism of sufficient complexity is first built.

Of course, it's plain to most of us that natural laws are deeply insufficient to build anything with any degree of complexity. Instead, we see entropy at work, and she is the perfect demonstration of what natural laws do over time:

Break matter down to its simplest stable form.

This is what we observe.

With this before us, natural selection is a moot point.

Because common sense is what lead to discoveries like heliocentric solar system and the explanation of orbital dynamics.

Since you claim that things cannot exist without leaving fossils, perhaps you could show me the bunny fossils in the Cambrian deposits. Humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time? OK, why are the human fossils and dinosaur fossils never in the same layer of deposits and the dinosaurs are always in older deposits?

Why would there be no quibble? What incredible form would these transitionals have that would make a firm anti-evolutionist say, "Of course, it's obvious!".

What is it about automated artificial selection that is different than natural selection insofar as its effect on the population undergoing evolution?

How complex must the organism be before its population can be subject to natural selection?

It's plain to you, yet you can't explain it at all. That's the conclusion I have to draw here since you have yet to provide anything close to an attempt to explain how natural laws are insufficient.

which is why eggs and sperm can never become a baby...Ah entropy.

So natural selection doesn't occur?

Complex enough to reproduce.

Of course, this is a moot point because of the mathematical absurdity that a series of perfectly-coordinated beneficial mutations could occur that would happen to form mind-bogglingly complex, symmetrical, sexual (different organisms having perfectly matched sexual subsystems), self-reproducing machines in the first place.

You're indeed playing roulette in a wheel so big, anyone who saw you playing would be laughing.

This brings me to the topic-starter for this thread:

http://urlbam.com/ha/M0024

I believe it speaks for itself.



Evolution is so silly to those of us who can see through the mountain of artificial lies propping it up (much like the Wizard in The Wizard of Oz), that in our minds, you may as well be telling us that the world is flat.

Secondly, evolution is your assertion. Perhaps you should be explaining to us how these masterfully complex, symmetrical, sexual, self-reproducing machines form by themselves.

Third, here's a hint to satisfy your challenge.

Simple rules: opposite charges attract. So, an atom with a positive charge will bind to one with a negative charge. This is a fundamental rule that is woefully insufficient to build a highly-complex, symmetrical, sexual, self-reproducing machine.

Evolution is a pipe dream for those who strive to believe there is no God.



Is that what you call entropy?

Um, well, let's just read the first post in this thread. That should clear up my position.

http://urlbam.com/ha/M0024



Just for fun: In this world where you claim that quadrillions of mutations formed our bodies through natural selection, why don't you name a few for us; Let's say, three?

Also, if this process has been going on for billions of years, where are all the dead bodies? Why do fossils demonstrate a sudden appearance of life?

Just admit it. There is no evidence supporting evolution. The more you look at the "evidence" that is provided for us by the powers that be, the more find lie upon lie upon lie.

One day, you'll just have to admit that evolution is a fairytale for grownups.

http://urlbam.com/ha/K

http://urlbam.com/ha/y

It's time for science to break free from the antiquated chains of myths related to evolution.

Of course, the powers that be don't want you to ever realize that evolution is a myth because then you would be faced with the reality that a God created all things, and this would lead you on a search that would likely include the Bible, which would teach you that the current powers that be are killing us, stealing from us, and lying to us, and they don't want you to know that.

Indeed, an understanding that the Bible is a revolutionary, technical, prophetic, numerologically-perfect book would (and has) lead many to freedom.

The Bible would teach many about personal rights like land ownership, privacy, personal responsibility, personal rights to protect our property, and much more; All things that the powers that by don't want us to know about because it would topple their power structure.

We really need to wake up and face the hard truth that evil really does exist, and is affecting each of our lives profoundly each day because we continue to pretend it doesn't. (Affect or exist? Both.)


"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."

—Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306


"It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species… can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another."

—Dr. Gareth J. Nelson, American Museum of Natural History


"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."

—H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

Salt crystals form from a salt solution once one crystal is available to provide a structure to be copied. Is that reproduction? Define what you would consider reproduction and why that must be the point at which organic compounds can interact to increase complexity.

Yes, it tells anyone with a background in statistics that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

You consider this a valid or appropriate answer to my post? why?

Since that is not what the theory of evolution states, why should I?

If this is supposed to have prevented chemicals from forming amino acids, peptides, proteins and DNA back when there was no life, shouldn't it stop those things from happening now?
Maybe you need to explain further how "opposite charges attract" prevents complex molecules from forming.

The former Pope would disagree with you on this point.

You said entropy will "Break matter down to its simplest stable form". Babies are hardly simple stable forms.

OK
Mutation that caused the jaw to be separated into the mandible and the ear bones.
Mutation that caused the scale follicles to become hair follicles.
Mutation that caused our bodies to be unable to manufacture our own vitamin C.

There billions of fossils all over the world but that is a small percentage of the life that existed over the billions of years. Do you expect that all bodies will become fossilized? What is it about the fossilization process that indicates all bodies should have been fossilized?

It is the scientists that are putting forth this "evidence". Of course they are liars, according to you, but who are these "powers that be"? How are they profiting from the forcing of evolution teaching upon our children? What is it that they are using to influence schools to teach this "unscientific" stuff and forcing judges to support science in that endeavor?

And one day you will support something you have said with evidence to convince me that I need to make that admission....but apparently that is not today.

And you will make that happen with mere rhetoric, it seems.

Some people believe that God did create all things using the mechanisms that He put in place and leaving the evidence seen by physicists, astronomers, geologists, paleontologists, and biologists. Despite the evidence that people believe in God and Christ along with evolution, you still deny it is so. Why is that?

Who is lying to us, stealing from us, and killing us? Name them instead of hiding what you know behind this amorphous "powers that be". Show your evidence, otherwise this just makes you sound like Mel Gibson in "Conspiracy Theory".

I suppose this has something to do with evolution but you need to connect the dots better.



Michael Denton believed evolution did take place. Take a look at his book Nature's Destiny. How the Laws of Biology reveal Purpose in the Universe.

Hello LinearAq,

I have refrained from making any comments regarding your posts to Russ, until now.

I simply must say, you are most rude and disrespectful to our Administrator of this website. Russ goes BEYOND being 'fair' with your attitude, in my opinion.

Also may I add, the one liner you post by Arthur C Clarke seems like a 'Space Odyssey, indeed', ...and may I add yet another of his absurd posts?

"It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value."
WRONG!

The wisest man that ever lived, approx. 960 BC, King Solomon .....was granted by the God of this Universe, the great "I AM", ...."I have given thee a wise understanding heart. There shall not be any among the kings like unto thee all thy days."

Proof positive that it HAS BEEN PROVEN THAT INTELLIGNCE HAS A GREAT SURVIVAL RATE.

He, King Solomon, has been granted eternal life. Whethter you believe that or not, is between you and Jehovah God.

One day we will all stand before the Lord God and give an account of our lives on this planet. Some will be granted eternal life, while others will be cast into eternal damnation.

I sincerely hope you, LinearAq, will repent and turn to the Lord before it is too late for you. No one knows when they will take their last breath. By the grace of the LORD, Jehovah Rophe, he allowed me another chance, Jan 3rd 1985, from a Cranial Aneurysm. Bless His name forever.

Please be more kind, LinearAq, ....'life is but a vapor'.

Sincerely, Abishag <><

Thank you for 'listening'...and I pray no offense has been taken.... Russ is my brother. Although we have a different mother, we both have the same Father.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I once was lost but now I'm found was blind but now I see.

Sincerely, Abishag <><

Russ, please forgive me if I have taken this too far. I simply could not refrain myself. You are terrific!

Thanks for your support Abishag.



So are you telling me that you believe that salt crystals are subject to natural selection?

Actually, salt crystals are a perfect example of what I've been saying all along. It is a structure that is formed based on known natural laws.



Excellent. Thanks for the opinion. Let's talk about it.

What exactly is wrong with this math. I'm really looking forward to this conversation so please don't let this one go.



Because it's true.



Actually, that's what has been taught in schools in many countries for decades. It was taught to me and most everyone I know.

The truth is, it's so ridiculous that evolutionary "science" has made a dramatic retreat and is hoping that nobody notices.

Here's a compelling summary (video): http://urlbam.com/ha/M000Z

This is a perfect example of what I've been talking about for so long. Evolution is not a science. It's a social control. This is why they can change it whenever they want to say whatever they want, so long as people don't notice, hence the chemical/emotional dumbing-down of the world.

If you were to ask who "they" are, I would say, "You must know." You have claimed to be a Christian so you must be familiar with the Mystery Babylon religion that resurges in the last days as prophesied in Revelation.

Well, "they" are the ones who believe in this Babylonian religion and who hold powerful positions throughout the world.

Through the years, not much has changed. Technology has come a long way, but human nature hasn't.



Thank you; Very good. Again you've supported my position.

Please explain just how DNA formed through natural processes. This is your belief, so please tell us.

It's interesting that some of the world's renown biological scientists and chemists can't (and don't) support this one, but I really hope you at least try.



When you come to understand the Mystery Babylon religion and it's current center, you would come to understand that the former Pope has about as much to do with the Bible as evolution.



Neither are computers. Again, you support my position.

Babies are created by a highly-complex set of disconnected subsystems working together perfectly. Human bodies are designed to reproduce. This is an example of an intelligently-designed machine simply doing its job.

Human bodies are highly-complex, symmetrical, sexual (matching components in separate organisms), self-replicating machines. When they die, they are subject to entropy. But the point was related to the creation of the body through natural processes.

Once a machine is created, it works (hopefully). Remember, we're talking about creation here, not the reliability of an existing set of disconnected machines (reproductive systems).

Just how is the human body created through natural processes governed (defined) by natural laws? That is the central question evolutionists need to answer.



OK, let's pick just one.

So you believe the jaw symmetrically became ear bones? Do you understand how complex a feat that is? Do you understand the complexity involved in this type of "change"?

You have stated that you're an engineer. If that is the case, you should have some idea how silly this sounds. Nevertheless, please explain how we know that this occurred.

I really hope you don't drop the ball on this one either. Details please.



Bodies don't have to become fossilized to be found.

Where are the bones? Where are the myriad of transitional forms? Billions of years of life and we have very little to show for it. We need to accept what the evidence tells us, not attempt to explain it away.



I've explained this in detail before, but I enjoy doing it so let's do it again.

First, the junk science epidemic that we currently have is facilitated only in part by scientists, but mostly by politicians. Scientists often have to "shut up and don't ask questions" to keep their jobs secure, but scientists are generally more honest than politicians.

Politicians (usually) begin their careers to achieve an end. Scientists (usually) begin their careers because they enjoy the pursuit of knowledge (truth). The widely varying motivations tend to express themselves in this way:

Scientists find the best ways they can to discover.

Politicians utilize whatever they can to make change. (This often involves lying.)

Scientists are bound by the natural laws and processes that define their field.

Politicians are bound to create laws and processes to achieve their desired change.

Of course, there are exceptions to this. Many scientists have been found to have altered data for a bribe. Politicians have actually been found that try to stay honest.

Now, concerning your question about how the powers-that-be profit from evolution. That would make for a long list, but simply stated, they need to remove God from civilization because God gives personal liberty (rights) and property ownership. The PTB are attempting to enslave (steal our God-given rights) and steal property. If the people believed that these rights are God-given, they would not stand for this thievery we are currently experiencing.

So, to facilitate this confiscation of our property and liberty, they must make everyone believe there is no God and they must discredit the Bible because it teaches about God with strong evidence (astounding prophecy and perfect Biblical numerology).

That is the ten-thousand foot view of the reason evolution is promoted so heavily in all media: So they can steal our property and take our liberties. The taking of liberties is necessary for them to secure their power.

So, as I have said for a long time:

Evolution is a social control. If you believe it, you are controlled.



They influence schools with funding. There are always strings attached to funding which is why Rothchild said:

"Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws."

Now this belief in evolution is further injected into society using something very powerful, something that is considered:

"The most powerful force for controlling human behavior."

and that is:

Fear (through social pressure).

You see, humans are followers by nature because they have a deep fear of being alone (hence the promotion of relationships as a "god" in today's society). So, they follow each other because it's more important to them to feel empowered (not alone) than to face the truth.

Of course, this belief in evolution must be supported by just enough "truth" to ease the conscience, so they provide plenty of junk science for just this purpose.



No, actually God did that for us (how gracious He is indeed).

It's up to you to read the Bible and search out the evidences in it for yourself. Then, learn about the largest and most powerful conspiracy in history: The modern-day Mystery Babylonian religion.

It is engineered to appeal to the pride. The Bible calls it "doctrines of demons" because its central belief was penned by "entities". This is not my claim. This is the claim of the very ones who penned it and who believe it.

Study, study, study.

Nobody can do it for you.



Because I'm not pressured by what other people believe because I'm not afraid of being alone. In fact, I never have to be afraid of being alone. God has made promises to me and I believe Him. He will never leave me nor forsake me. He has not given me a spirit of fear, but of power, of love, and of a sound mind.

What people believe does not define truth. Rather, truth should define what people believe.



I don't care what it sounds like. I only care about truth.

Here are a few family names for you: Morgan, Rockefeller, Rothchild. You will find most of the others in the book, "The Creature From Jekyll Island".

Again, do your homework. The information is easily accessible if you care enough to.

I learned a long time ago that those who know, know because they care. Those who remain ignorant are so because they don't care.

So, you have the tools and access to the information. If you learn about these things I speak about, it is because you care. If you continue to ignore them, you're faith in evolution will continue to be supported by vast assumptions and junk science.



His quotes are valid nonetheless. Even evolutionists say good things sometimes.