a challenge to prove all aspects of evolution (a pagan religious concept) through the scientific method

mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
a challenge to prove all aspects of evolution (a pagan religious concept) through the scientific method
  1. The vanguard theory of evolution has taken on an almost sacred status.  The theory of ‘evolution’ that the evolutionists are really promoting, and which creationists oppose, is the idea that particles turned into people over time, without any need for an intelligent Designer.
  2. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the general theory of evolution’   is thereby proven or even essential, and creation disproved.  The key issue is the type of change required—to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content.
  3. The three billion DNA ‘letters’ stored in each human cell nucleus convey a great deal more information  (known as ‘specified complexity ) than the over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism.

  4. The DNA sequences in a ‘higher’ organism, such as a human being or a horse, for instance, code for structures and functions unknown in the sort of ‘primitive first cell’ from which all other organisms are said to have evolved.
  5. None of the alleged proofs of ‘evolution in action’ provide a single example of functional new information being added to genes. Rather, they all involve sorting and loss of information. To claim that mere change proves that information-increasing change can occur is like saying that because a merchant can sell goods, he can sell them for a profit.
  6.  
  7. The origin of information is a major problem for the GENERAL THEORY OF EVOLUTION
  8.  ‘ignoring important distinctions’! It’s evolutionary propagandists who generally mix them up. Biologists frequently define evolution as ‘change in gene frequency with time’ or ‘descent with modification,’ or other such ‘microevolution’ words, and then cite insignificant examples of change within species, such as Darwin’s finches, as clinching proof of ‘evolution’ in the ‘macro’ sense and disproof of creationism!  

 

  1. The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.

 

 

The steps of the scientific method are to:

  1. Ask a Question
  2. Do Background Research
  3. Construct a Hypothesis
  4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
  5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
  6. Communicate Your Results
  7. It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. A "fair test" occurs when you change only one factor (variable) and keep all other conditions the same.

 

 

1. Observation

 We exist.

2. Proposal of a question or a problem

 How did we get here?

3. A hypothesis or educated guess made

 We evolved from nothing, to dirt, to single cells, to multiple cells, to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, to mammals, to humans.

4. Scientific experimentation

 Oh, wait a minute. Thats right, evolution can not be observed, tested, or measured. No one has ever done an experiment that made life come from non-life or a lower creature turn into a higher creature and without that empirical evidence evolution can not leave the hypothesis or model phase.
I do not need to prove the creation model true, I can simply prove the evolution model false. There are only two possibilities of how we got here, either we got here by supernatural intervention or we got here on our own, and if one of them can be proven absurd then the other has to be true. Someone that believes in atheistic evolution will never be able to disprove YAHUWAH or the creation because in order to disprove YAHUWAH you would need to be all knowing and omnipresent, in other words you have to have the attributes of YAHUWAH to disprove YAHUWAH. It would be as if you had an infinite amount of white ping pong balls and one red one. If you could never find the red one that does not disprove its existence; however, if someone found the red ball and showed it to you that would prove its existence.     
Evolution is not a proven fact               Evolution is not a scientific natural law                      Evolution is not even a scientific theory

evolution is not based in science. you think you are wise to say you know better but you are just being a smart ass belittling what I posted which is merely facts  based on real science and repeating them is fair.

you and all your slapnut atheist monkey wannabes keep professing your claim to knowledge through  science? I know it is a waste of my time to repeat myself to a bunch of mind bubbles in so many ways!!!

show me the origin of life and matter in space over time through the scientific method WITHOUT exposing youself in fact that you ARE of the spirit of satan as a liar and accuser:

atheist terminology falling under the stupid invented term EVOLUTION:which is being preached in maistream media


Cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic, macro and micro -------evolution. dont play stupid they are all connected under the scam of evolution even if you ignore most of them because you cannot grasp the big picture. that does NOT mean they are ALL not a part of your unoriginal pagan religion of origins.


Cosmic evolution involves the origin of the universe, time and matter itself. The Big Bang theory falls within this discipline of evolution.                                        NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD



Chemical evolution involves the origin of complex elements. This discipline also attempts to explain the process in which those elements formed. 

NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD


Stellar and planetary evolution is the discipline used to explain the origin of the stars and planets. This is distinct from cosmic evolution, yet, at times, overlaps it.  NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
 


Organic evolution attempts to explain the origin of living matter. Those in origin of life studies most often focus on this discipline of evolution.
NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD


The two final disciplines of evolution are also the most often confused by people. They are macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Micro-evolution states that all living organisms experience mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations. The difference between this and macro-evolution is that micro-evolution only deals with mutations within a species.

Macro-evolution, on the other hand, states that such adaptations and mutations allow new species to form.

 NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

 

Also micro changes can be observed with the scientific method. While all the other terms OF EVOLUTION are imaginary and preached as religious fact without question or basis in science or common sense. ( PAGAN HUMANIST /ATHEIST/ CHUMPS WITH CHIMP ENVY/ ARE OF THE SPIRIT OF SATAN)


fact


Evolution is an ancient pagan concept (MAN MADE RELIGION)where people worship nature / creation instead of a CREATOR or they invent idols based on nature/creation
the theory of evolution has been with us for a very, very long time. It actually comes from ancient pagan religious beliefs that continue to be reflected in many religious traditions around the globe today. It has been documented that many ancient pagan teachers and philosophers believed that the universe spontaneously evolved by itself, that the universe is millions of years old, that humans once resembled fish, and that all living things continue to evolve.
 

ABIOGENESIS:nonliving origin belief      (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)


1. (noun) abiogenesis, autogenesis, autogeny, spontaneous generation


a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.

Abiogenesis is the idea of life originating from non-living material (non-life).   (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)

This concept has expanded a great deal as mankind’s understanding of science has grown, but

all forms of abiogenesis have one thing in common: they are all scientifically unsupportable. 

There have been no experiments demonstrating abiogenesis in action.

It has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment.    (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)

Conditions believed to have existed on earth are either incapable of producing the building blocks needed, or self-contradictory.

No evidence has been found suggesting where or when such life might have generated. In fact, everything we know of science today seems to indicate that abiogenesis could not have happened under any naturally possible conditions.


http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/evolution.html

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
Submitted by nigelTheBold on

Submitted by nigelTheBold on April 16, 2010 - 5:07pm.nigelTheBold's picture

 

 

mind over matter wrote:
can you give an example of a genetic mutation or "evolutionary" process which can be seen to increase in the information in the genome?............????????????????????????????????

 

This is my last reply. You obviously have no intent to actually learn about evolution. You'd rather remain ignorant.

 

->I expected your first reply to be your last since it was a complete farce and a complete failure to demonstrate your pagan religon of origins to justify your petty worldview through actual science and not science friction.

the fact remains you depend on a monkey wannabe mentality to live in denial. you accept billions of years on faith and you accept that nature is your god and your think that what animals do is an excuse for you to copy (example a dog humping a human)

you accept that humans are mutating into what ever and you accept that mutations can write new information to the point that fish can become a human or that a dead lifeless rock can produce life mutations without cause or purpose or intelligence.

you rely on misinformation because you choose a perverted lifstyle  which is prideful and selfish and hedonisttic in truth.

you like using the term gay because it hides the fact that you are not what you say you are and you know its true.

you say my version of evolution is unrealistic because you know it demands real science and real facts you keep avoiding and you should know that when you imply the term evolution, it does NOT refer to one version Macro-from single cell to human,... it does refer to all aspects/stages that relate to the origins of humans from everything from nothing which is where you quickly make your atheist retreat as a chump with indoctrination with out question.

because you cannot retrace every step of your dogma to its source with out admitting you have been decieved and are lost in futility

 

so you are useles to your cause and you fail to meet my challenge to demonstrate the scientific method to prove atheism is not based on ignore and rants

I accept your choice to be a failed rebel

please know your measured existence is not without just cause. and that your free will is a gift not a random blind ambition of chance

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
ignore and rant because you are oblivious in bliss

v4ultingbassist's picture

Submitted by v4ultingbassist on April 12, 2010 - 7:06am.

 

 

mind over matter wrote:

 

I intend to enjoy eternity and I doubt you understand how that is possible since you look forward to oblivion.

 

 

 

At least in oblivion we won't have to listen to you babble on and on.

 

----------------->well you will not have ears to listen in oblivion and you wont be missing out because you will not be missed

the only time you are missing is the time you still have to learn your will be found without excuse according to your own testimony in this trial of mortality

if you are so smart then why not learn to be wise?

 

you did not meet my challenge to prove your pagan religion of evolution

you failed to represent your lost cause

 

................................

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
mind over matter wrote:I

mind over matter wrote:

I accept your failure as a sign of defeat

and i accept YOUR failure to be HETEROSEXUAL, you LYING, IDOL-WORSHIPPING, SKIM MILKING-DRINKING ASS PIRATE!!!!!

i know for a fact BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION (after all, you TRIED to PM me to HIT ON ME, you QUEER FUCK) that you have committed WANTON ACTS, even unto the extent of FELLATIO ON MEN!!!!

MAY GOD EXPOSE YOUR APOSTASY AND YOUR HYPOCRISY, YOU FECES-EATING

FAGGOT!!!!!

 

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:mind over

iwbiek wrote:

mind over matter wrote:

I accept your failure as a sign of defeat

and i accept YOUR failure to be HETEROSEXUAL, you LYING, IDOL-WORSHIPPING, SKIM MILKING-DRINKING ASS PIRATE!!!!!

i know for a fact BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION (after all, you TRIED to PM me to HIT ON ME, you QUEER FUCK) that you have committed WANTON ACTS, even unto the extent of FELLATIO ON MEN!!!!

MAY GOD EXPOSE YOUR APOSTASY AND YOUR HYPOCRISY, YOU FECES-EATING

FAGGOT!!!!!

 

 

 

You're having too much fun iwbiek.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:you will not be

Quote:

you will not be missed

 

Ask me if I care.


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
you are information and you post infurubvaiuyuyfc, get it?????

butterbattle's picture

Define information.Don't

Submitted by butterbattle on April 16, 2010 - 10:53am.

 

Define information.-------------->>>>your question is a ploy of circular reasoning on your part because you use intelligent design to refute the need for intelligent designerplay_w2("I0134200")

n. 1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news.
  • a message received and understood
  • knowledge acquired through study or experience or instruction
  • data: a collection of facts from which conclusions may be drawn; "statistical data"
  • Information as a concept has many meanings, from everyday usage to technical settings. The concept of information is closely related to notions of constraint, communication, control, data, , instruction, knowledge, meaning, mental stimulus, pattern, perception, and representation.
     
  • You are information and you post information, you rely on intelligence to post information not mutations because mutation/damage results in a loss of information needed in the original message to be consistent, if you hit yourself over your own head repeatedly with a hammer you will experience a loss of information and function and purpose and design because you caused damage. you did not add anything new in the form of information.. do not be fooled when some times  information is changed there is still a loss of original information and the idea of the changed information being beneficial is rare and circumstancial because there are pros and cons to adding changes to information.this has nothing to do with evolution being a reality. if only you could knock some common sense into your brain with repeated blows over time from a hammer.

     

    Don't insertions, duplications, etc. add information?--------->NO! not in a way that supports your pagan religion of evolution of any type.  

    But you may say to me nearly all biologists agree that Random Mutation of DNA, combined with Natural Selection, account for the evolution of all living things.

     There is no doubt that many people(chumps with chimp envy) believe this.  And in (atheist/humanist written) biological literature there are thousands and thousands of books and papers that say Random Mutation is the source of biological diversity.  But... NOWHERE in the biological literature is this ever demonstrated or proven. Nowhere.  no one in any experiment or scientific journal has ever demonstrated that the source was RANDOM mutations. (If you disagree, I challenge you to locate even one example.)  Relevant research:

  • Theodosius Dobzhansky tried for decades to mutate Fruit Flies with radiation and get them to evolve, and his experiments were an utter failure.  He did not get one single instance of improved fruit flies.  In fact the results were pretty much identical to what you get from the Random Mutation Generator: Sickly, deformed fruit flies with legs growing out of their mouths and so on.
  • Richard Goldschmidt conducted similar experiments with moths, also for many years.  Same dismal results.
  • Barbara McClintock discovered in the 1940's that damaged chromosomes re-arrange themselves in an impressively sophisticated pattern of internal genetic engineering.  Far from random, this process is remarkably similar to what a magazine editor does with an article: She makes judicious word substitutions, re-arranges entire sentences and paragraphs to improve a document.  The genome does the same thing with segments of DNA.  McClintock won the Nobel Prize in 1983 for her work on Mobile Genetic Elements.  Genetic information is modular, just like English or computer programs, and the only way to successfully modify it is to respect its structure.  Random mutations have no such respect.
  • James A. Shapiro of the University of Chicago has continued McClintock's work, noting that the Genome has sophisticated error correction mechanisms that actively prevent random mutations; and that organisms under stress can re-arrange their own DNA in an immensely sophisticated system of cellular genetic engineering.  Shapiro defines a "Third Way" (an alternative to both Darwinism and Creationism) and a "21st century view of evolution" which sees evolution not as a product of random mutation; far from it.  Evolution is an engineered process.
  •  

    Show me just one paper, book or experiment anywhere in the history of biology that empirically demonstrates and proves that random mutation of DNA produces novel adaptive features (eyes, wings, legs, functional organs); and that the mutations that produced those features were in fact random. (And not Mobile Genetic Elements or some other systematic process.)

    In 150 years of research on this subject, there is not a single peer-reviewed paper, book or experiment that demonstrates this to be true. Not one.

    No one who considers themselves a skeptic or a scientifically literate person can believe this to be true and still be consistent with skepticism and scientific literacy.

    Microevolution does not lead to macroevolution - it has never been observed to happen.
    there is no evidence that DNA mutations can provide the
    sorts of variation needed for evolution...  The sorts of variations which can
    contribute to Darwinian evolution, however, involve things like bone structure or body plan.
    There is no evidence for beneficial mutations at the level of macroevolution, but there is
    also no evidence at the level of what is commonly regarded as microevolution." 
    -  Jonathan Wells, Molecular Biologist
     

    How would a species survive with only part of a function?   It is illogical to assume
    that time would help in this case.  A defense mechanism that supposedly evolved
    to help a species survive  would have to work the first time.  Often these defensive
    functions are quite complex in their own right.  The bombadier beetle is one excellent
    example of why evolution is illogical.  If all that functionality didn't work "out of
    the box" that little bug wouldn't have made it at all.  The probability that all
    that happened by chance is so far out there that it falls into the area of fairy tales.
    It's wishful thinking... or ignoring the facts... or simply avoiding the truth. which is what this thread is all about , exposing the irrational response of atheist drones with humanist education.
     

    the unsolveable problems of evolution:
    No explanation for why life contains only left-handed amino acids
    No explanation for how life could start WITH or WITHOUT oxygen in the atmosphere
    No explanation for how life could start in the oceans (hydrolysis)
    No explanation for how evolution could occur in harmony with the Second Law of Thermodynamics
    No explanation for the origin of information.

    So, how is evolution science? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

    the four things required for evolution to work:


    1. An open system
    2. A source of energy
    3. A mechanism to capture energy
    4. A mechanism to convert energy into usable energy for doing work.

    3 and 4 are generally left out of the text books.   If you can't
    capture energy you can't put it to work.

    1. How can a mechanism to capture energy develop?
    2. How could lifeless (non-complex) chemicals spontaneously develop into
    a complex energy capture system?

    These can't be explained by evolutionists...   Catch 22 situation...

     

    5 step circular reasoning


    1. Work must be done in order to become more complex.
    2. We need energy to perform this work.
    3. We have energy all around us (the sun), but we need to capture
    and store it so we can use it

    4. We need to build a mechanism that can capture and store some of
          this energy so we can perform work and grow more complex.

    5. We have no energy to do this work because we have no mechanism
    to capture and store energy (go to step 4).

    two formulas

    M - Matter
    E - Energy
    T - Time
    OI - Outside Intelligence

    Formula A - evolution:

    M + E + T = life

    Formula B - creation:

    M + E + T + OI = life

    Which formula is correct?

    It always takes outside intelligence always to create
    complex designs... (e.g. computers, 747s, or life...)

     M - Matter
    E - Energy
    T - Time
    OI - Outside Intelligence/  YAHUWAH

    Logic indicates there are only two possibilities as to the origin of life as we know it:

    1) we evolved over eons and eons of time... we sprang up from nothing...
    2) we were created by an intelligent everlasting being from nothing...


    Evolutionist cannot explain the origin of matter,
    the origin of life,
    nor do they have a mechanism for how one species can change into a new species. WHAT IS EVOLUTION?  - it is a strongly held to pagan religious faith... 

    What is terribly wrong in our society is that the pagan religion
    of evolution is presented as science and creationism is excluded as a religion. 

     

    seriously you are useless to your lost cause

    you failed to meet my posted challenge yet again

    why dont you admit you are a drone??? accept it!

    I accept your failure as a sign of defeat and you should start applying common sense to your  so called rational response to my challenge

     

    look with love from above
    the desire to live is the desire to live forever
    you did not evolve never did and never will
    True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


    butterbattle
    ModeratorSuperfan
    butterbattle's picture
    Posts: 3945
    Joined: 2008-09-12
    User is offlineOffline
    mind over matter

    mind over matter wrote:
    n. 1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news.
  • a message received and understood
  • knowledge acquired through study or experience or instruction
  • data: a collection of facts from which conclusions may be drawn; "statistical data"
  • Information as a concept has many meanings, from everyday usage to technical settings. The concept of information is closely related to notions of constraint, communication, control, data, , instruction, knowledge, meaning, mental stimulus, pattern, perception, and representation.
  • These are many different definitions. Which one are you using?

    You stated that information is knowledge that comes from an intelligence, correct? 

    mind over matter wrote:
    Don't insertions, duplications, etc. add information?--------->NO! not in a way that supports your pagan religion of evolution of any type.
      

    Assuming that information is knowledge from an intelligence, okay.

    Then, my next question is, why is information, as you defined it, necessary for evolution? 

    Don't insertions and duplications add more base pairs? What physical things do you need to add or change in genome other than the order and number of the base pairs to produce evolution?

    Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


    iwbiek
    atheistSuperfan
    iwbiek's picture
    Posts: 4298
    Joined: 2008-03-23
    User is offlineOffline
    mind over matter

    mind over matter wrote:

    butterbattle's picture

    Define information.Don't

    Submitted by butterbattle on April 16, 2010 - 10:53am.

     

    Define information.-------------->>>>your question is a ploy of circular reasoning on your part because you use intelligent design to refute the need for intelligent designerplay_w2("I0134200")

    n. 1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news.
  • a message received and understood
  • knowledge acquired through study or experience or instruction
  • data: a collection of facts from which conclusions may be drawn; "statistical data"
  • Information as a concept has many meanings, from everyday usage to technical settings. The concept of information is closely related to notions of constraint, communication, control, data, , instruction, knowledge, meaning, mental stimulus, pattern, perception, and representation.
     

    You are information and you post information, you rely on intelligence to post information not mutations because mutation/damage results in a loss of information needed in the original message to be consistent, if you hit yourself over your own head repeatedly with a hammer you will experience a loss of information and function and purpose and design because you caused damage. you did not add anything new in the form of information.. do not be fooled when some times  information is changed there is still a loss of original information and the idea of the changed information being beneficial is rare and circumstancial because there are pros and cons to adding changes to information.this has nothing to do with evolution being a reality. if only you could knock some common sense into your brain with repeated blows over time from a hammer.

     

    Don't insertions, duplications, etc. add information?--------->NO! not in a way that supports your pagan religion of evolution of any type.  

    But you may say to me nearly all biologists agree that Random Mutation of DNA, combined with Natural Selection, account for the evolution of all living things.

     There is no doubt that many people(chumps with chimp envy) believe this.  And in (atheist/humanist written) biological literature there are thousands and thousands of books and papers that say Random Mutation is the source of biological diversity.  But... NOWHERE in the biological literature is this ever demonstrated or proven. Nowhere.  no one in any experiment or scientific journal has ever demonstrated that the source was RANDOM mutations. (If you disagree, I challenge you to locate even one example.)  Relevant research:

  • Theodosius Dobzhansky tried for decades to mutate Fruit Flies with radiation and get them to evolve, and his experiments were an utter failure.  He did not get one single instance of improved fruit flies.  In fact the results were pretty much identical to what you get from the Random Mutation Generator: Sickly, deformed fruit flies with legs growing out of their mouths and so on.
  • Richard Goldschmidt conducted similar experiments with moths, also for many years.  Same dismal results.
  • Barbara McClintock discovered in the 1940's that damaged chromosomes re-arrange themselves in an impressively sophisticated pattern of internal genetic engineering.  Far from random, this process is remarkably similar to what a magazine editor does with an article: She makes judicious word substitutions, re-arranges entire sentences and paragraphs to improve a document.  The genome does the same thing with segments of DNA.  McClintock won the Nobel Prize in 1983 for her work on Mobile Genetic Elements.  Genetic information is modular, just like English or computer programs, and the only way to successfully modify it is to respect its structure.  Random mutations have no such respect.
  • James A. Shapiro of the University of Chicago has continued McClintock's work, noting that the Genome has sophisticated error correction mechanisms that actively prevent random mutations; and that organisms under stress can re-arrange their own DNA in an immensely sophisticated system of cellular genetic engineering.  Shapiro defines a "Third Way" (an alternative to both Darwinism and Creationism) and a "21st century view of evolution" which sees evolution not as a product of random mutation; far from it.  Evolution is an engineered process.

     

    Show me just one paper, book or experiment anywhere in the history of biology that empirically demonstrates and proves that random mutation of DNA produces novel adaptive features (eyes, wings, legs, functional organs); and that the mutations that produced those features were in fact random. (And not Mobile Genetic Elements or some other systematic process.)

    In 150 years of research on this subject, there is not a single peer-reviewed paper, book or experiment that demonstrates this to be true. Not one.

    No one who considers themselves a skeptic or a scientifically literate person can believe this to be true and still be consistent with skepticism and scientific literacy.

  • Microevolution does not lead to macroevolution - it has never been observed to happen.
    there is no evidence that DNA mutations can provide the
    sorts of variation needed for evolution...  The sorts of variations which can
    contribute to Darwinian evolution, however, involve things like bone structure or body plan.
    There is no evidence for beneficial mutations at the level of macroevolution, but there is
    also no evidence at the level of what is commonly regarded as microevolution." 
    -  Jonathan Wells, Molecular Biologist
     

    How would a species survive with only part of a function?   It is illogical to assume
    that time would help in this case.  A defense mechanism that supposedly evolved
    to help a species survive  would have to work the first time.  Often these defensive
    functions are quite complex in their own right.  The bombadier beetle is one excellent
    example of why evolution is illogical.  If all that functionality didn't work "out of
    the box" that little bug wouldn't have made it at all.  The probability that all
    that happened by chance is so far out there that it falls into the area of fairy tales.
    It's wishful thinking... or ignoring the facts... or simply avoiding the truth. which is what this thread is all about , exposing the irrational response of atheist drones with humanist education.
     

    the unsolveable problems of evolution:
    No explanation for why life contains only left-handed amino acids
    No explanation for how life could start WITH or WITHOUT oxygen in the atmosphere
    No explanation for how life could start in the oceans (hydrolysis)
    No explanation for how evolution could occur in harmony with the Second Law of Thermodynamics
    No explanation for the origin of information.

    So, how is evolution science? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

    the four things required for evolution to work:


    1. An open system
    2. A source of energy
    3. A mechanism to capture energy
    4. A mechanism to convert energy into usable energy for doing work.

    3 and 4 are generally left out of the text books.   If you can't
    capture energy you can't put it to work.

    1. How can a mechanism to capture energy develop?
    2. How could lifeless (non-complex) chemicals spontaneously develop into
    a complex energy capture system?

    These can't be explained by evolutionists...   Catch 22 situation...

     

    5 step circular reasoning


    1. Work must be done in order to become more complex.
    2. We need energy to perform this work.
    3. We have energy all around us (the sun), but we need to capture
    and store it so we can use it

    4. We need to build a mechanism that can capture and store some of
          this energy so we can perform work and grow more complex.

    5. We have no energy to do this work because we have no mechanism
    to capture and store energy (go to step 4).

    two formulas

    M - Matter
    E - Energy
    T - Time
    OI - Outside Intelligence

    Formula A - evolution:

    M + E + T = life

    Formula B - creation:

    M + E + T + OI = life

    Which formula is correct?

    It always takes outside intelligence always to create
    complex designs... (e.g. computers, 747s, or life...)

     M - Matter
    E - Energy
    T - Time
    OI - Outside Intelligence/  YAHUWAH

    Logic indicates there are only two possibilities as to the origin of life as we know it:

    1) we evolved over eons and eons of time... we sprang up from nothing...
    2) we were created by an intelligent everlasting being from nothing...


    Evolutionist cannot explain the origin of matter,
    the origin of life,
    nor do they have a mechanism for how one species can change into a new species. WHAT IS EVOLUTION?  - it is a strongly held to pagan religious faith... 

    What is terribly wrong in our society is that the pagan religion
    of evolution is presented as science and creationism is excluded as a religion. 

     

    seriously you are useless to your lost cause

    you failed to meet my posted challenge yet again

    why dont you admit you are a drone??? accept it!

    I accept your failure as a sign of defeat and you should start applying common sense to your  so called rational response to my challenge

     

    you FAGGOT!!!!  you fucking QUEER!!!!!  do you still have the NERVE to argue from our bible????

    put the DICK back in your MOUTH and STOP FUCKING TALKING, HOMO TRASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    "I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
    --Hunter S. Thompson


    chndlrjhnsn
    chndlrjhnsn's picture
    Posts: 159
    Joined: 2010-03-28
    User is offlineOffline
    Even though I disagree with

    Even though I disagree with you, Mind Over, I should at least give you credit: you do a much better job arguing than some theists I have heard, even, I daresay, better than Ray Comfort.

     

    I'm going to avoid raising issues that have already been raised. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you'll get around to reading them later, even though thusfar you've failed to include them in your analysis.

     

    I'm also not going to argue science, as I am not a scientist.

     

    But this is a problem that you will eventually run into, even if you are able to eventually disprove the Theory of Evolution:

     

    mind over matter wrote:

     

    Logic indicates there are only two possibilities as to the origin of life as we know it:

    1) we evolved over eons and eons of time... we sprang up from nothing...
    2) we were created by an intelligent everlasting being from nothing...


     

    I'm going to expand your list just a little bit. This is just some food for thought, but before you decide that you know the origin of all life through process of elimination, you might want to address some of these hypotheses as well:

     

    3) we evolved over eons and eons of time, not from nothing, but from an eternal universe with a constant amount of matter and energy.

    4) we were created, not by an intelligent everlasting being, but by a special one -a divine retard if you will, but one who's really powerful and just thinks he knows everything. This would explain a lot of problems for which intelligent design can't account: blind spots, vestigial organs, male nipples, creationists, ass hair... I mean, all it does is make it difficult to wipe. Plus, it would explain away the contradictions in the Bible, and the many victories of Satan.

    5) we were created by extra-terrestrials to mine the gold that fuels their flying saucers.

    6) we were created by dogs so that they can feel superior in being able to lick their own balls.

     

     

     


    mind over matter
    Theist
    mind over matter's picture
    Posts: 210
    Joined: 2010-04-09
    User is offlineOffline
    you need faith to believe what you know as true even if it's not

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Even though I disagree with

    Submitted by chndlrjhnsn on April 20, 2010 - 8:02pm.chndlrjhnsn's picture 

     

     

    mind over matter wrote:

     

     

    Logic indicates there are only two possibilities as to the origin of life as we know it:

    1) we evolved over eons and eons of time... we sprang up from nothing...
    2) we were created by an intelligent everlasting being from nothing...


     

     

     

     

    I'm going to expand your list just a little bit. This is just some food for thought, but before you decide that you know the origin of all life through process of elimination, you might want to address some of these hypotheses as well:

     1) we evolved over eons and eons of time... we sprang up from nothing...-------------->is not based in repeatable science methods thus is a faith based concept


    2) we were created by an intelligent everlasting being from nothing...------------------>can be tested using the examples of procreation,specified complexity and the spirit of intellect which demonstrates an inetelligent  designed order in a misinterpreted choas as described by the unqualified skeptic. also we have a written record that tesifies to the history of creation and its purpose and design and its compromised nature in detail ,also  including  man made records of  real people places and events, also the the properties of the elements in creation demonstrate a super intelligent power with forknowledge of all matter in space of time.

     

    3) we evolved over eons and eons of time, not from nothing, but from an eternal universe with a constant amount of matter and energy.--->you are posing one of the 2  formulas again,  which is fine because it is s person who studies creation to gain knowledge that is considered a scientist, in your case you have not gained much knowledge as seen below

    M - Matter
    E - Energy
    T - Time
    OI - Outside Intelligence

    Formula A - evolution:

    M + E + T = life

    Formula B - creation:

    M + E + T + OI = life

    Which formula is correct?

    It always takes outside intelligence always to create
    complex designs... (e.g. computers, 747s, or life...)

     

    4) we were created, not by an intelligent everlasting being, but by a special one -a divine retard if you will, but one who's really powerful and just thinks he knows everything. This would explain a lot of problems for which intelligent design can't account: blind spots, vestigial organs, male nipples, creationists, ass hair... I mean, all it does is make it difficult to wipe. Plus, it would explain away the contradictions in the Bible, and the many victories of Satan.------->

    So because you don't understand the purpose of every exmple of  design such as features on a super complex human body which defies human materialistic logic and is superior in design to anything found in creation or considered man made,.... you imply the creator of such things inferior to your understanding of all things?

    just because you can live without an arm does not mean you don't need it the same fact applies to what you think are vestigial organs but are not like not using the best part of your brain does not make it vestigial. however that does not mean the navel is not an example of a vestigial what purpose does a navel now serve?  Nothing but just a vestigial left over from the once useful umbilical cord when we were all in our mother's womb.  The navel shows that we had a connection to our physical mother. 

    the scientific method has shown that Men and Woman are intrinsically linked by the "male" and the "female" in them. The male and the female hormones are tied together and proven for a fact. the nipples are YAHUWAH's design to show a connection between the MALE and the FEMALE, hormones are not man's or woman's exclusively. They are intrinsically linked to the male and female as ONE.  They were there in AHdaHm, before CHUWAH was even brought forth. The hormonal factor is what draws a man and a woman together.  Of course, excessive amount of oestrogen in man will cause him to develop gynaecomastia (large breasts). Notice the "breasts and nipples" issue? [Science shows that the fetus begins life as "female" in the first few weeks. After eight weeks onwards the gender will begin to be determined.]

    Male and female do not mean that Ahdahm was both man and woman.  He was created first in the spiritual IMAGE of YAHUWAH as a spirit.  YAHUWAH has both male and female attributes.  YAHUWAH is not man and woman.  Hence, as a spirit Ahdahm had both these attributes — male and female.

    YAHUWAH is Spirit with the attributes of male and female. The male holds the seed of life. The female holds the milk of life. Until the seed is passed to the female the milk will not flow because there is no life. [Hence we see a type here: ChristUW(MESSIAH) YAHUWSHUA which means YAHUWAH IS SALVATION, the Seed Word of YAHUWAH (masculine) has to come to the Church, the Bride (feminine), or she will not have life, and without the life she will have no milk (of life) flowing in her.]  The nipples on Adam shows life is in the Man for he is the male, who holds the seed, not the Woman for she is the female, who holds the milk (as evidenced in her breasts). God drew out the female in Adam and made for him a woman, a being with enlarged breasts that hold the milk of life.

     AHdaHm was a type of YAHUWSHUA (messiah/CHRISTUW) and CHUWAH was a type of the True Church, the male and the female or the masculine and the feminine.  You cannot separate one from the other.  And the nipples on Adam (man) testify of that mystery — a link between the male and female, and that the SEED of LIFE was to be passed to the nurturing vessel. It shows that the "male" was not the nurturer, but life giver, and the "female" the nurturer. Taking out the "female" spirit in AHdaHm, YAHUWAH formed the woman with "milk" breasts and bigger nipples. Ahdahm had to have the nipples to show that he holds the seed of life and his OTHER PART holds the MILK OF LIFE.  And that the MALE and the FEMALE are not TWO but ONE thus they are joined becomming one flesh .  

    Unlike the creation of animals, MANKIND was created in YAHUWAH's IMAGE. 

    Hence, there could only be ONE direct and original creation, not TWO (a pair) as in animal creation.  First, the image, then came the likeness (cf. Gen.1:26-27).  It testifies of the invisible side of YAHUWAH (YAHUWAH is Spirit) and the visible side of YAHUWAH (the Logos/WORD made manifest as matter in space over time). The image is the spiritual side of YAHUWAH. Ahdahm was first created a spirit (invisible). The likeness is the visible side of YAHUWAH. Ahdahm was then given a physical body (visible) like unto that of the WORD OF YAHUWAH.    The words “image” and “likeness” are clearly different in meanings  YAHUWAH  first created man in His own image and some time later made him after His own likeness. The creation and the making of man were done in two stages. In spirit and having no definite shape, he was yet to be made in the likeness of YAHUWAH made manifest as matter in space over time. the CREATOR is out side of creation which is still an extension of HIMSELF. INVISIBLE TO VISIBLE

    5) we were created by extra-terrestrials to mine the gold that fuels their flying saucers.-----------> there is no evidence to  demonstrate your misinformation about e.t.'s also you should learn hostory and the agenda of satan and the concept to reverse engineer humanity to produce abominations/hybrids between animal and human etc....

    6) we were created by dogs so that they can feel superior in being able to lick their own balls.----------->you must really have no clue about your place in eternity?

     you did not meet my posted challenge and you failed to make a valid point with your additional list of unoriginal alternatives to the 2 that I already discussed in so many posts       I accept your failure as a sign of defeat

    When Ahdahm was later given a designed complete fullyfunctional physical body of dust, what and how did he look like?  Did he look half man and half woman?  No, not at all.  He looked like a man, totally.  He walked like a man, not like a woman.  His voice was deep like a man, certainly not high pitched like a woman.  He had male reproductive organs, not female reproductive organs.  He had nipples and certainly he had no breasts and nipples like that of a woman. and HE had NO navel since every design in YAHUWAH's creation has a purpose and/or a reason for it to be there as Ahdahm and Chuwah were not conceived in a woman's womb. They had no connection to a physical mother. it is about the attributes of male and female as ONE that YAHUWAH separated and then brought back together in the creation of MAN .

    look with love from above
    the desire to live is the desire to live forever
    you did not evolve never did and never will
    True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


    iwbiek
    atheistSuperfan
    iwbiek's picture
    Posts: 4298
    Joined: 2008-03-23
    User is offlineOffline
    mind over matter wrote:The

    mind over matter wrote:

    The words “image” and “likeness” are clearly different in meanings  YAHUWAH  first created man in His own image and some time later made him after His own likeness. The creation and the making of man were done in two stages. In spirit and having no definite shape, he was yet to be made in the likeness of YAHUWAH made manifest as matter in space over time. the CREATOR is out side of creation which is still an extension of HIMSELF. INVISIBLE TO VISIBLE

    HA!  pink letters!  QUEER!!!!!!!!!

    "I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
    --Hunter S. Thompson


    mind over matter
    Theist
    mind over matter's picture
    Posts: 210
    Joined: 2010-04-09
    User is offlineOffline
    yet another failed rebel drone minion of satan's ass, posturing!

    iwbiek's picture

    mind over matter wrote:The

    Submitted by iwbiek on April 21, 2010 - 5:32pm.

     

     

    mind over matter wrote:

     

    The words “image” and “likeness” are clearly different in meanings  YAHUWAH  first created man in His own image and some time later made him after His own likeness. The creation and the making of man were done in two stages. In spirit and having no definite shape, he was yet to be made in the likeness of YAHUWAH made manifest as matter in space over time. the CREATOR is out side of creation which is still an extension of HIMSELF. INVISIBLE TO VISIBLE

     

     

    HA!  pink letters!  QUEER!!!!!!!!!------------------------------------------>what? ARE you still writing your life story on toilete paper? is this little  queer rant another excerpt from your ass? you must be the queer you fear?  I am not your scape goat for your stupidity. I do not know you personally and you are satans bitch. preaching to me morals and making false accusations about me while spewing hateful rants like a schitzofrenic  raving fool.

    instead of meeting my posted challenge you have exposed yourself as drone minion expendable pawn waiting your turn to walk backwards off a cliff into a pool full of your own shitlaced auto biography.

     

     

    iwbiek's picture

    i accept your life as an

    Submitted by iwbiek on April 15, 2010 - 3:59am.

     

    i accept your life as an example of SODOMY!--------->pittiful chump retreat into school yard whinning

    YOU FUCKING QUEER HOMO PIECE OF SHIT!  the LORD your GOD has COMMANDED you to stop your filthy UNGODLY WAYS!!!!----->lord god is a referrence to your false ELOHIM     not my ELOAH YA AM  again you fail as a chump with chimp envy

    EVERYONE LISTEN!!!!!! ------------->yes pay attenttion to the rant of a fellow atheist bitchnugget who fails to meet my challenge in true crybaby form

    i know MIND OVER MATTER from theologyweb forums!  he is a FRAUD.  he is a WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING, a TARE AMONG THE WHEAT!!!----------> lol actually atheism is a wolf in sheeps clothing based in humanism founded in ancient pagan religions that worship creation in stupidity

    i have several FIRST-HAND ACCOUNTS that MIND OVER MATTER is a FLAMING FAGGOT OF THE FIRST ORDER!!!  he DISGUSTS me and all GODLY people, pretending to share the righteous wrath of GOD against the WICKED. -------------->perhaps you have seen the name mind over matter  elsewhere ? so what ?

    you atheists clones are a dime a dozen whinning and always targeting the one truth that undermines your slapnut mentality!!!

    he is most definitely NOT A CHRISTIAN!  "not everyone who says to me 'lord, lord' shall be saved but only he who DOES THE WILL OF MY FATHER who is in heaven"!-----------------> I never refer to "lord this or that" lord is a refference to satan, and you  who knows nothing about history are making a fool of yourself complaing about the morals of a higher power to me when you are the queer wannabe.

    his life is a disgusting pit of DEPRAVITY!  he watches GAY PORNOGRAPHY!  and LIKES IT!----------->>so sad too bad you are without excuse in your futility. trying in vain is not doing again what you failed to accomplish with your scumbag mentality.

     

    you are useless to your cause

     

    I accept your failure as a sign of defeat

     

    please admit you lick bag and you are a slapnut bitchnugget, and deep down it is you who is queer not me, you liar and rotten crab apple

     

    look with love from above
    the desire to live is the desire to live forever
    you did not evolve never did and never will
    True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


    iwbiek
    atheistSuperfan
    iwbiek's picture
    Posts: 4298
    Joined: 2008-03-23
    User is offlineOffline
    mind over matter

    mind over matter wrote:

    please admit you lick bag and you are a slapnut bitchnugget, and deep down it is you who is queer not me, you liar and rotten crab apple

     

    SEE!!!  now he's trying to hit on me IN PUBLIC!!!  he already tried it through PM!!!  DIDN'T YOU, you fucking child-corrupting SHIT-EATER!!!  STOP PROJECTING YOUR SICK FANTASIES ON ME!!!  MAY GOD BURN YOU WITH HOLY FIRE!!!

    GO BURN IN FAGGOT HELL, YOU FUDGEPACKER!!!!

    "I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
    --Hunter S. Thompson


    mind over matter
    Theist
    mind over matter's picture
    Posts: 210
    Joined: 2010-04-09
    User is offlineOffline
    you keep accusing me and spreading lies about me!!!!!

    iwbiek's pictureSubmitted by iwbiek on April 21, 2010 - 6:12pm.

    he's trying to hit on me IN PUBLIC!!!  he already tried it through PM!!!  DIDN'T YOU, you fucking child-corrupting SHIT-EATER!!!  STOP PROJECTING YOUR SICK FANTASIES ON ME!!!  MAY GOD BURN YOU WITH HOLY FIRE!!!

    GO BURN IN FAGGOT HELL, YOU FUDGEPACKER!!!!

     

    --------->>>again you spew crap from your mouth and then your write it down

    No I am not  hitting on you , I do not hit on men  I am not queer  and I have already stated my case in earlier posts against the queer movement so there you have it

    the idea you being hit on by another male is your own self fullfilling prophecy. you are bitching because you are  role playing as a bitch. which is what queers tend to do. so you should wash your ass and wash your mouth and be sure to use steel wool and scrub real  good.

    may god what?

    You have  no clue who the Creator is nor do you care to know. it is clear where you stand in the shadows of satans ass making false accusations and   bearing false witness spreading lies to stroke your own ego and selfish pride.

    it is very clear you do not represent our true ELOAH YA AM nor do you intend to meet my posted challenge  which affirms HIS WORD made manifest.

    you represent the atheist chumps with chimp envy and you still failed to prove any point  and your insults do not scare flies from shit. but your words do wreak of gutterball inbred beer vomit with every comment you have posted. it must be that shitty brand of beer jezek that has dilluted your scum filled brain

     

    I accept your ignore and rant retreat  down to the level a cockroach

     

    now run along back to your  lonely place in the mind void you filthy outcast.

     

     

    look with love from above
    the desire to live is the desire to live forever
    you did not evolve never did and never will
    True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


    mind over matter
    Theist
    mind over matter's picture
    Posts: 210
    Joined: 2010-04-09
    User is offlineOffline
    keep your pesos, or please prove your lost cause religion

    Vastet's picture

    The OP proves within the OP

    Submitted by Vastet on April 15, 2010 - 12:43pm.

    The OP proves within the OP that he doesn't have a fraction of the basic knowledge of science or the proven field of evolution necessary to be willing to waste my time on.

    Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

    ---------------------->>>>>you failed to meet my posted challenge to prove your pagan religion of evolution which is normal on this thread

    considering it is chalk  full of chumps with chimp envy like you especially, you ignore and rant in atheistic bliss

    the whole point of science to gain knowledge  through repeatable study of matter in space over time,... not to preach humanist pagan propaganda and then sugar coat it with lies in the name of science.

    it is very easy for you to quote misinformation and then insult people because they choose to think for themselves and question your pagan religion of origins from nothing to everything to humans scam which is a satanic themed humanist agenda in futility.

    waste your time? lol so then you admit your time is measured? yet you cannot predict how much time you have to waste because you don't have a clue about  how time is measured you just assume what a billion years looks like because you are a chump who believes in billions of years on faith not knowledge. and then you boast about a fraction of the basic knowledge of science or the proven field of evolution necessary to be willing to waste your time on? lol LOL lol

     

    its easy for you to preach that the pagan religion of evolution is a proven feild of science but then when I asked you to demonstrate it through the scientific method you retreated like a true chump drone back to your lonely corner wearing a dunce cap like every atheist slapnut on this thread.

     

    Evolution is not a proven fact               Evolution is not a scientific natural law                      Evolution is not even a scientific theory/ which we all know means speculation or better yet atheist wishful thinking in the closet

     

    evolution is not based in science. you think you are wise to say you know better but you are just being a smart ass belittling what I posted which is merely facts  based on real science and repeating them is fair.

    you and all your slapnut atheist monkey wannabes keep professing your claim to knowledge through  science? I know it is a waste of my time to repeat myself to a bunch of mind bubbles like YOU in so many ways!!!

    show me the origin of life and matter in space over time through the scientific method WITHOUT exposing youself in fact that you ARE of the spirit of satan as a liar and accuser.

    atheist monkey wannabe  terminology falling under the stupid invented term EVOLUTION:which is being preached  not proven in maistream media to dumb them down:::>----V


    Cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic, macro  -------evolution. and  micro (actually limited variation within a kind)  

    and PLEASE dont play stupid, YES  they are all connected under the scam of evolution even if you ignore most of them because you cannot grasp the big picture because we both know you are not qualified since you chose not to waste your already wasted time. that does NOT mean they are ALL not a part of your unoriginal pagan religion of origins preached in publics schools from kidergarden up to atheist drone college level as a mult stage system without each stage included as a complete story from beginning to present day with a true foundation.

    again here is my simple challenge to a self proclaimed expert such as you


    Cosmic evolution involves the origin of the universe, time and matter itself. The Big Bang theory falls within this discipline of evolution.     

     NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD    ----------> you atheist chump!!



    Chemical evolution involves the origin of complex elements. This discipline also attempts to explain the process in which those elements formed. 

    NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD  --------->you atheist chump!


    Stellar and planetary evolution is the discipline used to explain the origin of the stars and planets. This is distinct from cosmic evolution, yet, at times, overlaps it. 

    NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD  ---------->you atheist chump!
     


    Organic evolution attempts to explain the origin of living matter. Those in origin of life studies most often focus on this discipline of evolution.


    NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD--------------> you atheist chump


    The two final disciplines of evolution are also the most often confused by ( huamnist /atheist chumps) people like you. They are macro-evolution and micro-evolution. And you atheist slapnuts ALWAYS  confuse the two on purpose.

    Micro-evolution states that all living organisms experience mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations within a predesigned  limit. The difference between this and the stupid religious pagan concept of macro-evolution is that micro-evolution only deals with mutations within a kind/species.

    Macro-evolution, on the other hand, states that such adaptations and mutations allow new species to form.such as humans to X-men or wolfmen or hybrids etc....or single celled organisms to humans given enough wasted time

     NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD-----------> you foolsh atheist chump

     

    oh thats right YOU refused.   that is what I expect and that is what all of your fellow atheist  drones have chosen to do on this thread.

    you failed to meet my posted challenge

     

    I accept your failure as a sign of defeat

     

    now run along back to your void as an outcast , you are useless to your cause

     

    learn real history before your trial of mortality is over

     

    look with love from above
    the desire to live is the desire to live forever
    you did not evolve never did and never will
    True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


    iwbiek
    atheistSuperfan
    iwbiek's picture
    Posts: 4298
    Joined: 2008-03-23
    User is offlineOffline
    mind over matter wrote:it

    mind over matter wrote:

    it must be that shitty brand of beer jezek that has dilluted your scum filled brain

    co????  poznas ceska piva?  lebo ja myslim ze nikdy nepil si ani nic nevies o tom, ty kokot.  tak chod do picy basmek. 

    "I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
    --Hunter S. Thompson


    Atheistextremist
    atheist
    Atheistextremist's picture
    Posts: 5134
    Joined: 2009-09-17
    User is offlineOffline
    There's something about the way

     

    Mindless Matter's wild and entertainment-hunting brain works that consistently makes me feel we know him as some one else.

    "Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


    mind over matter
    Theist
    mind over matter's picture
    Posts: 210
    Joined: 2010-04-09
    User is offlineOffline
    you failed rebel !

     

    you cannot intimidate flies from shit with your chump rants!

    just meet my challenge or admit your failure and the fact you are useless to your lost cause!

     

    lol

    you changed you profile pic because you are childish.  you are already anonymous and now you wear a mask ? lol

    keep up the retarded  atheist mentality, it suites you. your kind have no light of day. son of cain!

     

    I accept your failure as a true sign of pathetic defeat

    look with love from above
    the desire to live is the desire to live forever
    you did not evolve never did and never will
    True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


    mind over matter
    Theist
    mind over matter's picture
    Posts: 210
    Joined: 2010-04-09
    User is offlineOffline
    what is information? knowledge communicated or received

     Proteins are so hard to make that in all of nature, they never form except in already living cells. Never! This scientific fact stands in stark contrast to what was taught. 


    Evidence that life never comes from non-living materials is so abundant that it is a basic principle of science called the Principle of Biogenesis (living things come only from living things). Atheists and many agnostics have faith that contrary to this basic principle of science, life did evolve spontaneously from chemicals at least once. They now call their theory “abiogenesis” which comes from roots that mean “not Biogenesis.” They no longer use the term “spontaneous generation.”
     

    there is more scientific evidence that life could not form without a Creator. RNA never forms except in already living cells: “… no one has yet succeeded in creating RNA.”  The fact that RNA is vital to the life of every cell, and cannot be made except by already living cells is powerful evidence against life forming without a Creator.

    “… proteins fold into a highly complex, three-dimensional shape that determines their function. Any change in shape dramatically alters the function of a protein, andeven the slightest change in the folding process can turn a desirable protein into a disease.” Living cells fold such proteins in less than a second. This evidence shows that the One who invented the way proteins fold in cells is much more intelligent than the new super computer.

    Proteins are not made where they will be used, and are worthless except in the one spot they fold to fit. How do proteins find their way? “… newly minted proteins contain an amino acid string that determines their eventual home.”The amino acid string which forms the address is usually added as a tail on the end of the longer string of amino acids which make up the protein. This tail has been compared to the address on an envelope.

    put a bunch of your letters in the mail box without addressing them. If the right addresses were to form spontaneously, you would probably call it a miracle

    Misplacing a protein is more serious than losing a letter, however. There are diseases where proteins are mistargeted in cells.  All available evidence indicates that creating and coding the correct information for each address requires intelligence.

    Cells can’t live unless each of their many proteins not only folds correctly, but receives the correct address tag. When several things must be in place at the same time for an object to function, it is called “irreducible complexity,” and is evidence that it had a creator. 

    The cell also needs the right amount of each protein.

    If a first living cell had formed without a Creator, the cell would still have had to replace each of its proteins as soon as it wore out. If the cell did not contain the information to correctly turn on and off the production of the replacement proteins, the cell would have died as soon as the first essential protein wore out. This is evidence that there is a Creator who knows how to turn protein production on and off!

    The proteins that make up cells will not form anywhere in nature except in already living cells. One reason cells can make them is because the directions for making them and for turning their production on and off are already present in the cell’s library of information called DNA. Once made, proteins could not function unless they were properly folded and addressed. Neither making proteins, folding, addressing, nor regulating their production could invent itself, yet no cell could live unless all were in place working together. These brilliant solutions are scientific facts and constitute evidence for a very intelligent Creator who plans ahead.

     

    A Cell Must Have a Membrane, lipids are only produced by accurately controlled reactions in living cells. This is important evidence!

     What does the cell’s membrane do?A living cell is a self-reproducing system of molecules held inside a container. The container is the plasma membrane - a fatty film so thin and transparent that it cannot be seen directly in the light microscope. It is simple in construction, being based on a sheet of lipid molecules…. Although it serves as a barrier to prevent the contents of the cell from escaping and mixing with the surrounding medium…the plasma membrane does much more than that. Nutrients have to pass inward across it if the cell is to survive and grow, and waste products have to pass outward. Thus the membrane is penetrated by highly selective channels and pumps, formed from protein molecules, that allow specific substances to be imported while others are exported. Still other protein molecules in the membrane act as sensors to enable the cell to respond to changes in its environment.


    A lipid membrane without its protein pumps and channels would let water enter the cell, but would keep nutrients out, starving the cell, so proteins had to work together with the lipids from the first, another important evidence, of carefully planned irreducible complexity.

    If cells had really formed spontaneously, we would expect their important parts to be made of materials that form easily under natural conditions. However, not one of the four: lipids, proteins, RNA, or DNA, can be made that way at all!
       Amazing! Not one is formed in nature except by a living cell, yet for a cell to live, all must be there at the same time, each one doing its job. If  YAHUWAH had wanted to shout to you that He is here, and show you proof that He created, could you find a more convincing proof for Him to use?

    SOOOOOOOO.........Where Did the Information in Cells Come from?

    What is information?  knowledge communicated or received ,..a message that conveys meaning, such as a book of instructions.… Information is not matter, though it is imprinted on matter.     Information is not produced by the material that carries it :

     

     

     

     

     

    Information is not determined by the material it is written on, whether it be paper, a computer, or whatever. The same sheet of paper can be used to draw a comic strip or to write a chemical formula. The same stretch of DNA that carries the commands for brown hair can just as easily hold the commands that will make blond hair; or teeth for that matter! Information comes from minds. My old Encyclopedia Britannica was on a CD. Now I consult a copy on the Internet. The message is independent of the material it happens to be written on.
     

     

    Neither does information depend on the particular set of letters or code it is written in. If this booklet is translated into Chinese, the information will be the same. The information in DNA has been copied onto computers in the Human Genome Project, and printed out on paper. It is the same information no matter what it is written on, in, or with.

    There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is there any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.  All languages, alphabets, and codes that we know of, as well as the information spoken or written in them, originated in minds. The blind faith of the atheist that the first life was an exception is contrary to all known evidence.

    there is no way that chance, clay, “organic soup,” or natural selection could invent the chemical code of a first cell, and use it to write information instructing the cell to make just the right proteins, fold them properly, and send each one to the only place in the cell where it will fit.  Information never happens apart from intelligence, yet cells contain huge amounts of information. I believe this is the most important single evidence that life came from the mind of an intelligent Creator rather than from dumb chemicals. 
    the presence of large quantities of organized information in cells is evidence of an intelligent Creator.
    The codes which carry the information in DNA and RNA use four nucleotides which work like a four letter alphabet. If that doesn’t sound like enough letters, remember that any message can be written with computers or in Morse Code. Both have alphabets of only two letters. The four nucleotide bases that form the “letters” of the DNA code, can be arranged to spell out the instructions for making all the different proteins. All available evidence indicates that it takes intelligence to devise letters or code, and arrange them into instructions. 
      
     

    Scientists use information as a proof of intelligence 
    because the evidence overwhelmingly supports this position. The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of YAHUWAH. Modern people put symbols in their spacecraft to try to send a message into space that there are intelligent beings on earth. YAHUWAH built cells out of materials so hard to make that in all of nature these materials never form apart from living cells. Into these cells He put information which can only have come from a mind. In doing so, He sent a strong message to all who have minds; a message which helps pry open our stubborn hearts to know Him who said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” 

     

    The evidence that an intelligent Creator made the information in DNA is reinforced by the fact that this information takes up the least space possible. After a number of intelligent scientists had worked for many years developing ever better microfilm they fit the entire Bible on one 32 X 33 mm film. Amazing! However, that same space covered with DNA would hold information equivalent to 7.7 million Bibles!

     



     

    If DNA was formed with no intelligent input as ATHEIST chump with chimp envy biology books often imply, why did it take generations of intelligent scientists thousands of man hours to develop the millions of times less efficient microfilm?

    No matter how strong the atheist’s faith may be, his belief that the information in cells formed with no mind involved is contrary to the evidence. The evidence indicates that the information in DNA was put there by a Creator who is so intelligent that we should listen to everything He has to say. 

    the stupid atheist chump with chimp envy is a liar and a fool Redefining Science to Eliminate the Creator.  noone (closet pagan ATHEIST DRONES) on this thread has yet to meet my posted CHALLENGE because they are all mind bubbles floating without direction and purpose.


     

     

    look with love from above
    the desire to live is the desire to live forever
    you did not evolve never did and never will
    True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


    mind over matter
    Theist
    mind over matter's picture
    Posts: 210
    Joined: 2010-04-09
    User is offlineOffline
    Intelligent Design -

    Intelligent Design - Machines
    Intelligent Design is obvious upon close examination of any machine. The concept and design inherent in a machine, whether simple or complex, is self-evident. Whether a machine is high quality or low quality, its designer is both necessary and apparent. Information Theory states that concept and design can only result from a mind. Even the diminished quality of a poorly constructed machine cannot obscure the necessity of an intelligent designer. Machines, as defined by French Biochemist and Nobel Laureate Jacques Lucien Monod (1910-1976), are "purposeful aggregates of matter that, utilizing energy, perform specific tasks." By this authoritative definition, living systems are recognized as machines. A living organism fulfills the definition of a machine all the way down to the molecular level. And yet, because of the philosophical and religious implications of life resulting from Intelligent Design, a surprisingly large portion of the intelligentsia seek to find a mechanism by which life may arise naturally by random chance. Evolutionists admit the inconsistency. George Wald, an evolutionist, states, "When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48. May 1954).

    Intelligent Design - Life
    Ignoring the obvious Intelligent Design that permeates life, scientists have developed the theory of evolution in an effort to explain the origin of life via spontaneous generation. This "scientific" theory is very distinctive. Commonly, scientists observe data, interpret the data, and then formulate conclusions based upon that data. Yet, evolutionists have formulated their "scientific" conclusion without resorting to any data at all. In fact, evolutionists have steadfastly maintained their conclusion despite data to the contrary. Intelligent Design - DNA
    An excellent example of intelligent design is the DNA molecule. Since its discovery by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, evolutionists have faced an insurmountable hurdle. Anyone who truly investigates the mystery of the DNA molecule -- this incredible micro, digital, error-correcting, redundant, self duplicating, information storage and retrieval system, with its own inherent language convention, that has the potential to develop any organism from raw biological material -- understands that life is the result of Intelligent Design. In light of recent discoveries such as the DNA molecule, the absurdity of the evolution argument is readily apparent when its basic formula is compared with that of the creation model of origins. Creation states that matter + energy + information = incredibly complex life. Evolution states that matter + energy + random chance = incredibly complex life. The theory of evolution is merely a religion that serves to discredit the Intelligent Designer Himself.

     

    look with love from above
    the desire to live is the desire to live forever
    you did not evolve never did and never will
    True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


    ubuntuAnyone
    Theist
    ubuntuAnyone's picture
    Posts: 862
    Joined: 2009-08-06
    User is offlineOffline
    mind over matter

    mind over matter wrote:

    ...this incredible micro, digital, error-correcting, redundant, self duplicating, information storage and retrieval system, with its own inherent language convention, that has the potential to develop any organism from raw biological material -- understands that life is the result of Intelligent Design. In light of recent discoveries such as the DNA molecule, the absurdity of the evolution argument is readily apparent when its basic formula is compared with that of the creation model of origins...

    This is question begging. The quote is imposing teleology on things that do not intrinsically have such thing...similar to anthropomophizing rocks, trees, etc....


     

    “Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


    BobSpence
    High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
    BobSpence's picture
    Posts: 5939
    Joined: 2006-02-14
    User is offlineOffline
    The 'code' of DNA, the

    The 'code' of DNA, the mapping of sequences of nucleic acids is the opposite of a consciously designed code, implied by the term 'language convention'. It is purely based on the different chemical affinity of different sequences of nucleic acids for particular peptides, which is precisely the sort of 'code' which could evolve naturally, IOW not a 'convention', rather based simply on chemical attraction. Human devised codes associate codes with what they code for in much more arbitrary or non-obvious ways, ie a convention.

    RNA, close relative and probable precursor to DNA, has recently been shown to be able to form outside cells, in condition entirely likely to be present naturally on an early Earth.

    The many ways in which DNA copying can go wrong, its IMPERFECTION, is well demonstrated, and is just what allows evolution to occur.

    Thank you for further providing a clear example of the superficiality of your knowledge, your stubborn determination to misrepresent truth to fit your delusions.

    Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

    "Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

    The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

    From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


    robj101
    atheist
    robj101's picture
    Posts: 2481
    Joined: 2010-02-20
    User is offlineOffline
     mind over matter

     

    mind over matter wrote:

    If DNA was formed with no intelligent input as ATHEIST chump with chimp envy biology books often imply, why did it take generations of intelligent scientists thousands of man hours to develop the millions of times less efficient microfilm?

    Easy. Precisely because they were were limited to trying to consciously design it, whereas DNA was 'designed' by evolution, which, given a million years or so, and trillions of random trials, is ultimately much more creative than any 'intelligent designer'.

    Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
    "By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


    mind over matter
    Theist
    mind over matter's picture
    Posts: 210
    Joined: 2010-04-09
    User is offlineOffline
    imperfection does not prove evolution,it does prove u r lost

     

     

     

     information is not part of matter and this would seem to be an area in which the Creationist holds several trump cards,  information and consciousness are not really part of matter,  dogmatic atheist chumps with chimp envy assume that there is no SUPREME SUPERNATURAL CREATOR beyond matter in space over time,  nor superior intelligence in the universe, yet 'information' obviously exists

     

    Think about 'information' in this way: Suppose you had a super new computer but, for some reason, no operating system has been installed. So it has nothing like Windows or Linux which can render it useable for the average person. You would not be able to do much with that. But now let us assume that you go out and purchase a Windows operating system. You install that so the computer now has a program, or, 'intelligence' which effectively 'tells it' how to perform various tasks for you. So now it is supremely useable. A Windows O.S. is very large. I think that XP was about 3 gigabytes - that's big! I mean, that's a lot of information. But Vista is much bigger, I think that Vista Premium is closer to 15 gigabytes! I think they have made the very new Windows Seven a bit smaller. But those are huge programs of information. But if you weigh your computer after installing Windows XP or Vista, it won't even be a tiny bit heavier (as long as you remember to take out the CD after installation)! You have just installed a huge amount of information which, as we have noted, is very large in measure, yet you can't record any weight for it on the weighing scale. Ever wondered about that? Moreover, if after a week you delete the entire operating system program, you will not be able to make your computer even the tiniest bit lighter, it will still be the same weight. Why is this? It is because information itself is not matter and therefore it has no weight. No evolutionary scientist has an entirely adequate explanation for how 'information' arrives on the scene, or even for just what it is. Don't forget: these people must work within a 'closed' materialistic universe without knowledge  of YAHUWAH, or superior intelligence, therefore 'information' is problematic for them

     

    Evolutionism needs atheism needs evolutionism needs atheism needs evolutionism.
    Garbage in: Garbage out.

     

  • The amounts of these chemicals are tiny—far too low to contribute to biological processes.
  • The wide variety of compounds in itself counts as evidence against chemical evolution. Even with pure compounds used in experiments, the results are meager, so how much worse would they be with the contaminated gunk produced in the real world?
  • Sugars are very unstable, and easily decompose or react with other chemicals. This counts against any proposed mechanism to concentrate them to useable proportions.
  • Living things require homochiral sugars, i.e., with the same handedness, but the ones from space would not have been.
  • Even under highly artificial conditions, there is no plausible method of making the sugar ribose join to some of the essential building blocks needed to make DNA or RNA. Instead, the tendency is for long molecules to break down.
  •  

    RNA by themselves would not constitute life, since it’s not enough just to join the bases (‘letters&rsquoEye-wink together, but the sequence must be meaningful—and this sequence is not a function of the chemistry of the letters.

  • Even the correct letter sequence would be meaningless without elaborate decoding machinery to translate it. Unless the decoding machinery already existed, those instructions could never be read. Similarly, a book  of english  information would be useless to a non-English-speaker, who may know the Roman alphabet but lacks knowledge of the code of the English language to convert letters into meaningful concepts.
  • The Scientific American article :

    Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science’s current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a non-evolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies. [SA 81]

    yet another

    bait’n’switch concerning the meanings of evolution. Anyway, that downplays the real problem. Evolution is a pseudo-intellectual justification for materialism, because it purports to explain life without God. So materialism would be in great trouble if evolution had a problem right at the start (‘chemical evolution&rsquoEye-wink. After all, if the process can’t even start, it can’t continue.

    "Our theory of evolution has become one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. No one can think of ways in which to test it.

    Ideas either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity.

    They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training."

    --L.C. Birch and P. Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967

    look with love from above
    the desire to live is the desire to live forever
    you did not evolve never did and never will
    True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


    NoMoreCrazyPeople
    atheistSuperfan
    NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
    Posts: 969
    Joined: 2009-10-14
    User is offlineOffline
    I can`t believe you guys are

    I can`t believe you guys are still talking to this chimp chump guy, he`s complety retarted.


    mind over matter
    Theist
    mind over matter's picture
    Posts: 210
    Joined: 2010-04-09
    User is offlineOffline
    information is a fact of intelligent design by YAHUWAH

     Fundamentals in Science

    We all know some of the basic laws of science even if we could not write their mathematical formulations down on paper. For instance, we all know that you will never find a river, or a stream, which flows uphill for a few miles before descending in a waterfall. Okay, the waterfall is no problem, we all know about those, but you could not have a river running uphill for several miles in order to reach that point. Why? Because it breaks the law of gravity! Rivers, all on their own, don't run uphill, you would need some sort of pumping system. Commonly a river will rise in a mountainous area and will gradually meander it's way down to the sea, so it works with the law of gravity.
    To say that Man has evolved through a gradual process of evolution is incorrect because a law of science is being violated (just as 'the law of gravity' was violated in our river running uphill model), we will see the connection later.

    We must remember that science only works through theories, speculations and hypotheses. You can always test these against the laws of nature where that is possible.
    In our world, there are three realities for scientists to ponder over. They are:
    1. Life.
    2. Matter.
    3. Information.

    To take the second of those first, the laws of matter are well understood, but the understanding on information is very very new. Little has been written by evolutionists because they are always struggling not to acknowledge a superior intelligence in the universe. So there is much which is not understood by scientists. Regarding 'life,' the only law of nature here which we are aware of is this: Life can only come from life. Nobody doubts that, it is a well-established law. To digress for just one moment, the evolutionist is just as aware of that law as anybody else; they fully agree that life can only come from life. Despite this, because of the materialist foundation of evolution, they will nevertheless insist that - right at the beginning - life did come from non-life. It's amazing really to consider that fact.

    If, for a moment, you can imagine somebody constructing a walking robot, it would have to have some clever working parts; legs, for instance, which could move back and forth and which could bend, maybe you could even make it clever enough to climb a few steps all on it's own. But it would need a small computer with it's 'walking program' to be installed on it. With a good program it might work fine, after a certain fashion. But if you deleted the program on the walking robot's mini computer it could not move any more. Again, after deleting the information on the program, the walking robot would be no lighter in weight - you have deleted information, not matter. But if you stumbled over it as you went to make a cup of coffee and broke one of it's legs and you then decide to throw the 'leg' away until you make a new one, you will reduce it's weight since the 'leg' is matter. So it will then be lighter in weight.
    In like manner, if you could delete a person's DNA, it is doubtful you would even make that person a few ounces lighter because the DNA is just solid information, yet there is so much of it that if unravelled it, it could stretch from earth to the moon! So it always helps to keep the distinction between matter and information clear. Again, science pretty much understands matter but it has very little understanding on 'information,' because evolution restricts it to a material, godless universe.

     

    two kinds of laws of nature:

    a. Material Entities.
    Energy, power, electricity.

    b. Non-material Entities.
    Consciousness, information.

    Laws of Nature are universally valid, whether in Europe, America, Africa or on the moon - it makes no difference where you are.
    Laws of Nature do not vary in time.
    Laws of Nature are simple.
    There are no exceptions.
    Laws of Nature help us to determine beforehand whether a process is, or is not, possible. This is why, when we look again at our earlier suggestion that a river could run uphill for several miles, we see that it is impossible because these laws of nature are 'constants.'

     

    Scientific Definition of Information

    Imagine this: You are looking at a chart of hieroglyphic symbols before the discovery of the Rosetta Stone. You would have had no interpretation, you would be hopelessly confused. In fact, this was the way it was until the 1799 discovery of the Rosetta Stone. The discovery of that stone tablet enabled us to be able to interpret hieroglyphics. But before then if we were shown a chart of those symbols we would not know whether or not that chart was 'information.' Since that point we can now say that it is information, causing us to interpret a previously hidden language. Before then, you would be unsure, one might apply a very loose label of 'information' to it but it would not be information in the sense of imparting real understanding regarding what the writer of those ancient symbols had in mind.

    Any definition in science must be very precise and very clear. It must have sharp, distinct borders that includes the subjects of the definition and excludes everything else. For example the definition of energy in physics is stated very carefully. In the same manner, information is carefully defined in science.
    Within natural law, information includes five levels:
    a. Statistics (signal, number of symbols).
    b. Syntax (set of symbols, grammar).
    c. Semantics (meaning).
    d. Pragmatics (action).
    e. Apobetics (purpose, result, the highest level of information).

    With Apobetics, full understanding has been imparted from the information sender to the information recipient.
    If you have those five points then you have an entire information system.

    If we find all these five levels in an unknown system (as with the Rosetta Stone illumination of Egyptian hieroglyphics), then we can be absolutely sure that this is a true information system. This is then no longer a matter of speculation but the case is proved. When 'information' is established, intelligence comes with it; that is the bit that evolutionists don't like, and worry about, of course.

    ten laws of nature about information:

    a. Anything material, such as physical processes, cannot create anything non-material.
    b. Information is a non-material fundamental entity and not a property of matter.
    (The idea is creeping into many books that information is a part of matter but that is totally incorrect, it is completely separate from matter).
    c. Information requires a material medium for storage and transmission.
    (Your mind, 'spirit,' intellect and consciousness need your brain).
    d. Information cannot originate in statistical processes.
    e. There can be no information without a code.
    f. All codes result from an intentional choice and agreement between sender and recipient.
    g. The determination of meaning for and from a set of symbols is a mental process that requires information.
    h. There can be no new information without an intelligent, purposeful sender.
    i. Any given chain of information can be traced back to an intelligent source.
    (Interestingly, in most cases we cannot see the information sender. In a library you will see thousands of books but not the writers of those books! When you listen to music, you do not see the composer).
    j. Information comprises the non-material foundation for all technological systems, works of art or biological systems.

    Does the code found within DNA fit into the definition domain of information? Yes, in quite a major way, suffice to say that our human DNA is rich in information cannot be anything but a huge understatement: in fact, it is the highest density of information which it is ever possible to find anywhere on earth, and - - if unravelled, a person's human DNA would stretch all the way to the moon. This is the 'information system' which every single human being has - without it, we could not 'work' or function in any way.

     

    All Five Levels of Information Must be Present:

    a. Statistics (signal, number of symbols).
    b. Syntax (set of symbols, grammar).
    c. Semantics (meaning).
    d. Pragmatics (action).
    e. Apobetics (purpose, result, the highest level of information).
    Again, these are scientific laws. From this we can draw not weak, but strong conclusions!

    1. There Must be a Sender.
    Since the DNA code of all life forms is clearly within the definition domain of information, we conclude that there must be a sender! If somebody should claim that life comes without a sender, we can say that this is a totally wrong idea! Conclusion? Atheism is a wrong idea. Again, the law of nature is the highest level of science!

    From the conclusions about the laws of nature and about information, what can we say about the sender? Psalm 14:1.

    2. The Sender is Omniscient.
    Since the density and complexity of the dna information is billions of times greater than man's present technology, we must conclude that the sender is supremely intelligent and has all knowledge. John 16:30.

    3. The Sender Must be Purposeful and All-Powerful (Omnipotent).
    Since the sender must have:
    a. encoded (stored) the information into the DNA molecules,
    b. constructed the molecular bio machines required for the encoding, decoding and synthesising processes, and,
    c. designed all the features for the original life forms, then we can say that the sender must be purposeful and omnipotent. This isn't negotiable - it is obvious! Revelation 1:8.

    4. The Sender Must be Eternal.
    That supreme sender must have infinite information. He knows everything at the moment, but He must also know everything about the past and the future too. So He must be eternal in existence. Psalm 90:2.

    5. The Sender Must be a Spirit Being.
    Since information is a non-material fundamental entity and cannot originate from the material, the Sender must be a Spirit. John 4:24.

    Let us again remind ourselves that we have arrived at this point by using scientific laws! Who is the Sender? Science can reveal God but cannot go beyond that, but the Bible does. Ten times it says, 'And God said...' in Genesis 1. Also see Psalm 33:9. John 1:1,3.

    We can now use the laws of nature to go further:

    6. The 'Mass and Energy Alone' Theories About the Origin of the Universe Must Be Wrong!
    Since information is a Non-Material Entity, we must conclude that the universe itself is not composed solely of mass and energy! From this we can say that the 'big bang' model is erroneous. They say that at the beginning there was only matter and energy. That cannot be correct. Energy and matter are only material entities, and the laws of nature state that matter cannot create a non-material entity. This world is full of information, just consider the millions of books which have been written, but matter cannot produce information (as we have seen), so the idea that there was only matter and energy at the beginning is bound to be a flawed idea, there must also have been a non-material source of information! This is a very quick and scientific way to refute the 'big bang' model.

    7. All Theories and Concepts About Biological and Chemical Macro-Evolution Are Erroneous!
    Since biological information originates only from an Intelligent Sender, and all theories of biological and chemical evolution require that the information must originate solely from mass and energy, it therefore follows that all theories or concepts of biolological and chemical evolution are incorrect!
    Evolution is an impossible process because well-established laws of nature must be broken in order for it to happen. We can state this from the highest level of science. It is for the evolutionist to falsify us by proving the initial origin of information from the non-material. It cannot be done!

    So all concepts of chemical and biological evolution are refuted - yes, refuted - by the laws of nature on information and these same laws uphold the belief that the universe and all life has an origin through THE ALLMIGHTY Creator YAHUWAH

    look with love from above
    the desire to live is the desire to live forever
    you did not evolve never did and never will
    True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


    mind over matter
    Theist
    mind over matter's picture
    Posts: 210
    Joined: 2010-04-09
    User is offlineOffline
    Components of DNA How DNA

    Components of DNA



     

    How DNA Works

       .....very briefly how DNA works. DNA is a molecule; it's a double helix. When it divides to multiply it separates in half, and a complementary chemical falls into place at every station and creates a new replica of itself.

    The bridge between the edges of the helix is made of a combination of four chemicals, Adenine, Thymine, Cytosine and Guanine. Which I will abbreviate as A, T, C and G. Those are the letters of the DNA alphabet. A, C, T, and G encode all information necessary for life. In the simplest tiny microorganisms it takes 500,000 letters to represent a living organism. It takes five hundred thousand A's, or C's, or T's, or G's.

    In a human it takes three billion (3,000,000,000) of those letters to represents a copy of you, and there is one of those three billion letter messages inside every cell in your body. (By the way modern technology, to date, has not produced an information storage mechanism that is more dense than DNA.) All the information in your hard drive is a lot bulkier than the information in your cells.

    So DNA is not just a molecule, DNA is a language. It is actually very comparable to English and human languages in the way that it is structured. Here is a little chart and it shows the comparison between human languages and DNA. The nucleotide is the A, T, C, G.

    So DNA is an encoding, decoding mechanism that stores and transmits the message of the living organism. Biologists have actually been using linguistic analysis to decode the human genome. Tools that we must use to analyze languages are continually being used to figure out what all of those genes actually mean.

    So if you read some article in the newspaper it says we found a gene that causes Spina Bifida or something like that, some kind of linguistic analysis was used to help figure that out.

    So what makes a language?

    Well the first thing about a language, any language, is it symbolically represents something other than itself. All of you have papers on the tables here, and the papers have paper and they have ink. But the message on the flier there on the table has nothing to do with paper or ink for the most part. Paper and ink is just the medium that carries it.

    To have a language, to have information, you have to have a transmitter and a receiver. Somebody has to talk and somebody has to listen. And then it has these four characteristics; it has an alphabet, it has grammar, it has meaning, and it has intent.

    Every language has those four things. DNA has them; all the stuff going on inside your computer has them. If dogs are barking and yelping, the communication has all of these four things. It doesn't matter if it's mating calls if it's pheromones between insects.

    All Languages and Codes Have Four Components

    Regardless of what kind of communication we are talking about those four things are present in that communication. Alphabet, grammar, meaning and intent. And nearly all languages have error correction or redundancy.

    English is about 50% redundant, which means if you're talking on your cell phone and its cutting in and out and in and out, if you can hear every word you can still pretty much figure out what's being said. If you lose more than that you really can't.

    Where does redundancy come from? If you take a word out, you can fill it in from the context. Your mind can fill in the difference. Most of you never thought of this, but in when you're on the internet or getting and receiving emails there's a whole collection of mechanisms that are put in the communication back and forth to ensure that errors are corrected before they get to you. This is common to almost all languages.

    Is DNA a pattern? Or is it a language?

    DNA is an encoding and decoding system. DNA molecule represents more than itself; it represents an entire living organism. It doesn't just represent Adenine. It represents you or it represents a rabbit or a squirrel or a snake.

    It has alphabet and syntax and semantics and pragmatics, or to use less technical terms alphabet, grammar, meaning and intent. It can be copied and even stored in other media with no loss of information.

    ... a company that made DNA sequencers. Their machines would go through and figure out what all the letters were in a strand of DNA. You could store that on a computer disk, and somebody in the lab could take the right chemicals and they could put those back and they could end up with a clone of the organism. Because the information in DNA is information is something distinct and separate from whatever it is stored in.

    DNA Language

    Human Language

    Nucleotide

    Character

    Codon

    Letter

    Gene

    Word

    Operon

    Sentence

    Regulon

    Paragraph

    So which is DNA more like?

    Is DNA more like stalactites and stalagmites and tornadoes and hurricanes and snowflakes and fractals? Or is DNA more like music, maps, computer programs and Chinese?

    It's definitely in the second category. Absolutely there is no question about it. So what we have here is that between the world of chaos and patterns and the world of designs and information there is a huge chasm. A huge chasm. The pattern of DNA is not like a language. It is a language. By any formal definition of language it is a language.

    Chaos, fractals and natural processes do not produce languages or codes.

    Now usually if people try to disagree with this, this is where they try to disagree. I had a guy say “No, DNA isn't a language or a code, it's just a molecule.” So I looked up Watson and Crick who discovered DNA, they got the Nobel Prize for it. I surfed the internet and the first thing I found was James Watson's Nobel prize acceptance speech. And the very first paragraph of his speech talks about the genetic code. Code, language, same thing.

     

    atheists need evolution needs atheists etc... garbage in garbage out

     

    look with love from above
    the desire to live is the desire to live forever
    you did not evolve never did and never will
    True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


    NoMoreCrazyPeople
    atheistSuperfan
    NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
    Posts: 969
    Joined: 2009-10-14
    User is offlineOffline
    mind over matter

    mind over matter wrote:

     Fundamentals in Science

    We all know some of the basic laws of science even if we could not write their mathematical formulations down on paper. For instance, we all know that you will never find a river, or a stream, which flows uphill for a few miles before descending in a waterfall. Okay, the waterfall is no problem, we all know about those, but you could not have a river running uphill for several miles in order to reach that point. Why? Because it breaks the law of gravity! Rivers, all on their own, don't run uphill, you would need some sort of pumping system. Commonly a river will rise in a mountainous area and will gradually meander it's way down to the sea, so it works with the law of gravity.
    To say that Man has evolved through a gradual process of evolution is incorrect because a law of science is being violated (just as 'the law of gravity' was violated in our river running uphill model), we will see the connection later.

    We must remember that science only works through theories, speculations and hypotheses. You can always test these against the laws of nature where that is possible.
    In our world, there are three realities for scientists to ponder over. They are:
    1. Life.
    2. Matter.
    3. Information.

    To take the second of those first, the laws of matter are well understood, but the understanding on information is very very new. Little has been written by evolutionists because they are always struggling not to acknowledge a superior intelligence in the universe. So there is much which is not understood by scientists. Regarding 'life,' the only law of nature here which we are aware of is this: Life can only come from life. Nobody doubts that, it is a well-established law. To digress for just one moment, the evolutionist is just as aware of that law as anybody else; they fully agree that life can only come from life. Despite this, because of the materialist foundation of evolution, they will nevertheless insist that - right at the beginning - life did come from non-life. It's amazing really to consider that fact.

    If, for a moment, you can imagine somebody constructing a walking robot, it would have to have some clever working parts; legs, for instance, which could move back and forth and which could bend, maybe you could even make it clever enough to climb a few steps all on it's own. But it would need a small computer with it's 'walking program' to be installed on it. With a good program it might work fine, after a certain fashion. But if you deleted the program on the walking robot's mini computer it could not move any more. Again, after deleting the information on the program, the walking robot would be no lighter in weight - you have deleted information, not matter. But if you stumbled over it as you went to make a cup of coffee and broke one of it's legs and you then decide to throw the 'leg' away until you make a new one, you will reduce it's weight since the 'leg' is matter. So it will then be lighter in weight.
    In like manner, if you could delete a person's DNA, it is doubtful you would even make that person a few ounces lighter because the DNA is just solid information, yet there is so much of it that if unravelled it, it could stretch from earth to the moon! So it always helps to keep the distinction between matter and information clear. Again, science pretty much understands matter but it has very little understanding on 'information,' because evolution restricts it to a material, godless universe.

     

    two kinds of laws of nature:

    a. Material Entities.
    Energy, power, electricity.

    b. Non-material Entities.
    Consciousness, information.

    Laws of Nature are universally valid, whether in Europe, America, Africa or on the moon - it makes no difference where you are.
    Laws of Nature do not vary in time.
    Laws of Nature are simple.
    There are no exceptions.
    Laws of Nature help us to determine beforehand whether a process is, or is not, possible. This is why, when we look again at our earlier suggestion that a river could run uphill for several miles, we see that it is impossible because these laws of nature are 'constants.'

     

    Scientific Definition of Information

    Imagine this: You are looking at a chart of hieroglyphic symbols before the discovery of the Rosetta Stone. You would have had no interpretation, you would be hopelessly confused. In fact, this was the way it was until the 1799 discovery of the Rosetta Stone. The discovery of that stone tablet enabled us to be able to interpret hieroglyphics. But before then if we were shown a chart of those symbols we would not know whether or not that chart was 'information.' Since that point we can now say that it is information, causing us to interpret a previously hidden language. Before then, you would be unsure, one might apply a very loose label of 'information' to it but it would not be information in the sense of imparting real understanding regarding what the writer of those ancient symbols had in mind.

    Any definition in science must be very precise and very clear. It must have sharp, distinct borders that includes the subjects of the definition and excludes everything else. For example the definition of energy in physics is stated very carefully. In the same manner, information is carefully defined in science.
    Within natural law, information includes five levels:
    a. Statistics (signal, number of symbols).
    b. Syntax (set of symbols, grammar).
    c. Semantics (meaning).
    d. Pragmatics (action).
    e. Apobetics (purpose, result, the highest level of information).

    With Apobetics, full understanding has been imparted from the information sender to the information recipient.
    If you have those five points then you have an entire information system.

    If we find all these five levels in an unknown system (as with the Rosetta Stone illumination of Egyptian hieroglyphics), then we can be absolutely sure that this is a true information system. This is then no longer a matter of speculation but the case is proved. When 'information' is established, intelligence comes with it; that is the bit that evolutionists don't like, and worry about, of course.

    ten laws of nature about information:

    a. Anything material, such as physical processes, cannot create anything non-material.
    b. Information is a non-material fundamental entity and not a property of matter.
    (The idea is creeping into many books that information is a part of matter but that is totally incorrect, it is completely separate from matter).
    c. Information requires a material medium for storage and transmission.
    (Your mind, 'spirit,' intellect and consciousness need your brain).
    d. Information cannot originate in statistical processes.
    e. There can be no information without a code.
    f. All codes result from an intentional choice and agreement between sender and recipient.
    g. The determination of meaning for and from a set of symbols is a mental process that requires information.
    h. There can be no new information without an intelligent, purposeful sender.
    i. Any given chain of information can be traced back to an intelligent source.
    (Interestingly, in most cases we cannot see the information sender. In a library you will see thousands of books but not the writers of those books! When you listen to music, you do not see the composer).
    j. Information comprises the non-material foundation for all technological systems, works of art or biological systems.

    Does the code found within DNA fit into the definition domain of information? Yes, in quite a major way, suffice to say that our human DNA is rich in information cannot be anything but a huge understatement: in fact, it is the highest density of information which it is ever possible to find anywhere on earth, and - - if unravelled, a person's human DNA would stretch all the way to the moon. This is the 'information system' which every single human being has - without it, we could not 'work' or function in any way.

     

    All Five Levels of Information Must be Present:

    a. Statistics (signal, number of symbols).
    b. Syntax (set of symbols, grammar).
    c. Semantics (meaning).
    d. Pragmatics (action).
    e. Apobetics (purpose, result, the highest level of information).
    Again, these are scientific laws. From this we can draw not weak, but strong conclusions!

    1. There Must be a Sender.
    Since the DNA code of all life forms is clearly within the definition domain of information, we conclude that there must be a sender! If somebody should claim that life comes without a sender, we can say that this is a totally wrong idea! Conclusion? Atheism is a wrong idea. Again, the law of nature is the highest level of science!

    From the conclusions about the laws of nature and about information, what can we say about the sender? Psalm 14:1.

    2. The Sender is Omniscient.
    Since the density and complexity of the dna information is billions of times greater than man's present technology, we must conclude that the sender is supremely intelligent and has all knowledge. John 16:30.

    3. The Sender Must be Purposeful and All-Powerful (Omnipotent).
    Since the sender must have:
    a. encoded (stored) the information into the DNA molecules,
    b. constructed the molecular bio machines required for the encoding, decoding and synthesising processes, and,
    c. designed all the features for the original life forms, then we can say that the sender must be purposeful and omnipotent. This isn't negotiable - it is obvious! Revelation 1:8.

    4. The Sender Must be Eternal.
    That supreme sender must have infinite information. He knows everything at the moment, but He must also know everything about the past and the future too. So He must be eternal in existence. Psalm 90:2.

    5. The Sender Must be a Spirit Being.
    Since information is a non-material fundamental entity and cannot originate from the material, the Sender must be a Spirit. John 4:24.

    Let us again remind ourselves that we have arrived at this point by using scientific laws! Who is the Sender? Science can reveal God but cannot go beyond that, but the Bible does. Ten times it says, 'And God said...' in Genesis 1. Also see Psalm 33:9. John 1:1,3.

    We can now use the laws of nature to go further:

    6. The 'Mass and Energy Alone' Theories About the Origin of the Universe Must Be Wrong!
    Since information is a Non-Material Entity, we must conclude that the universe itself is not composed solely of mass and energy! From this we can say that the 'big bang' model is erroneous. They say that at the beginning there was only matter and energy. That cannot be correct. Energy and matter are only material entities, and the laws of nature state that matter cannot create a non-material entity. This world is full of information, just consider the millions of books which have been written, but matter cannot produce information (as we have seen), so the idea that there was only matter and energy at the beginning is bound to be a flawed idea, there must also have been a non-material source of information! This is a very quick and scientific way to refute the 'big bang' model.

    7. All Theories and Concepts About Biological and Chemical Macro-Evolution Are Erroneous!
    Since biological information originates only from an Intelligent Sender, and all theories of biological and chemical evolution require that the information must originate solely from mass and energy, it therefore follows that all theories or concepts of biolological and chemical evolution are incorrect!
    Evolution is an impossible process because well-established laws of nature must be broken in order for it to happen. We can state this from the highest level of science. It is for the evolutionist to falsify us by proving the initial origin of information from the non-material. It cannot be done!

    So all concepts of chemical and biological evolution are refuted - yes, refuted - by the laws of nature on information and these same laws uphold the belief that the universe and all life has an origin through THE ALLMIGHTY Creator YAHUWAH

           Haha, exaclty. 


    mind over matter
    Theist
    mind over matter's picture
    Posts: 210
    Joined: 2010-04-09
    User is offlineOffline
    YOU can't believe reality because U CANT handle the truth !!!!

    NoMoreCrazyPeople's picturea pimp and his bitches

    I can`t believe you guys are

    Submitted by NoMoreCrazyPeople on May 17, 2010 - 2:48pm.

     

    I can`t believe you guys are still talking to this chimp chump guy, he`s complety retarted.-

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->>>>>You can't because you are a slapnut with no individuality!  and  you are still a chump with chimp envy! you failed to meet my posted challenge because you know YOU can't !!!! because science has facts that expose you as a fraud lover in denial.

     

    since you fail yet again to demonstrate your religious dogma through the scientific method you prove you are useless to you atheist lost cause.

    which is fine however you also represent all the atheist drone bitchnuggets on this thread who like you ignore and rant and then spew nonsense about speculation and then mouth off as if they have proven their dementia is relevant.

     

    NOW,... run along back to your atheist home base you monkey wannabe. and tell all your fellow atheist chumps with chimp envy to come and meet my posted challenge.

     

    look with love from above
    the desire to live is the desire to live forever
    you did not evolve never did and never will
    True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


    NoMoreCrazyPeople
    atheistSuperfan
    NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
    Posts: 969
    Joined: 2009-10-14
    User is offlineOffline
    mind over matter wrote:a

    mind over matter wrote:

    NoMoreCrazyPeople's picturea pimp and his bitches

    I can`t believe you guys are

    Submitted by NoMoreCrazyPeople on May 17, 2010 - 2:48pm.

     

    I can`t believe you guys are still talking to this chimp chump guy, he`s complety retarted.-

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->>>>>You can't because you are a slapnut with no individuality!  and  you are still a chump with chimp envy! you failed to meet my posted challenge because you know YOU can't !!!! because science has facts that expose you as a fraud lover in denial.

     

    since you fail yet again to demonstrate your religious dogma through the scientific method you prove you are useless to you atheist lost cause.

    which is fine however you also represent all the atheist drone bitchnuggets on this thread who like you ignore and rant and then spew nonsense about speculation and then mouth off as if they have proven their dementia is relevant.

     

    NOW,... run along back to your atheist home base you monkey wannabe. and tell all your fellow atheist chumps with chimp envy to come and meet my posted challenge.

     

    I am on this forum to exachange knowledge, ideas, and have good discussions.  I always post open invitations to reasonable theists to have reasonble discussions.  You on the other hand are a bafoon, you represent every venomfangx moron, posting giant copied walls of garbage followed by arrogant and agressive comments.  I have no intention of waisting 1 more mintue disussing anything with a blatant babbeling bafoon, you do a great job making yourself look stupind on your own. 

     

     Have a nice day.


    mind over matter
    Theist
    mind over matter's picture
    Posts: 210
    Joined: 2010-04-09
    User is offlineOffline
    you should stay in your cave you chump with chimp envy

    NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture

    mind over matter wrote:a

    new

    Submitted by NoMoreCrazyPeople on May 17, 2010 - 3:17pm.

     

     

    mind over matter wrote:

     

    NoMoreCrazyPeople's picturea pimp and his bitches

    I can`t believe you guys are

    Submitted by NoMoreCrazyPeople on May 17, 2010 - 2:48pm.

     

    I can`t believe you guys are still talking to this chimp chump guy, he`s complety retarted.-

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->>>>>You can't because you are a slapnut with no individuality!  and  you are still a chump with chimp envy! you failed to meet my posted challenge because you know YOU can't !!!! because science has facts that expose you as a fraud lover in denial.

     

    since you fail yet again to demonstrate your religious dogma through the scientific method you prove you are useless to you atheist lost cause.

    which is fine however you also represent all the atheist drone bitchnuggets on this thread who like you ignore and rant and then spew nonsense about speculation and then mouth off as if they have proven their dementia is relevant.

     

    NOW,... run along back to your atheist home base you monkey wannabe. and tell all your fellow atheist chumps with chimp envy to come and meet my posted challenge.

     

     

     

    I am on this forum to exachange knowledge, ideas, and have good discussions.->>LIAR

      I always post open invitations to reasonable theists to have reasonble discussions.  ---->>LIAR

    You on the other hand are a bafoon, you represent every venomfangx moron, posting giant copied walls of garbage followed by arrogant and agressive comments.  I have no intention of waisting 1 more mintue disussing anything with a blatant babbeling bafoon, you do a great job making yourself look stupind on your own. ------> LIAR

     

    you started insulting me with typical atheist bicthnugget remarks. and that is all you have done in your posts. did you meet my posted challenge? NOOOOO!

    because you are a chump with chimp envy!

    and you whine about my aggressive attitude towards hypocrites like you on this so called irrational response fraud.

    veniomfang X?     what is that supposed to be a refference as in copy and paste.  information about evolution is very limited because it is full of shit. and therefore you have to repeat the same lies over and over without without admitting you are a fool.

     

    all you have done is waist your time posting insults and then complaing about being insulted.!! while continuing to post nonsense. lol

    the issue is not creation vs evolution you dumbass!!!  

    it is CREATOR vs dumb ass ingrates like you!

     

     

     

     Have a nice day.

     

    look with love from above
    the desire to live is the desire to live forever
    you did not evolve never did and never will
    True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


    mind over matter
    Theist
    mind over matter's picture
    Posts: 210
    Joined: 2010-04-09
    User is offlineOffline
    atheists>evolution>atheists>evolution=garbage in/out etc.....

    atheists need evolution needs atheists need evolution etc....  garbage in garbage out

     

    Below are the basic tenets of the Theory of Evolution (for both Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism) as published in National Geographic Magazine:

    The gist of the concept is that small, random, heritable differences among individuals result in different chances of survival and reproduction ' success for some, death without offspring for others ' and that this natural culling leads to significant changes in shape, size, strength, armament, color, biochemistry, and behavior among the descendants. Excess population growth drives the competitive struggle. Because less successful competitors produce fewer surviving offspring, the useless or negative variations tend to disappear, whereas the useful variations tend to be perpetuated and gradually magnified throughout a population.

    National Geographic November 2004 Vol 206 No 5---------->they should change their name to National Pornographic Fagazine

     

    Every Helpless Baby Born Proves Darwin Was Wrong

    The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell is "Survival of the fittest." But most mammals and birds give birth to helpless babies - instead of strong and fit ones. Neither Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism can explain infantile helplessness. Every baby that is born contradicts Evolution Theory and this is a fatal flaw.

    Darwin Purposely Overlooked Helpless Babies To Save His Theory

    Infantile Helplessness Busts The Theory of Evolution

    Here is why:

    Every Baby Born Helpless Proves Darwin Was Wrong

    According to the Theory of Evolution, within each species, the babies with "better genes" that help them to be born the most fit and self-reliant would survive the best, breed the most, and pass on their better genes to their offspring. Therefore each succeeding generation would have babies that are increasingly self-reliant and fit until the species would ultimately breed babies that are completely self-reliant at birth. Mammals are the highest form of life and Darwinism would predict that all mammals give birth to babies that are totally fit and not in need of help from the mother.

    But the opposite it true.

    All mammals and birds have offspring that are handicapped with infantile helplessness.

    Infantile helplessness contradicts Darwinism so fundamentally that unless Darwinists can explain it, Creationists have the right to say Darwinism is disproved by the facts of life.

    On the other hand, infantile helplessness supports Logical Creationism, which believes that the world is the purposeful creation of a loving ELOAH YA AM. One purpose is to teach humanity how to love selflessly and help us to be protective and gentle. Having helpless babies assists us to learn selfless love, compassion and self-sacrifice. Every parent has made sacrifices for his or her child and this is as YAHUWAH intended it.

    YAHUWAH knew that there would come a Theory of Evolution and He made certain to create life on Earth in such a way that there would be major discrepancies between real life and the false theory. YAHUWAH is the Master of timing and this is the time He chose to bust Darwin .

    The Theory of Evolution is Wrong: It Predicts that the Most Advanced Species Would Produce the Most Self-reliant Offspring

    How did life begin on Earth? And how come there is such a diversity of species on this planet?

    As far as Darwinists are concerned, their answer is that life began by chance, with the simplest form of bacteria they call prokaryotes, and the prokaryotes "evolved" into more complex forms of life, which in turn then diversified into all the 8 million species we now have on this planet.

    How does a Darwinist explain how, after 4 billion years of evolution, we end up with helpless babies'?

    The fact is as we climb the evolutionary tree of complexity we find diminishing fitness on the way up because of the survivability of the babies.

    Darwinists cannot explain this. It is a FLAW IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. And because this flaw concerns the very essence of the theory (reproduction and survivability, which are the foundations of evolution theory) the FLAW IS FATAL TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

    The Theory of Evolution is Wrong: It Would Predict that Babies of Each Species Would Become Increasingly More Fit From One Generation to the Next

    CLEARLY  it is easy to understand that the bullshit religious pagan concept /Theory of Evolution would lead us to predict that over time, each generation of babies of a species would become more and more "fit" because being fitter as a baby would be a "useful variation" that would "tend to be perpetuated and gradually magnified throughout the population". Also, the more "fit" the baby, the greater the "chances of survival and reproduction" and the extra fitness would be passed on to the children of the fittest babies.

    Therefore, according to Darwinism, each new generation of a species would give birth to offspring that are more fit than the offspring of the previous generation. And this would be "magnified" over and over. The result would be that over time, each species would have offspring that are totally self-reliant. And there would be no species that gave birth to unfit offspring

    According to Darwinism, certainly after hundreds of millions of years of evolution, there should not be any species left that gave birth to helpless offspring.

    But Darwin was wrong, which is why most mammals and birds give birth to fragile babies that are totally helpless. The fact is that most baby mammals and birds are helpless and fragile. There is no way Darwinism can explain infantile fragility. Therefore THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS FATALLY FLAWED.

    We people of faith in YAHUWAH as ALMIGHTY CREATOR are not the only ones who thought about this. Evolution scientists know this, but they have suppressed the truth in a worldwide Darwin Conspiracy.

     

     

     

    look with love from above
    the desire to live is the desire to live forever
    you did not evolve never did and never will
    True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


    chndlrjhnsn
    chndlrjhnsn's picture
    Posts: 159
    Joined: 2010-03-28
    User is offlineOffline
    Parents take care of babies.

    Parents take care of babies.

    edit: you moron.


    HisWillness
    atheistRational VIP!
    HisWillness's picture
    Posts: 4100
    Joined: 2008-02-21
    User is offlineOffline
     mind over matter wrote:Oh,

     

    mind over matter wrote:
    Oh, wait a minute. Thats right, evolution can not be observed, tested, or measured.

    Hey, I guess you're right. I should probably tell all the biologists to ... well, just stop what they're doing. Clearly, they're all wasting time.

    So ... Nylon-eating bacteria just aren't enough for you, right? You would need a bacterium to turn into a weasel before you'd be happy, is what I'm reading. Why is it always about magic with you guys?

    PS - how could I *possibly* take you seriously? It's a stretch of the imagination I can't make.

     

    Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
    fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


    mind over matter
    Theist
    mind over matter's picture
    Posts: 210
    Joined: 2010-04-09
    User is offlineOffline
    there are people who eat ceramic and metal so what?

    HisWillness's picture

     mind over matter wrote:Oh,

    Submitted by HisWillness on May 19, 2010 - 6:28pm

     

     

     

    mind over matter wrote:
    Oh, wait a minute. Thats right, evolution can not be observed, tested, or measured. ----------> that is a repeatable testable scientific fact.

     

    Hey, I guess you're right. I should probably tell all the biologists to ... well, just stop what they're doing. Clearly, they're all wasting time

    So ... Nylon-eating bacteria just aren't enough for you, right? You would need a bacterium to turn into a weasel before you'd be happy, is what I'm reading. Why is it always about magic with you guys?

    PS - how could I *possibly* take you seriously? It's a stretch of the imagination I can't make.

     

     

    or I guess you are refering to dipshit atheist monkey wannabe biologists who are fearful of losing their humanist agenda based jobs that pay a pretty penny to never question lies and to perpetuate a stupid wannabe religion for atheists chumps with chimp envy in denial like you.

    nylon eating bacteria? are seriosuly gonna use that as you case for billions of years of bullshit?  

    NO I would need a weasel to turn into a dipshit atheist human being like you. as far as your little case for the nylon bacteria,  tell  me, is it something other than a bacteria? because it has the ability to eat garbage?  it is obviously still a bacteria with the ability to adapt not to evolve into something new  as in a dumb ass atheist chump like you. despite how much imaginary time you want to include to futher your dementia.

     

    PS - how could I *possibly* take you seriously? It's a stretch of the imagination I can't make.------->>> yeah thats right in my case against you.  you seem to be fine with putting faith in things you cannot see. as long as you are not held accountable by a supreme being who created you.

     

     

    I suppose you think contortionists are not human becasuse they are deformed. we see different kinds of humans  so tell which kind is the one that proves evolutioon? the the midget? the black the white asian?  or perhaps you like darwin are a racists asshole?  or maybe you think abortion is not murder?

    or that because some humans can eat metal ceramic acid shit  etc.... you probably will call that evolution too? you must be so deluded you dont see what a drone you really are?

    you fail to grasp the difference between information and matter as well and the difference between spirit and flesh.

    a large proportion of people like you, including many leading scientists, believe that all plants and animals, including the incredibly complex brains of the people who make watches, motor cars, etc., were not designed by an intelligent supernatural intelligent being but rather came from an unintelligent evolutionary process.

    at the end of the day you are a fool to thinks that non living matter naturally formed the human brain by chance over billions  of atheist years but could not design a everything  else that the brain designed  through unnatural means.

    look with love from above
    the desire to live is the desire to live forever
    you did not evolve never did and never will
    True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


    liberatedatheist
    atheistScience Freak
    liberatedatheist's picture
    Posts: 137
    Joined: 2009-12-08
    User is offlineOffline
     http://richarddawkins.net/a

     http://richarddawkins.net/articles/119

    Evolution is a scientific fact. it happens, it has been observed, tested and proven. I know that all of the tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers on the subjects are probably over your head so go get a fifth grade biology textbook and read their explanation. you don't understand even the most basic premises of the theory so how do you expect to be able to raise valid objections or understand the explanations of those who do understand it. You are wasting everybody's time by stubbornly repeating the same creationist slogans even when people give you legitimate scientific evidence that literally directly contradicts your claims. try to understand the theory before you criticize it.

    I Am My God

    The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence


    chndlrjhnsn
    chndlrjhnsn's picture
    Posts: 159
    Joined: 2010-03-28
    User is offlineOffline
    Why doesn't Mind Over have a

    Why doesn't Mind Over have a Troll Badge?


    NoMoreCrazyPeople
    atheistSuperfan
    NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
    Posts: 969
    Joined: 2009-10-14
    User is offlineOffline
    chndlrjhnsn wrote:Why

    chndlrjhnsn wrote:

    Why doesn't Mind Over have a Troll Badge?

    seriously?


    HisWillness
    atheistRational VIP!
    HisWillness's picture
    Posts: 4100
    Joined: 2008-02-21
    User is offlineOffline
    mind over wrote:or I guess

    mind over wrote:
    or I guess you are refering to dipshit atheist monkey wannabe biologists who are fearful of losing their humanist agenda based jobs that pay a pretty penny to never question lies and to perpetuate a stupid wannabe religion for atheists chumps with chimp envy in denial like you.

    Wow.

    mind over wrote:
    nylon eating bacteria? are seriosuly gonna use that as you case for billions of years of bullshit?

    So that would be a "no", then. 

    mind over wrote:
    NO I would need a weasel to turn into a dipshit atheist human being like you.

    I don't know how to do that. You seem very angry about it, though.

    mind over wrote:
    as far as your little case for the nylon bacteria,  tell  me, is it something other than a bacteria? because it has the ability to eat garbage?  it is obviously still a bacteria with the ability to adapt not to evolve into something new  as in a dumb ass atheist chump like you. despite how much imaginary time you want to include to futher your dementia.

    Nope, it's still bacteria. We give things names, so sometimes things that are different (e.g. finches and sparrows) still evolve, despite the fact that we still call them "birds". Our names for them have no bearing on whether or not they're evolving.

    mind over wrote:
    PS - how could I *possibly* take you seriously? It's a stretch of the imagination I can't make.------->>> yeah thats right in my case against you.  you seem to be fine with putting faith in things you cannot see. as long as you are not held accountable by a supreme being who created you.

    It's an interesting idea, this being that created me. It seems to be the only thing you don't question.

    mind over wrote:
    I suppose you think contortionists are not human becasuse they are deformed. we see different kinds of humans  so tell which kind is the one that proves evolutioon? the the midget? the black the white asian?  or perhaps you like darwin are a racists asshole?  or maybe you think abortion is not murder?

    You have many concerns. I do believe that contortionists are humans. In fact, even people with birth defects are still human, despite their mutation. Sometimes mutations don't work out for the best.

    mind over wrote:
    or that because some humans can eat metal ceramic acid shit  etc.... you probably will call that evolution too? you must be so deluded you dont see what a drone you really are?

    Well if I were deluded, then by definition, I wouldn't see what I was (provided that was the nature of my delusion).

    mind over wrote:
    you fail to grasp the difference between information and matter as well and the difference between spirit and flesh.

    I see. You appear to have complete knowledge of everything I understand without asking. It's quite a feat.

    mind over wrote:
    a large proportion of people like you, including many leading scientists, believe that all plants and animals, including the incredibly complex brains of the people who make watches, motor cars, etc., were not designed by an intelligent supernatural intelligent being but rather came from an unintelligent evolutionary process.

    Not exactly true. We tend to be very vague about what we call "intelligent". The evolutionary process has certainly produced some interesting things, yes.

    mind over wrote:
    at the end of the day you are a fool to thinks that non living matter naturally formed the human brain by chance over billions  of atheist years but could not design a everything  else that the brain designed  through unnatural means.

    And yet, the same designer screws up, and we have birth defects. Also, what's an "atheist year"?

    Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
    fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


    mind over matter
    Theist
    mind over matter's picture
    Posts: 210
    Joined: 2010-04-09
    User is offlineOffline
    you failed to meet my posted challenge , you admit defeat!!!

    HisWillness's picture

    mind over wrote:or I guess

    Submitted by HisWillness on May 24, 2010 - 1:41pm.

     

     

    mind over wrote:
    or I guess you are refering to dipshit atheist monkey wannabe biologists who are fearful of losing their humanist agenda based jobs that pay a pretty penny to never question lies and to perpetuate a stupid wannabe religion for atheists chumps with chimp envy in denial like you.

     

    Wow.-----------

     

    --->>>>>yeah that is a typical ignore and rant retreat  from your atheist elitest mentality

     

    mind over wrote:
    nylon eating bacteria? are seriosuly gonna use that as you case for billions of years of bullshit?

     

    So that would be a "no", then.   ----------

     

     

    ---> you are very deluded like dawkins and darwin and charles lyle and every deauche atheist closet pagan in denial on this irrational response fraud of a thread.  of course your typical example of proofs are always things you don't understand about information and matter being separate things, you chump with chimp envy.

     

    mind over wrote:
    NO I would need a weasel to turn into a dipshit atheist human being like you.

     

    I don't know how to do that. You seem very angry about it, though.  ----

     

     

    ---> No not about it, rather  about the blind faith you seem to be in denial of while proping it up as something based on reality observed through the scientific method. which you seem to be afraid of. like all the chumps who have yet to demstrate a single aspect of my challenge. to prove your atheist religion of evolution is not just a man made pagan concept based in humanist lies . 

     

    mind over wrote:
    as far as your little case for the nylon bacteria,  tell  me, is it something other than a bacteria? because it has the ability to eat garbage?  it is obviously still a bacteria with the ability to adapt not to evolve into something new  as in a dumb ass atheist chump like you. despite how much imaginary time you want to include to futher your dementia.

     

    Nope, it's still bacteria. We give things names, so sometimes things that are different (e.g. finches and sparrows) still evolve, despite the fact that we still call them "birds". Our names for them have no bearing on whether or not they're evolving.------

     

     

    -----> poor atheist monkey wannabe siiting in a tree staring at the ground like a dumb ass with glee.  you need to stop and clear the methane in your mind bubble.  despite your interpretation of the data it does not prove that birds with the already present ability to adapt are in fact as you claim in you delusion to be evolving.  a finch gets a small beak then gets a big beak  and then a small beak -  that is what darwin failed to grasp as  variation  within a limit not evolution from finch to dumb ass atheist  closet pagan with a vendetta against the true CREATOR.  your flaw is the same as that deauche bag darwin. He is a mortal fool with a petty bitter attitude as an ingrate with satans feather in his cap.

     

    mind over wrote:
    PS - how could I *possibly* take you seriously? It's a stretch of the imagination I can't make.------->>> yeah thats right in my case against you.  you seem to be fine with putting faith in things you cannot see. as long as you are not held accountable by a supreme being who created you.

     

    It's an interesting idea, this being that created me. It seems to be the only thing you don't question.----

     

    ----------->>>>> again you ignore and rant like the petty humanist pawn you are.  I pitty you and the path you are on in the time you have that is measured.

    the foundation of science was to grasp all of creation and thus the CREATOR through our perception of matter in space over time. what you are doing with your reasoning in atheism is depending on lies/evolution as your foundation for your worldview.

    in science the goal is to excersise our free will and find our way  as we spend the limited time to learn the to measure the knowledge of good and evil.  you think death is an easy way to compensate for your pessimistic attitude towards a CREATOR for your sake I will tell you HIS NAME IS YAHUWAH and you can do your own research on that.  The actual uncurrupted scriptures teach that we are to question everything, so your petty rebuttal is a chump attempt to prove yourself worthy of being mature.

    YAHUWSHUA which means YAHUWAH IS SALVATION was the the person who said it in so many ways.

    NOOOOO, it is atheist monkey wannabes raised on billions of years and the stupid dogma of  rocks turning into humans that can design machines and  pc s that can process information that have no weight yet nowhere in evolution do we see examples of anything found in nature to be possibly man made we do find things in nature that supass everything manmade as far as machines and examples of what know is clearly information imprinted on matter .

     

    your problem is that you are taught never to question your pagan man made religion of evolution over unseen atheist imagined years which claims there is no need for a creator in the reality of all creation. WHY? because you are a peasant with your attitude. you are considered a spiritual goat. you refuse to open your eyes because you are spiritually blind, probably through no fault of your own but your life testimony will be your judgment.

     

    its easy to look into space with a set of scieintific criteria for what is considered evidence for intelligence yet here on earth you are a living zombie.

     

     

     

    mind over wrote:
    I suppose you think contortionists are not human becasuse they are deformed. we see different kinds of humans  so tell which kind is the one that proves evolutioon? the the midget? the black the white asian?  or perhaps you like darwin are a racists asshole?  or maybe you think abortion is not murder?

     

    You have many concerns. I do believe that contortionists are humans. In fact, even people with birth defects are still human, despite their mutation. Sometimes mutations don't work out for the best.------

     

     

    -------->> no again you are boring yourself to death with your ignore and rants mentality.

    there is a reason you refuse to accept about aging sickness suffering , death and decay, found in all creation, as in all things are clearly seen as winding down. just as certain scientist had admitted there is a switch in the human dna that causes aging and their goal is to shut it off or reverse it in their quest the the anti aging holy grail.

    the point is all the defects you so smugly refer to are for a good reason above you capcity to grasp in your current state of being a deauch bag atheist chump like every ranting atheist on this thread who have yet to address my  simple posted challenge based in common sense apllied through the scientific method you seem to lay claim to as a prize belonging to an elitest atheist bitchnuggets only club.. oh but then you may say with pride  there is no journal peer review to back up the interpretation of the data that states the simplest organsim is still a completes sum of its  mechanical parts and complete set of information installed at a molecular level beyond any tech known to man in modern day arrogant networking hype with of progress.

     

    mind over wrote:
    or that because some humans can eat metal ceramic acid shit  etc.... you probably will call that evolution too? you must be so deluded you dont see what a drone you really are?

     

    Well if I were deluded, then by definition, I wouldn't see what I was (provided that was the nature of my delusion).

     

    mind over wrote:
    you fail to grasp the difference between information and matter as well and the difference between spirit and flesh.

     

    I see. You appear to have complete knowledge of everything I understand without asking. It's quite a feat.---

    -------------it does appear that my knowledge of matter in space over time surpasses your petty materialistic impotence.

    you must be pretty high on your atheist closet pagan religion of evolution based education to think any common person cannot tell you where its at in eternity. problem for you is you rely on death and and not the promise of eternal life and that is to your own demise sadly.

    you clearly show the capacity of your complete knowledge with your ignore and rant posts while you claim  my simple challenge is beneath  your elitest richturd dawkins  agenda. its bad enough with all the stupid paganism in the world that to top it off we have people like you pretending your science fiction is not a religion.

     

    mind over wrote:
    a large proportion of people like you, including many leading scientists, believe that all plants and animals, including the incredibly complex brains of the people who make watches, motor cars, etc., were not designed by an intelligent supernatural intelligent being but rather came from an unintelligent evolutionary process.

     

    Not exactly true. We tend to be very vague about what we call "intelligent". The evolutionary process has certainly produced some interesting things, yes.---

     

    ---->>>  yeah when it comes to demonstating facts through intelligence you  are very vague    and the evolutionary process is nice term that means nothing in the real world of progress and growth. sure people use it in every lingo now because of all the media brainwashing but so what a we can say the first electric  car evolved  100's of years ago from a horse drawn buggy  to a air polluting internal combustion scam by a bunch of humanist drones for satan.

     or then there is the radio that evolved into a 3d tv  or better yet a human evolves into a member of the X-men thanks to anti cancer surviving  mutations etc......super deauche/ wolf man

     

    mind over wrote:
    at the end of the day you are a fool to thinks that non living matter naturally formed the human brain by chance over billions  of atheist years but could not design a everything  else that the brain designed  through unnatural means.

     

    And yet, the same designer screws up, and we have birth defects. Also, what's an "atheist year"?-------------

     

     

    ------------------------ahh finally we get to your true feelings on the issue of why darwin and people like you still piss and moan about scrathed knees and unsatifactory freckles and being short or tall or missing a heart like the tin man  or in your case a straw man minus a brain with truespirit of  intellect for reality

    as I stated  earlier  the reason for screw up is justified along with the fact that will are living on time scale that is measured meaning the person who wrote the measurment knows when and how and why you will check whereas you can only read the measuement already imprinded on your material shell

     

    an atheist year is the unobserved atheist version of unit of measurement for unseen time applied in the pagan concept of the equation for the origin of life and information from nothing which you like to speclaute  can do anything and sometime people like you forget yourselves and actually refer to it as  your mother as in mother nature did this  or created that  or designed this or that . the truth exposes you as a chump in an atheist cesspool.

     

    tell me do you have a problem with pro murder? regarding unwanted pregnancy? I doubt it!   you should research the stats on abortion and then the reality of the execution methods used by scumbag atheists with no compulsion for their human genocide under protection of the so called law of the land.

    and then research the mental state of the women who realize the full reality of their selfish act for self preservation.

     

    funny how deauche bags who spread the lie of survival of the fittest offspring fail to teach the fact that yes primitive lifeforms like lizards seem to have it figured out with offspring being fully iindependant at birth while a more superior life form  the mammal in our case humans are born completly helpless in need of selfless love , compassion self sacrifice  and protection semm to contradict the basic foundation of your whole stupid dogma of evolution through selection bring out a superior offspring reaching an apex in design.

     

    since you failed to meet my posted challenge  I accept your failure  as a sign of defeat on behalf of all humansit chumps on this thread as well as richturd dawkins and every other scumbag  who preaches pagan concepts of origins from the time of babylon and before that teach to worship creation and not the creator.

     

     

     

    please keep up the intelligent design in your futile quest to prove to need for intelligent design

    look with love from above
    the desire to live is the desire to live forever
    you did not evolve never did and never will
    True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


    chndlrjhnsn
    chndlrjhnsn's picture
    Posts: 159
    Joined: 2010-03-28
    User is offlineOffline
    Does anybody know how we

    Does anybody know how we should go about getting Mind Without Matter a Troll Badge? Please help. I don't know what else to do with this guy; I have nothing to say to him.

    edit: what if everybody just threw up huge walls of irrelevant text like Mind w/out Matter? Where would this forum be then? That would be so bunk.


    iwbiek
    atheistSuperfan
    iwbiek's picture
    Posts: 4298
    Joined: 2008-03-23
    User is offlineOffline
    yeah, come on, mods, pull

    yeah, come on, mods, pull the plug on this bullshit.  or just what exactly do you have to do to get a troll badge?  hell, if that jackass REVLyle has one, this dumbass should have one.  at least rev is more or less coherent and doesn't keep using the same toddler-esque, sing-songy insults over and over.

    i swear to god, this guy reminds me more and more of a guy who was booted out of the christianity forum on amazon about 3 years ago.  if it is indeed him, the insults have changed but his method of delivery hasn't.  perhaps he's gone a tad crazier in the meantime, but that's to be expected when you've developed an enormous persecution complex after having been hounded out of every forum you've ever participated in.

    "I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
    --Hunter S. Thompson


    Vastet
    atheistBloggerSuperfan
    Vastet's picture
    Posts: 13245
    Joined: 2006-12-25
    User is offlineOffline
    Vastet wrote:The OP proves

    Vastet wrote:
    The OP proves within the OP that he doesn't have a fraction of the basic knowledge of science or the proven field of evolution necessary to be willing to waste my time on.

    There's nothing more to be said.

    Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


    B166ER
    atheist
    B166ER's picture
    Posts: 557
    Joined: 2010-03-01
    User is offlineOffline
    This is insane!

    Mindless Fascist Matter is still here and no Troll badge to speak of? I'm amazed that with his walls of cut-n'-paste banditry, he has yet to earn the Troll badge!

    Dude, all your "rock solid" arguments against evolution, like "why are babies not already big and strong the instant they are born?" just show how little you understand about the subject. If you had even the most basic of science educations, you would realize how stupid that sounds.

    And really, you need to find better sites to copy-n'-paste in they're entirety then ones that have been long shown to be completely ridiculous.

    So, in closing, Mindless Fascist Matter Troll, you are just succeeding in making all religious people look like morons. Any religiously questioning people coming here and seeing what you have to say, they will soon realize how stupid religion and it's followers are, and BOOM, the world has another atheist! You don't realize how many atheists are around because of the insanity of people like you. THANK YOU!

    "This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
    "A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
    "The means in which you take,
    dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
    "Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
    No Gods, No Masters!


    chndlrjhnsn
    chndlrjhnsn's picture
    Posts: 159
    Joined: 2010-03-28
    User is offlineOffline
    The highlights:mind w/out

    The highlights:

    mind w/out matter wrote:

    dipshit atheist monkey wannabe biologists * atheists chumps with chimp envy * douche atheist closet pagan in denial * you chump with chimp envy. * dipshit atheist * chumps * humanist lies * dumb ass atheist chump * atheist monkey wannabe * dumb ass atheist * that douche bag darwin. *    petty humanist pawn * scriptures teach that we are to question everything * chump * atheist monkey wannabes * stupid * rocks turning into humans * peasant * spiritual goat *   zombie. * you like darwin are a racists asshole * douch bag atheist chump * atheist bitchnuggets *   drone * stupid * humanist drones for satan. * super douche * fool * chump in an atheist cesspool. * scumbag atheists * douche bags * stupid * humanist chumps * scumbag 

    I read mind w/out matter so you don't have to!

    Edited for spelling.


    cj
    atheistRational VIP!
    cj's picture
    Posts: 3330
    Joined: 2007-01-05
    User is offlineOffline
    dear moderator(s)

    I vote for a troll badge for mind w/o matter.  He contributes nothing but name-calling and endless drivel.  Thanks in advance.

    -- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

    "We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

    "If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


    butterbattle
    ModeratorSuperfan
    butterbattle's picture
    Posts: 3945
    Joined: 2008-09-12
    User is offlineOffline
    I have not seen a response

    I have not seen a response to post #107. Can you respond to it please MOM? Thx. 

    Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


    HisWillness
    atheistRational VIP!
    HisWillness's picture
    Posts: 4100
    Joined: 2008-02-21
    User is offlineOffline
    Note: I can't apply a

    Note: I can't apply a "troll" badge. I think that takes Ultra Mod Powers or something. I'm still trying to see if this guy is the ultimate inverse Turing test. I'm pretty sure I could write an algorithm for these responses.

    mind over wrote:
    yeah that is a typical ignore and rant retreat  from your atheist elitest mentality

    I guess it's true - I'm not totally shocked that you both believe in magic AND believe that I have some kind of agenda.

    mind over wrote:
    you are very deluded like dawkins and darwin and charles lyle and every deauche atheist closet pagan in denial on this irrational response fraud of a thread.  of course your typical example of proofs are always things you don't understand about information and matter being separate things, you chump with chimp envy.

    I don't get the "closet pagan" bit, but okay. I think it's spelled "douche", if that's what you were going for. My "proof" was always simpler than that: I don't believe you. I don't believe you that there's a Magic Dad. That's all. There's no proof, you're just not convincing me.

    As for evolution, we have lots of evidence to support the description of the process. If you want to ignore that, that's your prerogative.

    mind over wrote:
    No not about it, rather  about the blind faith you seem to be in denial of while proping it up as something based on reality observed through the scientific method. which you seem to be afraid of. like all the chumps who have yet to demstrate a single aspect of my challenge. to prove your atheist religion of evolution is not just a man made pagan concept based in humanist lies .

    The whole point of the scientific method is avoiding blind faith. I'm not sure what you think I'm afraid of, but it takes quite a long time to do a degree in biology, so perhaps you might consider that our answers can't be as comprehensive as you might like, for lack of both space and time.

    mind over wrote:
    poor atheist monkey wannabe siiting in a tree staring at the ground like a dumb ass with glee.  you need to stop and clear the methane in your mind bubble.  despite your interpretation of the data it does not prove that birds with the already present ability to adapt are in fact as you claim in you delusion to be evolving.  a finch gets a small beak then gets a big beak  and then a small beak -  that is what darwin failed to grasp as  variation  within a limit not evolution from finch to dumb ass atheist  closet pagan with a vendetta against the true CREATOR.  your flaw is the same as that deauche bag darwin. He is a mortal fool with a petty bitter attitude as an ingrate with satans feather in his cap.

    Then I suppose the variation between us and chimps isn't all that significant after all. We are, after all, primates.

    mind over wrote:
    the foundation of science was to grasp all of creation and thus the CREATOR through our perception of matter in space over time. what you are doing with your reasoning in atheism is depending on lies/evolution as your foundation for your worldview.

    So which lies should we focus on clearing up?

    mind over wrote:
    NOOOOO, it is atheist monkey wannabes raised on billions of years and the stupid dogma of  rocks turning into humans that can design machines and  pc s that can process information that have no weight yet nowhere in evolution do we see examples of anything found in nature to be possibly man made we do find things in nature that supass everything manmade as far as machines and examples of what know is clearly information imprinted on matter .

    That's what's known as a "run-on sentence". They're fine in Latin, but in English, they just confuse people. Try to avoid them.

    Who told you rocks turned into humans?

    mind over wrote:
    your problem is that you are taught never to question your pagan man made religion of evolution over unseen atheist imagined years which claims there is no need for a creator in the reality of all creation. WHY? because you are a peasant with your attitude. you are considered a spiritual goat. you refuse to open your eyes because you are spiritually blind, probably through no fault of your own but your life testimony will be your judgment.

    True that I am "spiritually blind". I've never experienced anything that would make me think that there's a spirit.

    mind over wrote:
    the point is all the defects you so smugly refer to are for a good reason above you capcity to grasp in your current state of being a deauch bag atheist chump like every ranting atheist on this thread who have yet to address my  simple posted challenge based in common sense apllied through the scientific method you seem to lay claim to as a prize belonging to an elitest atheist bitchnuggets only club.. oh but then you may say with pride  there is no journal peer review to back up the interpretation of the data that states the simplest organsim is still a completes sum of its  mechanical parts and complete set of information installed at a molecular level beyond any tech known to man in modern day arrogant networking hype with of progress.

    Again with the run-on sentences. It's very difficult to understand what you mean. It was also difficult to understand your original "challenge", for the same reason.

    mind over wrote:
    you must be pretty high on your atheist closet pagan religion of evolution based education to think any common person cannot tell you where its at in eternity. problem for you is you rely on death and and not the promise of eternal life and that is to your own demise sadly.

    you clearly show the capacity of your complete knowledge with your ignore and rant posts while you claim  my simple challenge is beneath  your elitest richturd dawkins  agenda. its bad enough with all the stupid paganism in the world that to top it off we have people like you pretending your science fiction is not a religion.

    You're going in a spiral at this point: I'm seeing a lot of cut-and-paste. In future, you could write shorter sentences, and get better answers.

    mind over wrote:
    yeah when it comes to demonstating facts through intelligence you  are very vague    and the evolutionary process is nice term that means nothing in the real world of progress and growth. sure people use it in every lingo now because of all the media brainwashing but so what a we can say the first electric  car evolved  100's of years ago from a horse drawn buggy  to a air polluting internal combustion scam by a bunch of humanist drones for satan.

     or then there is the radio that evolved into a 3d tv  or better yet a human evolves into a member of the X-men thanks to anti cancer surviving  mutations etc......super deauche/ wolf man

    Here's a fact: the first electric car was made sometime in the 1830s. Do you think I'm brainwashed for accepting that as fact?

    I have no idea how you've managed to get satan, cars and a comic book character into your ideas about design, but bravo.

    mind over wrote:
    ahh finally we get to your true feelings on the issue of why darwin and people like you still piss and moan about scrathed knees and unsatifactory freckles and being short or tall or missing a heart like the tin man  or in your case a straw man minus a brain with truespirit of  intellect for reality

    Well Darwin's dead, so I'm sure he's not moaning about anything. Or do you believe in ghosts?

    mind over wrote:
    as I stated  earlier  the reason for screw up is justified along with the fact that will are living on time scale that is measured meaning the person who wrote the measurment knows when and how and why you will check whereas you can only read the measuement already imprinded on your material shell

    I don't think there was any content in that sentence.

    mind over wrote:
    tell me do you have a problem with pro murder? regarding unwanted pregnancy? I doubt it!   you should research the stats on abortion and then the reality of the execution methods used by scumbag atheists with no compulsion for their human genocide under protection of the so called law of the land.

    and then research the mental state of the women who realize the full reality of their selfish act for self preservation.

    It's an operation. Do you weep at the loss of every skin cell that drops from your body? Every hair? Those cells died, after all. 

    mind over wrote:
    since you failed to meet my posted challenge  I accept your failure  as a sign of defeat on behalf of all humansit chumps on this thread as well as richturd dawkins and every other scumbag  who preaches pagan concepts of origins from the time of babylon and before that teach to worship creation and not the creator.

    Maybe you should ask your creator about judging others. You seem to like to judge others.

    mind over wrote:
    please keep up the intelligent design in your futile quest to prove to need for intelligent design

    Uh, yeah. You have a nice week, too.

    Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
    fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


    mind over matter
    Theist
    mind over matter's picture
    Posts: 210
    Joined: 2010-04-09
    User is offlineOffline
    what is information? knowledge communicated or received

    butterbattle's picture

    mind over matter

    Submitted by butterbattle on April 20, 2010 - 2:33pm.

     

     

     

     1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news.

     

    These are many different definitions. Which one are you using?

    You stated that information is knowledge that comes from an intelligence, correct? 

     

    mind over matter wrote:
    Don't insertions, duplications, etc. add information?--------->NO! not in a way that supports your pagan religion of evolution of any type.
      

     

     

    Assuming that information is knowledge from an intelligence, okay.---->>>> ->you assume things with out facts

    Then, my next question is, why is information, as you defined it, necessary for evolution? ---------->>>>evolution does not happen in the way you are misled to believe it on paper.  someone like you with your mentality twisted the facts to portray variation within a limited design as evolution from lower life forms to humans over an imaginary variable amount of unseen un observed un scientific amount of time estimated in millions and billions of units /years based in biased anti creator beliefe foundation of loose sand and water.

    Don't insertions and duplications add more base pairs? -------->> NO not in a way that demonstrates billions of years and abio evolution or scum to humans given enough time and chance.  you have the prewritten code that regulates all the duplications and insertions that in context may add more base pairs.  your problem is that you have yet to take a closer look at the whole operation at work and realize the sum of mechanisms working like a industrial factory the size of a city with a infrastrutcure and intranet keeping it all in check unless it is tampered with by outside forces it has all the evidence to demonstrate no such thing as evolution is possible because every organism  we observe at the molecular  level is intensly organized with a technology yet to be repeated by the intelligence of humans even today. the closer you look the more you will see mechanisms upon mechanisms being regulated with a clockwork precision. the fact that you are desparate to prove humans are decended from lower life forms is your religion not your observation of the real world.

    What physical things do you need to add or change in genome other than the order and number of the base pairs to produce evolution?---------------------------------------->>>>>I dont need to change anything because that would demonstrate a need for intelligent intervention and thus yet again refute evolution in the simplest way you fail to grasp.  you keep insisting that a hiccup in the chain of events that constitute cell division are a proof of evolution from scum to humans from non living matter without any need for a supernatural intelligent designer.  so a brick layer changes the pattern of the orginal blueprint  and goes off the beaten path and the end result is a house that does not stand the test of time or does not look according to the plan, that does not mean the plan was not already there  and that  the plan was not relevant to the whole process to begin with .   you are reffering to thing that have no bearing on the whole sum of parts involved in cell division that as a whole refute your little assumptions about changing the intelligent design discovered by intelligent humans as the progress and grow  yet never evolve.  just as a house with a new addition added on does not prove the house evolved a new code for the new addition or change in the design from here on. the point is from the house analogy to the genome  it is still a set of parameter already in place to allow for these changes oberved not evolution over unseen time and chance manipulations by the environment wich is a non living entity and has no say in the design of things as we observe them with intelligence. you do not rely and on chance to understand things , so why do you assume chance is the cause. you are surely intelligent enough to know evodence for intelligence if you were looking into deep space yet here on earth at the molecular level you are a so deaf dumb and blind walking to the edge of oblivion.

     

     now for the answer regarding what is information and why it is relevant to your cause for existing

     Proteins are so hard to make that in all of nature, they never form except in already living cells. Never! This scientific fact stands in stark contrast to what was taught. 


    Evidence that life never comes from non-living materials is so abundant that it is a basic principle of science called the Principle of Biogenesis (living things come only from living things). Atheists and many agnostics have faith that contrary to this basic principle of science, life did evolve spontaneously from chemicals at least once. They now call their theory “abiogenesis” which comes from roots that mean “not Biogenesis.” They no longer use the term “spontaneous generation.”
     

    there is more scientific evidence that life could not form without a Creator. RNA never forms except in already living cells: “… no one has yet succeeded in creating RNA.”  The fact that RNA is vital to the life of every cell, and cannot be made except by already living cells is powerful evidence against life forming without a Creator.

    “… proteins fold into a highly complex, three-dimensional shape that determines their function. Any change in shape dramatically alters the function of a protein, andeven the slightest change in the folding process can turn a desirable protein into a disease.” Living cells fold such proteins in less than a second. This evidence shows that the One who invented the way proteins fold in cells is much more intelligent than the new super computer.

    Proteins are not made where they will be used, and are worthless except in the one spot they fold to fit. How do proteins find their way? “… newly minted proteins contain an amino acid string that determines their eventual home.”The amino acid string which forms the address is usually added as a tail on the end of the longer string of amino acids which make up the protein. This tail has been compared to the address on an envelope.

    put a bunch of your letters in the mail box without addressing them. If the right addresses were to form spontaneously, you would probably call it a miracle

    Misplacing a protein is more serious than losing a letter, however. There are diseases where proteins are mistargeted in cells.  All available evidence indicates that creating and coding the correct information for each address requires intelligence.

    Cells can’t live unless each of their many proteins not only folds correctly, but receives the correct address tag. When several things must be in place at the same time for an object to function, it is called “irreducible complexity,” and is evidence that it had a creator. 

    The cell also needs the right amount of each protein.

    If a first living cell had formed without a Creator, the cell would still have had to replace each of its proteins as soon as it wore out. If the cell did not contain the information to correctly turn on and off the production of the replacement proteins, the cell would have died as soon as the first essential protein wore out. This is evidence that there is a Creator who knows how to turn protein production on and off!

    The proteins that make up cells will not form anywhere in nature except in already living cells. One reason cells can make them is because the directions for making them and for turning their production on and off are already present in the cell’s library of information called DNA. Once made, proteins could not function unless they were properly folded and addressed. Neither making proteins, folding, addressing, nor regulating their production could invent itself, yet no cell could live unless all were in place working together. These brilliant solutions are scientific facts and constitute evidence for a very intelligent Creator who plans ahead.

     

     

     below is just one of many example of the hipocrisy on this thread   everyone seems to be concerned about troll badges while failing to meet my posted challenge   lol      you still have yet to meet my posted challenge  and that is because you know it will expose you as a religious zealot for evolution  based on lies and paganism. thanks in part to charles lyle and charles darwin and the satanic churches of the world.  the point is knowing these things that have been made known to you whom are also made shall place you in a position where you are found without excuse in your life testimony as a mortal spec in an eternal perspective.

     

    A Cell Must Have a Membrane, lipids are only produced by accurately controlled reactions in living cells. This is important evidence!

     What does the cell’s membrane do?A living cell is a self-reproducing system of molecules held inside a container. The container is the plasma membrane - a fatty film so thin and transparent that it cannot be seen directly in the light microscope. It is simple in construction, being based on a sheet of lipid molecules…. Although it serves as a barrier to prevent the contents of the cell from escaping and mixing with the surrounding medium…the plasma membrane does much more than that. Nutrients have to pass inward across it if the cell is to survive and grow, and waste products have to pass outward. Thus the membrane is penetrated by highly selective channels and pumps, formed from protein molecules, that allow specific substances to be imported while others are exported. Still other protein molecules in the membrane act as sensors to enable the cell to respond to changes in its environment.


    A lipid membrane without its protein pumps and channels would let water enter the cell, but would keep nutrients out, starving the cell, so proteins had to work together with the lipids from the first, another important evidence, of carefully planned irreducible complexity.

    If cells had really formed spontaneously, we would expect their important parts to be made of materials that form easily under natural conditions. However, not one of the four: lipids, proteins, RNA, or DNA, can be made that way at all!
       Amazing! Not one is formed in nature except by a living cell, yet for a cell to live, all must be there at the same time, each one doing its job. If  YAHUWAH had wanted to shout to you that He is here, and show you proof that He created, could you find a more convincing proof for Him to use?

    SOOOOOOOO.........Where Did the Information in Cells Come from?    are you still keeping up?

    What is information?  knowledge communicated or received ,..a message that conveys meaning, such as a book of instructions.… Information is not matter, though it is imprinted on matter.     Information is not produced by the material that carries it :

     

    Information is not determined by the material it is written on, whether it be paper, a computer, or whatever. The same sheet of paper can be used to draw a comic strip or to write a chemical formula. The same stretch of DNA that carries the commands for brown hair can just as easily hold the commands that will make blond hair; or teeth for that matter! Information comes from minds. My old Encyclopedia Britannica was on a CD. Now I consult a copy on the Internet. The message is independent of the material it happens to be written on.
     

     

    Neither does information depend on the particular set of letters or code it is written in. If this booklet is translated into Chinese, the information will be the same. The information in DNA has been copied onto computers in the Human Genome Project, and printed out on paper. It is the same information no matter what it is written on, in, or with.

    There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is there any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.  All languages, alphabets, and codes that we know of, as well as the information spoken or written in them, originated in minds. The blind faith of the atheist that the first life was an exception is contrary to all known evidence.

    there is no way that chance, clay, “organic soup,” or natural selection could invent the chemical code of a first cell, and use it to write information instructing the cell to make just the right proteins, fold them properly, and send each one to the only place in the cell where it will fit.  Information never happens apart from intelligence, yet cells contain huge amounts of information. I believe this is the most important single evidence that life came from the mind of an intelligent Creator rather than from dumb chemicals. 
    the presence of large quantities of organized information in cells is evidence of an intelligent Creator.
    The codes which carry the information in DNA and RNA use four nucleotides which work like a four letter alphabet. If that doesn’t sound like enough letters, remember that any message can be written with computers or in Morse Code. Both have alphabets of only two letters. The four nucleotide bases that form the “letters” of the DNA code, can be arranged to spell out the instructions for making all the different proteins. All available evidence indicates that it takes intelligence to devise letters or code, and arrange them into instructions. 
      
     

    Scientists use information as a proof of intelligence 
    because the evidence overwhelmingly supports this position. The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of YAHUWAH. Modern people put symbols in their spacecraft to try to send a message into space that there are intelligent beings on earth. YAHUWAH built cells out of materials so hard to make that in all of nature these materials never form apart from living cells. Into these cells He put information which can only have come from a mind. In doing so, He sent a strong message to all who have minds; a message which helps pry open our stubborn hearts to know Him who said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” 

     

    The evidence that an intelligent Creator made the information in DNA is reinforced by the fact that this information takes up the least space possible. After a number of intelligent scientists had worked for many years developing ever better microfilm they fit the entire Bible on one 32 X 33 mm film. Amazing! However, that same space covered with DNA would hold information equivalent to 7.7 million Bibles!

     

     

    If DNA was formed with no intelligent input as ATHEIST chump with chimp envy biology books often imply, why did it take generations of intelligent scientists thousands of man hours to develop the millions of times less efficient microfilm?

    No matter how strong the atheist’s faith may be, his belief that the information in cells formed with no mind involved is contrary to the evidence. The evidence indicates that the information in DNA was put there by a Creator who is so intelligent that we should listen to everything He has to say. 

    the stupid atheist chump with chimp envy is a liar and a fool Redefining Science to Eliminate the Creator.  noone (closet pagan ATHEIST DRONES) on this thread has yet to meet my posted CHALLENGE because they are all mind bubbles floating without direction and purpose.


     

     

    mind over matter wrote:

     

  • a message received and understood
  • knowledge acquired through study or experience or instruction
  • data: a collection of facts from which conclusions may be drawn; "statistical data"
  • Information as a concept has many meanings, from everyday usage to technical settings. The concept of information is closely related to notions of constraint, communication, control, data, , instruction, knowledge, meaning, mental stimulus, pattern, perception, and representation.
  •  

     

    look with love from above
    the desire to live is the desire to live forever
    you did not evolve never did and never will
    True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


    butterbattle
    ModeratorSuperfan
    butterbattle's picture
    Posts: 3945
    Joined: 2008-09-12
    User is offlineOffline
    butterbattle wrote:Assuming

    butterbattle wrote:
    Assuming that information is knowledge from an intelligence, okay.

    mind over matter wrote:
    Assuming that information is knowledge from an intelligence, okay.---->>>> ->you assume things with out facts

    Huh?

    It's semantics. For convenience, I'm going to use the same definition of 'information' that you're using; that's what I meant by "assuming." Isn't this the definition that you're using? I was asking you to define information, and you wrote, "information comes from a source of knowledge which implies a living source," in post #81.

    So, you're defining information as knowledge from an intelligence. Correct?

    butterbattle wrote:
    Then, my next question is, why is information, as you defined it, necessary for evolution?

    mind over matter wrote:
    evolution does not happen in the way you are misled to believe it on paper.  someone like you with your mentality twisted the facts to portray variation within a limited design as evolution from lower life forms to humans over an imaginary variable amount of unseen un observed un scientific amount of time estimated in millions and billions of units /years based in biased anti creator beliefe foundation of loose sand and water.

    Um, okay, why is information necessary for evolution?

    butterbattle wrote:
    Don't insertions and duplications add more base pairs?

    mind over matter wrote:
    NO

    No? They don't add more base pairs?

    mind over matter wrote:
    not in a way that demonstrates billions of years and abio evolution or scum to humans given enough time and chance.

    For now, I'm just asking you whether or not insertions and duplications can add more base pairs. Adenine with thymine or cytosine with guanine.

    mind over matter wrote:
    you have the prewritten code that regulates all the duplications and insertions that in context may add more base pairs.

    So, yes, they do add more base pairs?

    mind over matter wrote:
    your problem is that you have yet to take a closer look at the whole operation at work and realize the sum of mechanisms working like a industrial factory the size of a city with a infrastrutcure and intranet keeping it all in check unless it is tampered with by outside forces it has all the evidence to demonstrate no such thing as evolution is possible because every organism  we observe at the molecular  level is intensly organized with a technology yet to be repeated by the intelligence of humans even today.

    Okay, so you're saying organisms couldn't have evolved because they are so complex that even humans haven't made them yet?

    butterbattle wrote:
    What physical things do you need to add or change in genome other than the order and number of the base pairs to produce evolution?

    mind over matter wrote:
    I dont need to change anything

    Nothing needs to be changed to produce evolution?

    mind over matter wrote:
    because that would demonstrate a need for intelligent intervention and thus yet again refute evolution in the simplest way you fail to grasp.

    Okay. Then, what would God need to change about the genome to make it seem like evolution was happening?

    Couldn't God have designed the process of evolution to create all the organisms? 

    mind over matter wrote:
    Evidence that life never comes from non-living materials is so abundant that it is a basic principle of science called the Principle of Biogenesis (living things come only from living things). Atheists and many agnostics have faith that contrary to this basic principle of science, life did evolve spontaneously from chemicals at least once. They now call their theory “abiogenesis” which comes from roots that mean “not Biogenesis.” They no longer use the term “spontaneous generation.”

    For this discussion, I'm only interested in trying to explain evolution, not abiogenesis.  

     

    Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare