Boston Marathon explosions......

[PearlWatson]

That lesson is independent of your crazy *** story.Any God believer can conclude that the more children they have the more chances they'll have to get grandchildren.
You Darwiniacs say the more kids you have the more chances you'll have to accidentally have a merman grandkid.
Woohoo! I want a merman grandkid! I am going to have 20 kids.

More children from the same people is not diversity.

We ain't talking sibling incest. The spouses of the kids provide the genetic diversity. It ain't that hard to figure out.

 

[PearlWatson]

Humans are also still apes, still primates, still mammals, still lizards, still fish, and still worms.
We have fossils of invertebrate-to-fish evolution. We have knowledge of various developmental pathways required for teeth, and how they have changed over the millenia.

Of course humans are mammals because the females have breasts to feed the little human babies that come out, but they ain't ever anything but humans. They ain't lizards, fish, or worms and they don't give birth to baby amaebas either. They are merely categorized as primates because of their similar features, but since fossils do not reveal descendant relationships, ordering them from worms to fish to lizard to mouse to primate in a fake "tree of life" is simply guesswork.

Hilarious version of your crazy *** story:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ983dbDrng

 

[PearlWatson]

Now that I have mulled over Siro's "chemical selection" with my mind/intelligence I find it the most reasonable definition for "natural selection" that has been proposed. That makes sense seeing as Siro prides himself on having one of the highest Intelligence Quotients on the board.

Since he says "chemical selection" occurs on mutations of genes, he would then have to account for the existence of DNA in the first place. If chemical "acidity" (?) accounts for the selection, he would then need to provide support for the belief that the mutation that are chemically selected occur randomly.

Since most mutations that we can observe are deletarious to the organism (diseases, cancer) he will have a hard time convincing me of the plausibility of random mutations accidentily creating any new attribute of value to the organism.
As for the existence of DNA, Francis Crick ( <---co-discovered DNA) has said, "The probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make it absurd."

This is the point where Crick (an atheist) came up wit the story that highly intelligent extraterrestrials sent living cells to Earth on an unmanned spaceship, in order to avoid acknowledging a God.

I think Siro is also saying size and type of adaptation is not relevant to complexity of the adaptation. Microscopic organisms can be just as "evolved" as apes. Intelligently designed sky scrapers are just as "evolved" as houses.
For me"Evolved" in this case means that they are designed with a specified purpose in mind. In other words they are "adapted to their environment."

 

[NUMBERICA]

I think it's very small-minded to assume that everything has to have a designer. Bonus points if the designer happens to be a dude in the clouds in space. But, sure, maybe. Perhaps we'll see.

I'm sure many here will find this post charming.

Anyway, I just checked in to see if this thread was still kicking because of 9/11 TURTH or whatever and am amused where this thread is currently. You gotta love it.

 

[PearlWatson]

I think it's peabrained to think life requires a designer.

But we are supposed to consider you a rocket scientist if you think your mom's ****** accidentally fell on your Dad's weenus?

 

[One Brow]

DEMBSKI'S INFORMATION THEORY
I'll pick back up on our discussion of "experts" in information theory.

So you say mathematicians who write on information theory professionally are experts.
I give you a brilliant mathematician who writes on information theory professionally and that still ain't good enough for you.

As I have already explained, Dembski has almost no literature published in mathematical magazines. So, you have given none.

Complexity: a measure of improbability
Specificity: a recognized pattern (a story in a book, a royal flush in poker)

One Brow: "Complexity is the natural result of randomness."
No, complexity is the intelligent result of design.

Read Dembski more carefully. He fully acknowledges that randomness creates complexity. His claim is that it creates unspecified complexity, and the he can distinguish this from specified complexity.

How well do you think you can defend Dembski when I understand his argument better than you?

No, the last and final step to Darwin's theory is that a new attribute/species is created. Any test of such a theory would have to account for the final step.

There is no final step, or even a cycle of steps, in evolutionary theory. To simplify explanations for some people, it can be described that way, but it's not part of the theory.

It absolutely is.

Any true scientific observation can be stated in tautological form; that's an easy word game. For example, 'Gravity exists because objects attract each other' or 'Lava is hot because it has a high temperature'. Natural selection is the differential survival that comes from the interaction of variation and the environment. YOu can restate that tautologically, just like anything else, but it's not tautological by nature.

You can't predict events after they have occured, and then claim they were an accident after observing the repeated occurence.

Natural selection is necessity, not accident.

Your presentation of a story book pattern that never happens (<---intelligent publishers wouldn't do that so it ain't a pattern we see) dismisses what concept?

There if more information in two copies of Hamlet than there is in on, when the copies are laid out linearly, therefore Dembski's claim was wrong.

 

[One Brow]

PearlWatson: All I get from Darwiniacs is, "It was an accident! Accidents happen all the time!" Or I get the ever so convincing scientific argument "Mutations happen!" (<---has a "crap-like" ancestor)

One Brow: Perhaps that all you understand, but it's not all you are told.

PearlWatson: That was almost word for word what you and Siro have used as arguments to support your accidental common ancestry theory.

You may have noticed that I used "all" twice in my response. I didn't say you were never told that, I said that's not all you have been told.

 

[One Brow]

How would you know your gggggrandpappy's appendix size. Appendixes don't fossilize.

Teeth do. As our diets have changed, so has the wear patterns on our teeth changed. The appendix would have changed with changes in diet over millions of years.

Ancestors with big mouths have room for more teeth, but that doesn't mean the ancestor had any other "ape-like" features.

Currently, we all ape-like features. Any feature of all apes, humans have.

 

[One Brow]

Yes, but you'll notice that to create a sculpture(design) you need a sculptor(intelligence). It is so damn obvious even Hellen Keller could see it.

New Hampshire's Man of the Mountain disagrees with you, unless you think rain is an intelligent force.

 

[PearlWatson]

Can you produce a native speaker of Old English? Koine Greek? Sanskrit? Does that mean no one ever spoke those languages? Is that a good reason to doubt those languages existed?
We don't have living organisms from single-cell to ape, but we have records that the creatures existed, just like we have records for dead languages.

I haven't read your new responses yet but I just realized that I am either being punked or you just unwittingly provided the perfect example of Complex Specified Information with intelligent causes (language) and then demonstrated Dembski's Law of Conservation of Information for him.
You said because the CSI (language) exists there must be an intelligence source (language speaker).
You are an ID Theorist disguised as an METer!

 

[One Brow]

I haven't read your new responses yet but I just realized that I am either being punked or you just unwittingly provided the perfect example of Complex Specified Information with intelligent causes (language) ...

Again, you are showing you don't understand what CSI is supposed to be.

 

[moevillini]

in other news, have you folks heard about the message that was scrawled inside the boat where the surviving brother was hiding?