****Official Bill Nye The Science Guy Thread******* (2 Viewers)

[matuski]

You are seeking out the minutia that you don't understand in some misguided attempt to attack the whole. Have you turned this same effort on your own position that "god did it"?

How can you not hold your version to the same standards you hold anything else? Why lower the bar for religion?

 

[shader]

You are seeking out the minutia that you don't understand in some misguided attempt to attack the whole. Have you turned this same effort on your own position that "god did it"?How can you not hold your version to the same standards you hold anything else? Why lower the bar for religion?

Fair points, and I'm sure many haven't done so. I personally have. It's something everyone should do.

 

[MasterofOrion]

How is genetic drift a loss of information?

It causes variations to disappear.

That doesn't mean there is a loss of information. Also, I can just as easily say it causes variations to appear. If I take population of organisms, isolate a few, and subject them to selective pressures the isolated group will likely express new traits over time. You then have the original population with all the variation it had before and the new population expressing traits the original didn't have.

When you loose a variation the genetic information is lost (via genetic drift.) You than state after something louses information, natural selection and selective pressures come to the rescue and will increase information. This is the question: How do you get more information without hand waving, - an increase in the genome that creates new systems, new designs new something. Pickles used several examples where information was lost, losing variations, as proof of evolution. This is moving in the wrong direction. Sure we can roll a ball down hill, but having the ball roll up hill is harder to do.

You keep stipulating this insistence that information must be gained for evolution to be true. This is not accurate. Regardless, there are multiple mechanisms in evolution, and there is certainly the capacity for information to be increased in a system. This is not in dispute.

All of this discussion of mechanism has me wondering what you think ID says on the matter. If a intelligent non-god-but-exactly-the-same-as-god designs living systems, when was all of the "information" injected into the system? All at once? Periodically? When does the intelligent spaghetti monster of truth decide to wield his magic wand? How does this work? How would we test something like this? What predictions can we make?

Information can be measured. When we see a burst of specified information (punctuated equilibrium) that indicates something happened. Since specified information has only one source - intelligence- that indicates this was designed event by a designer. I.D. does not say who the designer is, other that it can be measured, tested ,quantified and is provable/disprovable theory.

 

[MasterofOrion]

I don't know how you quantify either on to be honest. Which is harder or less hard. Life from non- life is a miracle and something science isn't close to explaining.

Which makes more sense: saying "I don't know" or "god did it"?

I am saying that God did it. Why because life, DNA, has specified information which is information that a third party understands. DNA needs ribosomes to create proteins. Ribosomes understands the DNA code and uses it to create something. This is analogous to computer code and computer. The computer code is no value unless it has a "third party" which understands the language that can use it. The only source of specified information is intelligence . This is a theory which best describes the facts and it can be disproven. This is not saying God did it and leaving it that. Information can be measured quantitatively by Shannon Information theory.

So if god did it, why did he do such a ####ty job? Why did he make us susceptible to disease but not sharks? He created cancer, addiction, droughts, natural disasters... I could go on here but you get the point. People, created in gods image, are horribly designed. Look at the female reproductive system! Just terrible. Why would an omnipotent god be so terrible at creating stuff?

Sorry I missed this. Are we able to tell the difference between good and bad design? if so Is design detectable, measurable and quantifiable. If so is a bad design, female reproductive systems, not evidence of a bad design, rather than no design.So if we able to detect, measure and quantify design then is something like an eye designed? Why or why not.

 

[MasterofOrion]

When you loose a variation the genetic information is lost (via genetic drift.) You than state after something louses information, natural selection and selective pressures come to the rescue and will increase information. This is the question: How do you get more information without hand waving, - an increase in the genome that creates new systems, new designs new something. Pickles used several examples where information was lost, losing variations, as proof of evolution. This is moving in the wrong direction. Sure we can roll a ball down hill, but having the ball roll up hill is harder to do.

No, it isn't necessarily lost. This is an assumption you are making that is wrong. A change in phenotype could be made by loss, gain, or just a change in DNA. True, phenotypes can result from a loss, gain or change to DNA.Hell, many birth defects are due to an "information increase" (trisomies). An extra full or partial copy of a chromosome can have a dramatic effect on phenotype (it is pretty easy to recognize someone with Down's syndrome). In fact, many pregnancies are spontaneous miscarriages due to this increase in information. Repeating DNA or dublicating DNA code is not creating new information. It is simply duplicating it .

Also, before you say it is the same thing repeated, you are wrong. Chromosomes passed to offspring are a mix of the parents' DNA. If it wasn't then all children would look the same. The very fact that either an X or a Y chromosome is passed on to offspring illustrates that chromosomes are unique when they are passed - they contain different information. The process of meiosis isn't exact either. A passed on chromosome could be lengthened or shortened in the crossing over process. Sure we receive information from our parents via DNA and epigentics, but it isn't new information. Creating new information is what evolution has prove. It also shows the human genome is full of diversity, phenotype,, which has not been lost via genetic drift or other mechanisms that lose information.

We see complete duplication of chromosomes in plants resulting in new species that look completely different from the parent plant. This information kick that you are on is completely baseless. Polyploidy is gene duplication and yes they can not bread with their predicessors. We do obtain plants with thicker leaves and bigger fruit via polyploidy. But this is called secondary speciation which I discussed before. Secondary speciation does not provide evidence for Darwin's theory that species originate through natural selection, nor for the neo-Darwinian theory of speciation by geographic separation and genetic divergence and does not confer major new morphological characteristics. Is short, secondary speciation does not cause the evolution of new genera or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. So secondary speciation does not solve Darwin's problem. Only primary speciation -- the splitting of one species into two by natural selection -- would be capable of producing the branching-tree pattern of Darwinian evolution. But no one has ever observed primary speciation. Evolution's smoking gun has never been found.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I don't know how you quantify either on to be honest. Which is harder or less hard. Life from non- life is a miracle and something science isn't close to explaining.

Which makes more sense: saying "I don't know" or "god did it"?

I am saying that God did it. Why because life, DNA, has specified information which is information that a third party understands. DNA needs ribosomes to create proteins. Ribosomes understands the DNA code and uses it to create something. This is analogous to computer code and computer. The computer code is no value unless it has a "third party" which understands the language that can use it. The only source of specified information is intelligence . This is a theory which best describes the facts and it can be disproven. This is not saying God did it and leaving it that. Information can be measured quantitatively by Shannon Information theory.

So if god did it, why did he do such a ####ty job? Why did he make us susceptible to disease but not sharks? He created cancer, addiction, droughts, natural disasters... I could go on here but you get the point. People, created in gods image, are horribly designed. Look at the female reproductive system! Just terrible. Why would an omnipotent god be so terrible at creating stuff?

Sorry I missed this. Are we able to tell the difference between good and bad design? if so Is design detectable, measurable and quantifiable. If so is a bad design, female reproductive systems, not evidence of a bad design, rather than no design.So if we able to detect, measure and quantify design then is something like an eye designed? Why or why not.

So you missed it then failed to answer it.

 

[Bonzai]

Reading threads like this reminds of Orwell's 1984. Particularly the part at the end there, where O'Brien is really giving it to Winston. He survives 2+2=5; it's not until he is forced to denounce Julia that his mind is torn apart. I think it suggests that one's sanity isn't determined by how well one's thoughts or beliefs correspond to "objective reality", but how well they cohere with each other.

I think for some folks belief in God or Jesus is one of those cornerstone Jenga pieces that just isn't going to budge without the whole thing toppling over. I'm sure I have some as well, but I'm not really sure what they are...

 

[matuski]

You are seeking out the minutia that you don't understand in some misguided attempt to attack the whole. Have you turned this same effort on your own position that "god did it"?How can you not hold your version to the same standards you hold anything else? Why lower the bar for religion?

Fair points, and I'm sure many haven't done so. I personally have. It's something everyone should do.

You have repeatedly demonstrated you have not. Doggedly refused to when specifically challenged.

 

[shader]

You are seeking out the minutia that you don't understand in some misguided attempt to attack the whole. Have you turned this same effort on your own position that "god did it"?How can you not hold your version to the same standards you hold anything else? Why lower the bar for religion?

Fair points, and I'm sure many haven't done so. I personally have. It's something everyone should do.

You have repeatedly demonstrated you have not. Doggedly refused to when specifically challenged.

Wow this is where I step out of the thread. I never said I went through my entire belief system in this thread or in the FFA. I specifically wrote that I "personally have". Every person should at some point examine their beliefs, do soul-searching, etc. I have done that.As such I have come to the point where I am secure in what I believe. Just because you and others want me to provide "proof" for God doesn't mean I can do so. Anymore than you can prove to me how life could have originated without God. I could write a 1,000 word dissertation on why I believe in God, but would you read it? Or just point out the "logical errors" and look to attack it?As I said previously, there are many evidences for God, and they are unbelievably obvious to me. The cell, DNA, the human body, the mind, consciousness, it's all pretty evident for me. Again, I beg of you to accept that, and stop demanding that I explain MY beliefs to YOUR satisfaction. It's not going to mix.

 

[Jayrok]

I think for some folks belief in God or Jesus is one of those cornerstone Jenga pieces that just isn't going to budge without the whole thing toppling over.

Interesting comment. I think my wife is in this boat. Her faith in God and Jesus is what keeps her sane, according to her. It doesn't matter if any of it is true or real or not. It is the belief that it is real that matters. Even if it is a placebo effect and nothing more, her faith is strong and she isn't interested in discussing any of this stuff. I wish I could have that same kind of faith.

 

[sn0mm1s]

I wouldn't go down that route. Vestigal organs on humans is not one of evolution's shining moments.

Actually, it is. It is more a black eye on a perfect Creator. If designed - why have useless stuff? That said, the appendix isn't believed to serve no purpose any longer.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

You are seeking out the minutia that you don't understand in some misguided attempt to attack the whole. Have you turned this same effort on your own position that "god did it"?

How can you not hold your version to the same standards you hold anything else? Why lower the bar for religion?

Fair points, and I'm sure many haven't done so. I personally have. It's something everyone should do.

You have repeatedly demonstrated you have not. Doggedly refused to when specifically challenged.

Wow this is where I step out of the thread. I never said I went through my entire belief system in this thread or in the FFA. I specifically wrote that I "personally have". Every person should at some point examine their beliefs, do soul-searching, etc. I have done that.As such I have come to the point where I am secure in what I believe. Just because you and others want me to provide "proof" for God doesn't mean I can do so. Anymore than you can prove to me how life could have originated without God.

I could write a 1,000 word dissertation on why I believe in God, but would you read it? Or just point out the "logical errors" and look to attack it?

As I said previously, there are many evidences for God, and they are unbelievably obvious to me. The cell, DNA, the human body, the mind, consciousness, it's all pretty evident for me.

Again, I beg of you to accept that, and stop demanding that I explain MY beliefs to YOUR satisfaction. It's not going to mix.

YOU are the one claiming to know this. No one else is.

 

[sn0mm1s]

So why couldn't it just be "convergent evolution"?

It could - but the likelihood of that based on where the fossil was found and the age of the fossil is highly unlikely.

Yes, they spend hours and hours measuring lengths and bone density and that is all fine and good. Learning about the fossil in question is pure science.But then extrapolating that into imaginary scenarios where one evolves into another moves into science fiction and is imaginative.

It isn't extrapolating. It is a measuring of likeness or sameness based both geological and fossil evidence.

Still blows me away that you guys don't see the difference.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Repeating DNA or dublicating DNA code is not creating new information. It is simply duplicating it.

No, it isn't. If it was merely a duplication then we wouldn't see any effects. The book isn't the same when more information is added.

Sure we receive information from our parents via DNA and epigentics, but it isn't new information. Creating new information is what evolution has prove. It also shows the human genome is full of diversity, phenotype,, which has not been lost via genetic drift or other mechanisms that lose information.

It can be new information. The process of meiosis can have differing lengths of chromosomes cut and reattached. By adding longer strands of DNA to a chromosome new genes can be created.

Polyploidy is gene duplication and yes they can not bread with their predicessors. We do obtain plants with thicker leaves and bigger fruit via polyploidy. But this is called secondary speciation which I discussed before. Secondary speciation does not provide evidence for Darwin's theory that species originate through natural selection, nor for the neo-Darwinian theory of speciation by geographic separation and genetic divergence and does not confer major new morphological characteristics. Is short, secondary speciation does not cause the evolution of new genera or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. So secondary speciation does not solve Darwin's problem. Only primary speciation -- the splitting of one species into two by natural selection -- would be capable of producing the branching-tree pattern of Darwinian evolution. But no one has ever observed primary speciation. Evolution's smoking gun has never been found.

There is no "Darwin's problem". If the new plant isn't able to survive - then it doesn't and its genetic info is lost. That is natural selection. And we have seen "primary speciation" in plants (new plants in a population not based on polyploidy or hybridization). Lastly, we see the changes in the fossil record. We have never seen gravity or black holes either but the evidence is overwhelming that they both exist - same with evolution.

 

[shader]

I wouldn't go down that route. Vestigal organs on humans is not one of evolution's shining moments.

Actually, it is. It is more a black eye on a perfect Creator. If designed - why have useless stuff? That said, the appendix isn't believed to serve no purpose any longer.

exactly.

 

[matuski]

You are seeking out the minutia that you don't understand in some misguided attempt to attack the whole. Have you turned this same effort on your own position that "god did it"?

How can you not hold your version to the same standards you hold anything else? Why lower the bar for religion?

Fair points, and I'm sure many haven't done so. I personally have. It's something everyone should do.

You have repeatedly demonstrated you have not. Doggedly refused to when specifically challenged.

Wow this is where I step out of the thread. I never said I went through my entire belief system in this thread or in the FFA. I specifically wrote that I "personally have". Every person should at some point examine their beliefs, do soul-searching, etc. I have done that.As such I have come to the point where I am secure in what I believe. Just because you and others want me to provide "proof" for God doesn't mean I can do so. Anymore than you can prove to me how life could have originated without God.

I could write a 1,000 word dissertation on why I believe in God, but would you read it? Or just point out the "logical errors" and look to attack it?

As I said previously, there are many evidences for God, and they are unbelievably obvious to me. The cell, DNA, the human body, the mind, consciousness, it's all pretty evident for me.

Again, I beg of you to accept that, and stop demanding that I explain MY beliefs to YOUR satisfaction. It's not going to mix.

Your reaction is comical.We have asked you to show us where and how you have held your own beliefs to the standards you are trying to hold scientific theory accountable. Nothing more. Always the most simple and direct questions that drive you guys to cry foul.

You would not accept the following as evidence supporting evolution:

The cell, DNA, the human body, the mind, consciousness, it's all pretty evident for me.

Yet you repeatedly throw it out there as a (self evident) slam dunk for your own beliefs. Predictable hypocrisy and the heart of my issue with religion - you somehow allow yourself to be unwaiveringly convinced by lower standards of evidence and logic than you hold every single other situation and topic in your life.

 

[sn0mm1s]

I wouldn't go down that route. Vestigal organs on humans is not one of evolution's shining moments.

Actually, it is. It is more a black eye on a perfect Creator. If designed - why have useless stuff? That said, the appendix isn't believed to serve no purpose any longer.

exactly.

There are vestigal limbs and organs though - just because the appendix isn't entirely useless doesn't invalidate what I said.

 

[MasterofOrion]

I don't know how you quantify either on to be honest. Which is harder or less hard. Life from non- life is a miracle and something science isn't close to explaining.

Which makes more sense: saying "I don't know" or "god did it"?

I am saying that God did it. Why because life, DNA, has specified information which is information that a third party understands. DNA needs ribosomes to create proteins. Ribosomes understands the DNA code and uses it to create something. This is analogous to computer code and computer. The computer code is no value unless it has a "third party" which understands the language that can use it. The only source of specified information is intelligence . This is a theory which best describes the facts and it can be disproven. This is not saying God did it and leaving it that. Information can be measured quantitatively by Shannon Information theory.

So if god did it, why did he do such a ####ty job? Why did he make us susceptible to disease but not sharks? He created cancer, addiction, droughts, natural disasters... I could go on here but you get the point. People, created in gods image, are horribly designed. Look at the female reproductive system! Just terrible. Why would an omnipotent god be so terrible at creating stuff?

Sorry I missed this. Are we able to tell the difference between good and bad design? if so Is design detectable, measurable and quantifiable. If so is a bad design, female reproductive systems, not evidence of a bad design, rather than no design.So if we able to detect, measure and quantify design then is something like an eye designed? Why or why not.

So you missed it then failed to answer it.

The question is rhetorical.

 

[Marvin]

Reading threads like this reminds of Orwell's 1984. Particularly the part at the end there, where O'Brien is really giving it to Winston. He survives 2+2=5; it's not until he is forced to denounce Julia that his mind is torn apart. I think it suggests that one's sanity isn't determined by how well one's thoughts or beliefs correspond to "objective reality", but how well they cohere with each other. I think for some folks belief in God or Jesus is one of those cornerstone Jenga pieces that just isn't going to budge without the whole thing toppling over. I'm sure I have some as well, but I'm not really sure what they are...

Arapaho of nothing I wrote an essay back in college where I contended that "1984" was actually a love story that just happened to be set in a dystopian future. Just thought I'd share.

 

[Marvin]

I could write a 1,000 word dissertation on why I believe in God, but would you read it? Or just point out the "logical errors" and look to attack it?

Yes to both.

 

[shader]

You are seeking out the minutia that you don't understand in some misguided attempt to attack the whole. Have you turned this same effort on your own position that "god did it"?

How can you not hold your version to the same standards you hold anything else? Why lower the bar for religion?

Fair points, and I'm sure many haven't done so. I personally have. It's something everyone should do.

You have repeatedly demonstrated you have not. Doggedly refused to when specifically challenged.

Wow this is where I step out of the thread. I never said I went through my entire belief system in this thread or in the FFA. I specifically wrote that I "personally have". Every person should at some point examine their beliefs, do soul-searching, etc. I have done that.As such I have come to the point where I am secure in what I believe. Just because you and others want me to provide "proof" for God doesn't mean I can do so. Anymore than you can prove to me how life could have originated without God.

I could write a 1,000 word dissertation on why I believe in God, but would you read it? Or just point out the "logical errors" and look to attack it?

As I said previously, there are many evidences for God, and they are unbelievably obvious to me. The cell, DNA, the human body, the mind, consciousness, it's all pretty evident for me.

Again, I beg of you to accept that, and stop demanding that I explain MY beliefs to YOUR satisfaction. It's not going to mix.

Your reaction is comical.We have asked you to show us where and how you have held your own beliefs to the standards you are trying to hold scientific theory accountable. Nothing more. Always the most simple and direct questions that drive you guys to cry foul.

You would not accept the following as evidence supporting evolution:

The cell, DNA, the human body, the mind, consciousness, it's all pretty evident for me.

Yet you repeatedly throw it out there as a (self evident) slam dunk for your own beliefs. Predictable hypocrisy and the heart of my issue with religion - you somehow allow yourself to be unwaiveringly convinced by lower standards of evidence and logic than you hold every single other situation and topic in your life.

Matsuki, I'm struggling to figure out what you're asking of me. When I say that the cell is proof of a designer, I'm not implying that I see a cell, imagine a designer and give it no more than a brief cursory thought. I've given it plenty of thought and time over the years, and my personal investigations led me to believe it was designed. Why that isn't enough for you, I don't know. I'm not asking you to believe that, just that you guys respect the beliefs that many smart and logical people share along these lines.

If you want a quick peek into how I logically try to come about my beliefs that's fine. Just understand that I'm not posting them in order to convince you. I'm posting them so you'll quit saying that I'm not answering your questions, which is just not true.

The bottom line is that at some point there was not life on this earth, and than at a later point there was. Me personally, I haven't seen any way it could arise spontaneously. The sheer complexity of DNA and of the inner workings of a cell appears to be designed. Much like when you come across a fine-tuned machine, design appears to be obvious.

Now who designed it? Green aliens, God, Buddha, a pantheon of God's, highly intelligent creatures from another dimension? I don't think the physical evidence necessarily tells us anything about exactly who it was. At that point, you either accept that you don't know, or you look to other sources. At that point, your journey leaves the realm of science and enters the realm of religion. But whether it's religion or science, the ultimate reality is that there is a truth, and each person has to decide that for themselves.

Could my theory be falsified? I suppose so. I suppose that if it could be demonstrated that life easily arises, perhaps that would shake the beliefs of a lot of Christians. I personally haven't seen any evidence of that occurring, but I suppose it could. To me, it seems that the cell, DNA and life gets infinitely more complex as we continue to study it. Just when we think we figure things out, we learn new layers of complexity that cause us to start over.

I suppose also, aliens could show up and surround our planet next week and show us exactly how and when they seeded the planet.

I suppose that God could eventually show Himself to the world in a way that leaves little doubt as to his existence. Any of these events would dramatically affect the beliefs of many people.

When I criticize portions of the theory of evolution, I"m not questioning all of science, or burying my head in the sand, I'm questioning aspects that don't make sense to me. Just as there are portions of my beliefs I can't quite explain, I understand that evolution is a work in progress and that it doesn't paint a complete picture of the evolution of life from cell to man.

Hope this is taken as me NOT avoiding the issue, and if you guys pick this apart, or look for ways to attack the logic contained there-in, then we can then consider that the end of the discussion.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I don't know how you quantify either on to be honest. Which is harder or less hard. Life from non- life is a miracle and something science isn't close to explaining.

Which makes more sense: saying "I don't know" or "god did it"?

I am saying that God did it. Why because life, DNA, has specified information which is information that a third party understands. DNA needs ribosomes to create proteins. Ribosomes understands the DNA code and uses it to create something. This is analogous to computer code and computer. The computer code is no value unless it has a "third party" which understands the language that can use it. The only source of specified information is intelligence . This is a theory which best describes the facts and it can be disproven. This is not saying God did it and leaving it that. Information can be measured quantitatively by Shannon Information theory.

So if god did it, why did he do such a ####ty job? Why did he make us susceptible to disease but not sharks? He created cancer, addiction, droughts, natural disasters... I could go on here but you get the point. People, created in gods image, are horribly designed. Look at the female reproductive system! Just terrible. Why would an omnipotent god be so terrible at creating stuff?

Sorry I missed this. Are we able to tell the difference between good and bad design? if so Is design detectable, measurable and quantifiable. If so is a bad design, female reproductive systems, not evidence of a bad design, rather than no design.So if we able to detect, measure and quantify design then is something like an eye designed? Why or why not.

So you missed it then failed to answer it.

The question is rhetorical.

No. We'll try again.Why is this Intelligent Designer, whomever it may be, terrible at designing stuff? Not rhetorical. It is a straight forward question.

 

[Marvin]

No. We'll try again.

Why is this Intelligent Designer, whomever it may be, terrible at designing stuff? Not rhetorical. It is a straight forward question.

Outstanding question.

 

[shader]

I don't know how you quantify either on to be honest. Which is harder or less hard. Life from non- life is a miracle and something science isn't close to explaining.

Which makes more sense: saying "I don't know" or "god did it"?

I am saying that God did it. Why because life, DNA, has specified information which is information that a third party understands. DNA needs ribosomes to create proteins. Ribosomes understands the DNA code and uses it to create something. This is analogous to computer code and computer. The computer code is no value unless it has a "third party" which understands the language that can use it. The only source of specified information is intelligence . This is a theory which best describes the facts and it can be disproven. This is not saying God did it and leaving it that. Information can be measured quantitatively by Shannon Information theory.

So if god did it, why did he do such a ####ty job? Why did he make us susceptible to disease but not sharks? He created cancer, addiction, droughts, natural disasters... I could go on here but you get the point. People, created in gods image, are horribly designed. Look at the female reproductive system! Just terrible. Why would an omnipotent god be so terrible at creating stuff?

Sorry I missed this. Are we able to tell the difference between good and bad design? if so Is design detectable, measurable and quantifiable. If so is a bad design, female reproductive systems, not evidence of a bad design, rather than no design.So if we able to detect, measure and quantify design then is something like an eye designed? Why or why not.

So you missed it then failed to answer it.

The question is rhetorical.

No. We'll try again.Why is this Intelligent Designer, whomever it may be, terrible at designing stuff? Not rhetorical. It is a straight forward question.

I guess a lot depends on perspective. A quick trip around the world in nature shows beauty everywhere. Of course the world is full of problems. Many of the things you listed are manmade. Cancer is the work of processed food in my opinion, but that's a whole different subject. Man's affect on the environment has caused many problems.That being said, there are theological answers to these questions if you were so inclined. But even if it was granted that there were bad designs, that doesn't mean the designer doesn't necessarily exist, just that perhaps there were poor designs. There are also amazing designs. The cell is simply remarkable in its structure.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I guess a lot depends on perspective. A quick trip around the world in nature shows beauty everywhere. Of course the world is full of problems. Many of the things you listed are manmade. Cancer is the work of processed food in my opinion, but that's a whole different subject. Man's affect on the environment has caused many problems.That being said, there are theological answers to these questions if you were so inclined. But even if it was granted that there were bad designs, that doesn't mean the designer doesn't necessarily exist, just that perhaps there were poor designs. There are also amazing designs. The cell is simply remarkable in its structure.

Cancer has been around a lot longer than processed food. Natural disasters are not man-made. Why would a creator create a planet for life and then put a bunch of stuff there to kill it for no reason? Bad design doesn't mean a designer does not exist. It just means the designer is incompetent.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Since specified information has only one source - intelligence

This is dead wrong. You need to stop saying it. I'm not even sure where you read something this stupid.

 

[matuski]

No. We'll try again.

Why is this Intelligent Designer, whomever it may be, terrible at designing stuff? Not rhetorical. It is a straight forward question.

Outstanding question.

ouch

 

[MasterofOrion]

Repeating DNA or dublicating DNA code is not creating new information. It is simply duplicating it.

No, it isn't. If it was merely a duplication then we wouldn't see any effects. The book isn't the same when more information is added. True, if information was added. Which begs the question, how is new information added.

Sure we receive information from our parents via DNA and epigentics, but it isn't new information. Creating new information is what evolution has prove. It also shows the human genome is full of diversity, phenotype,, which has not been lost via genetic drift or other mechanisms that lose information.

It can be new information. The process of meiosis can have differing lengths of chromosomes cut and reattached. By adding longer strands of DNA to a chromosome new genes can be created. Do you have more information on this. This sounds like gene duplication again, but I may be wrong.

Polyploidy is gene duplication and yes they can not bread with their predicessors. We do obtain plants with thicker leaves and bigger fruit via polyploidy. But this is called secondary speciation which I discussed before. Secondary speciation does not provide evidence for Darwin's theory that species originate through natural selection, nor for the neo-Darwinian theory of speciation by geographic separation and genetic divergence and does not confer major new morphological characteristics. Is short, secondary speciation does not cause the evolution of new genera or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. So secondary speciation does not solve Darwin's problem. Only primary speciation -- the splitting of one species into two by natural selection -- would be capable of producing the branching-tree pattern of Darwinian evolution. But no one has ever observed primary speciation. Evolution's smoking gun has never been found.

There is no "Darwin's problem". If the new plant isn't able to survive - then it doesn't and its genetic info is lost. That is natural selection. And we have seen "primary speciation" in plants (new plants in a population not based on polyploidy or hybridization). Please link, it is hard to comment on abstracts. Lastly, we see the changes in the fossil record. See below. We have never seen gravity or black holes either but the evidence is overwhelming that they both exist - same with evolution. We have huge numbers of organisms that we can qualitatively measure what mutations can and can not do. For example: 1) Sickle Cell numbers are staggering, 2) ecoli in Lenski's lab and 3) HIV - the mutation rate is off the chart high with HIV.

Some interesting article ponder. This isn't so much about the fossil record but that evolution predicts something and the data says something different..not what we expected

This is basically saying we expected to find was that time is an important variable in species numbers. But that turned out to be untrue. From the abstract:

At the largest phylogenetic scales, contemporary patterns of species richness are inconsistent with unbounded diversity increase through time. These results imply that a fundamentally different interpretative paradigm may be needed in the study of phylogenetic diversity patterns in many groups of organisms.

This is about the same subject.

"We found no evidence of that," said Michael Alfaro, a UCLA associate professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and senior author of the new study. "When we look across the tree of life, the age of the group tells us almost nothing about how many species we would expect to find. In most groups, it tells us nothing."

 

[MasterofOrion]

Since specified information has only one source - intelligence

This is dead wrong. You need to stop saying it. I'm not even sure where you read something this stupid.

Prove me wrong. This is thesis of the book called signature of the cell..

 

[matuski]

Since specified information has only one source - intelligence

This is dead wrong. You need to stop saying it. I'm not even sure where you read something this stupid.

Prove me wrong. This is thesis of the book called signature of the cell..

For the 1000th time. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. Prove you are right.

 

[MasterofOrion]

I don't know how you quantify either on to be honest. Which is harder or less hard. Life from non- life is a miracle and something science isn't close to explaining.

Which makes more sense: saying "I don't know" or "god did it"?

I am saying that God did it. Why because life, DNA, has specified information which is information that a third party understands. DNA needs ribosomes to create proteins. Ribosomes understands the DNA code and uses it to create something. This is analogous to computer code and computer. The computer code is no value unless it has a "third party" which understands the language that can use it. The only source of specified information is intelligence . This is a theory which best describes the facts and it can be disproven. This is not saying God did it and leaving it that. Information can be measured quantitatively by Shannon Information theory.

So if god did it, why did he do such a ####ty job? Why did he make us susceptible to disease but not sharks? He created cancer, addiction, droughts, natural disasters... I could go on here but you get the point. People, created in gods image, are horribly designed. Look at the female reproductive system! Just terrible. Why would an omnipotent god be so terrible at creating stuff?

Sorry I missed this. Are we able to tell the difference between good and bad design? if so Is design detectable, measurable and quantifiable. If so is a bad design, female reproductive systems, not evidence of a bad design, rather than no design.So if we able to detect, measure and quantify design then is something like an eye designed? Why or why not.

So you missed it then failed to answer it.

The question is rhetorical.

No. We'll try again.Why is this Intelligent Designer, whomever it may be, terrible at designing stuff? Not rhetorical. It is a straight forward question.

1. a bad design doesn't mean that it wasn't designed to begin with. I have had a car that wasn't the best designed vehicle, but it was still designed.2. We don't know what the designed had in mind when he designed something. We can look a Ferrari and say it is bad design because it doesn't hold 6 people, or conversely we can look at a minivan and say it isn't fast.Question back:Is design detectable? If you know what a bad design looks like that you must have a criteria what a good design looks like. In other words you can quantitative detect design and know whether it is a good design or a bad design. Can't you use that same logic for things we see in life, like eyes?Is an eye designed? why or why not.

 

[Mario Kart]

To me, thinking that we are created is small minded. It's small just like some thought the Earth was flat. Just like how some thought Earth was the center of the universe. Just like how some thought the sun revolved around tether Earth. Those things are, obviously, wrong yet people fought and fought and killed those who questioned those thoughts.

To think us humans are so special, so unique, so extraordinary that we are created is much more mind boggling to me than sitting down and looking at some readily known things. Such as, South America and Africa fit together like a puzzle. Surely this was not designed to look like that. We know about plate techtonics now and can explain with 99.99% certainty that land masses were once together. (with that, animals roamed both land masses and viewing the finches we know on a larger scale, those older animals would deviate from their ancestors).

We know, DNA wise that we are really close to an Orangutan. We look alike, we learn similarly, we have hands, feet, brains and whatever else that is very close to each other. How, in all the world, can people deny that we share a common ancestor? (the funny question of "why are their still monkeys" is pure comedy gold).

We know people deviate from each other from climate to climate. From color to stature to many other variables, yet people deny that, at one time, animals can not deviate in the same manner. A dog is a dog, a wolf is a wolf and a finch is a finch. Why can those organisms no all share a common ancestor within their order? Seems mind boggling to see, read, hear people deny these 99.99% probability.

Sadly, it has been on display in this very thread the small minded way of thinking. I just dont get it.

 

[zoonation]

1. a bad design doesn't mean that it wasn't designed to begin with. I have had a car that wasn't the best designed vehicle, but it was still designed.2. We don't know what the designed had in mind when he designed something. We can look a Ferrari and say it is bad design because it doesn't hold 6 people, or conversely we can look at a minivan and say it isn't fast.Question back:Is design detectable? If you know what a bad design looks like that you must have a criteria what a good design looks like. In other words you can quantitative detect design and know whether it is a good design or a bad design. Can't you use that same logic for things we see in life, like eyes?Is an eye designed? why or why not.

1. If you go with that, your designer is not omnipotent. No way around it. Why would an all powerful designer a) suck at designing things or b) purposefully design something poorly? Please do not appeal to the unknowable nature of God which, as plato established eons ago, has no place in the community of ideas and no normative meaning.2. We know enough about the design to know that whatever he had in mind, it a) didn't work properly or b) was designed to cause harm to the creatures he "lovingly" made in his image. Thus your God is not benevolent.Your own argument disproves the very (Christian) God you worship. This isn't news though. Every first year philosophy student deals with the omni god characteristics as a warmup exercise for much more difficult material.As for the eye, if it were designed it would, again, be a pretty terrible design. Why design a blind spot?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Since specified information has only one source - intelligence

This is dead wrong. You need to stop saying it. I'm not even sure where you read something this stupid.

Prove me wrong. This is thesis of the book called signature of the cell..

That's your evidence? Oh dear god.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Bruce, you could write a book titled "Mr. Pickles isn't a Chemical Engineer: The Compelling Evidence for a Total Fraud" and tout it to people. It would be about as intellectually weighty as that book.

 

[shader]

To me, thinking that we are created is small minded. It's small just like some thought the Earth was flat. Just like how some thought Earth was the center of the universe. Just like how some thought the sun revolved around tether Earth. Those things are, obviously, wrong yet people fought and fought and killed those who questioned those thoughts.

To think us humans are so special, so unique, so extraordinary that we are created is much more mind boggling to me than sitting down and looking at some readily known things. Such as, South America and Africa fit together like a puzzle. Surely this was not designed to look like that. We know about plate techtonics now and can explain with 99.99% certainty that land masses were once together. (with that, animals roamed both land masses and viewing the finches we know on a larger scale, those older animals would deviate from their ancestors).

We know, DNA wise that we are really close to an Orangutan. We look alike, we learn similarly, we have hands, feet, brains and whatever else that is very close to each other. How, in all the world, can people deny that we share a common ancestor? (the funny question of "why are their still monkeys" is pure comedy gold).

We know people deviate from each other from climate to climate. From color to stature to many other variables, yet people deny that, at one time, animals can not deviate in the same manner. A dog is a dog, a wolf is a wolf and a finch is a finch. Why can those organisms no all share a common ancestor within their order? Seems mind boggling to see, read, hear people deny these 99.99% probability.

Sadly, it has been on display in this very thread the small minded way of thinking. I just dont get it.

I don't think we have a clue what we "know" Dna-wise. Witness as evidence today's study released that pretty much puts the "junk DNA" thesis in the history books. Junk DNA and vestigal organs...two embarrassing areas for evolutionists.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I don't think we have a clue what we "know" Dna-wise. Witness as evidence today's study released that pretty much puts the "junk DNA" thesis in the history books. Junk DNA and vestigal organs...two embarrassing areas for evolutionists.

"Junk DNA" is an unfortunate term that was coined in 1972. It's true that ~98% of all DNA does not code for proteins, but geneticists have long suspected that at least some of this DNA had function. The ENCODE project didn't turn anything on its ear. It's new data and the science adjusts. It's actually very exciting. Nothing about this threatens evolution. Exactly the opposite.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

1. a bad design doesn't mean that it wasn't designed to begin with. I have had a car that wasn't the best designed vehicle, but it was still designed.2. We don't know what the designed had in mind when he designed something. We can look a Ferrari and say it is bad design because it doesn't hold 6 people, or conversely we can look at a minivan and say it isn't fast.Question back:Is design detectable? If you know what a bad design looks like that you must have a criteria what a good design looks like. In other words you can quantitative detect design and know whether it is a good design or a bad design. Can't you use that same logic for things we see in life, like eyes?Is an eye designed? why or why not.

1. If you go with that, your designer is not omnipotent. No way around it. Why would an all powerful designer a) suck at designing things or b) purposefully design something poorly? Please do not appeal to the unknowable nature of God which, as plato established eons ago, has no place in the community of ideas and no normative meaning.2. We know enough about the design to know that whatever he had in mind, it a) didn't work properly or b) was designed to cause harm to the creatures he "lovingly" made in his image. Thus your God is not benevolent.Your own argument disproves the very (Christian) God you worship. This isn't news though. Every first year philosophy student deals with the omni god characteristics as a warmup exercise for much more difficult material.As for the eye, if it were designed it would, again, be a pretty terrible design. Why design a blind spot?

 

[shader]

I don't think we have a clue what we "know" Dna-wise. Witness as evidence today's study released that pretty much puts the "junk DNA" thesis in the history books. Junk DNA and vestigal organs...two embarrassing areas for evolutionists.

"Junk DNA" is an unfortunate term that was coined in 1972. It's true that ~98% of all DNA does not code for proteins, but genetics have long suspected that at least some of this DNA had function. The ENCODE project didn't turn anything on its ear. It's new data and the science adjusts. It's actually very exciting. Nothing about this threatens evolution. Exactly the opposite.

What it does or doesn't do will be revealed in the future. It's exciting for sure. It's still embarrassing. For years, we've heard that DNA has carried useless junk around as evolutionary vestiges. Now that is being shown to be in-accurate, as the ENCODE project has shown. In fact, the project coordinator said that the 80% is likely to go to 100%. A person that believe in creation can't use the study to prove their side. I've seen some creationists almost crying victory today, which is a bit ridiculous.

But it is verification of a long-held theory among those in ID, which is that one day it will be proven that there is no junk DNA and that everything in the genome has a purpose. Obviously ENCODE didn't prove that 100%, but to a large degree, those in the world of ID can stand a little bit taller today, as a prediction comes true.

 

[shader]

To me, thinking that we are created is small minded. It's small just like some thought the Earth was flat. Just like how some thought Earth was the center of the universe. Just like how some thought the sun revolved around tether Earth. Those things are, obviously, wrong yet people fought and fought and killed those who questioned those thoughts.

To think us humans are so special, so unique, so extraordinary that we are created is much more mind boggling to me than sitting down and looking at some readily known things. Such as, South America and Africa fit together like a puzzle. Surely this was not designed to look like that. We know about plate techtonics now and can explain with 99.99% certainty that land masses were once together. (with that, animals roamed both land masses and viewing the finches we know on a larger scale, those older animals would deviate from their ancestors).

We know, DNA wise that we are really close to an Orangutan. We look alike, we learn similarly, we have hands, feet, brains and whatever else that is very close to each other. How, in all the world, can people deny that we share a common ancestor? (the funny question of "why are their still monkeys" is pure comedy gold).

We know people deviate from each other from climate to climate. From color to stature to many other variables, yet people deny that, at one time, animals can not deviate in the same manner. A dog is a dog, a wolf is a wolf and a finch is a finch. Why can those organisms no all share a common ancestor within their order? Seems mind boggling to see, read, hear people deny these 99.99% probability.

Sadly, it has been on display in this very thread the small minded way of thinking. I just dont get it.

I don't think we have a clue what we "know" Dna-wise. Witness as evidence today's study released that pretty much puts the "junk DNA" thesis in the history books. Junk DNA and vestigal organs...two embarrassing areas for evolutionists.

O RLY?

Thanks for the link. I forgot to put it in. Yes, this is the study I'm discussing, and no, creationists never came up with the "junk dna" in the first place. All this study did is verify what creationists and ID'ists have been saying for years.And before it even starts, I remember arguing junk DNA years ago with evolutionists. The junk DNA theory has fallen out of favor in recent years, so this isn't particularly shocking. But anyone who has discussed these issues for many years remembers the junk DNA discussions that used to occur years ago.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I don't think we have a clue what we "know" Dna-wise. Witness as evidence today's study released that pretty much puts the "junk DNA" thesis in the history books. Junk DNA and vestigal organs...two embarrassing areas for evolutionists.

"Junk DNA" is an unfortunate term that was coined in 1972. It's true that ~98% of all DNA does not code for proteins, but genetics have long suspected that at least some of this DNA had function. The ENCODE project didn't turn anything on its ear. It's new data and the science adjusts. It's actually very exciting. Nothing about this threatens evolution. Exactly the opposite.

What it does or doesn't do will be revealed in the future. It's exciting for sure. It's still embarrassing. For years, we've heard that DNA has carried useless junk around as evolutionary vestiges. Now that is being shown to be in-accurate, as the ENCODE project has shown. In fact, the project coordinator said that the 80% is likely to go to 100%. A person that believe in creation can't use the study to prove their side. I've seen some creationists almost crying victory today, which is a bit ridiculous.

But it is verification of a long-held theory among those in ID, which is that one day it will be proven that there is no junk DNA and that everything in the genome has a purpose. Obviously ENCODE didn't prove that 100%, but to a large degree, those in the world of ID can stand a little bit taller today, as a prediction comes true.

What's embarrassing? Science allows for new knowledge. There's nothing embarrassing about being wrong. It's not dogma.Creationists claim "victory" every time they misinterpret a study that adds new knowledge. How does "junk DNA" having function threaten evolution or validate creationism/ID? It does neither.

Proponents of ID prop themselves up mistakenly. Their "theory" isn't one.

 

[Marvin]

To me, thinking that we are created is small minded. It's small just like some thought the Earth was flat. Just like how some thought Earth was the center of the universe. Just like how some thought the sun revolved around tether Earth. Those things are, obviously, wrong yet people fought and fought and killed those who questioned those thoughts.

To think us humans are so special, so unique, so extraordinary that we are created is much more mind boggling to me than sitting down and looking at some readily known things. Such as, South America and Africa fit together like a puzzle. Surely this was not designed to look like that. We know about plate techtonics now and can explain with 99.99% certainty that land masses were once together. (with that, animals roamed both land masses and viewing the finches we know on a larger scale, those older animals would deviate from their ancestors).

We know, DNA wise that we are really close to an Orangutan. We look alike, we learn similarly, we have hands, feet, brains and whatever else that is very close to each other. How, in all the world, can people deny that we share a common ancestor? (the funny question of "why are their still monkeys" is pure comedy gold).

We know people deviate from each other from climate to climate. From color to stature to many other variables, yet people deny that, at one time, animals can not deviate in the same manner. A dog is a dog, a wolf is a wolf and a finch is a finch. Why can those organisms no all share a common ancestor within their order? Seems mind boggling to see, read, hear people deny these 99.99% probability.

Sadly, it has been on display in this very thread the small minded way of thinking. I just dont get it.

I don't think we have a clue what we "know" Dna-wise. Witness as evidence today's study released that pretty much puts the "junk DNA" thesis in the history books. Junk DNA and vestigal organs...two embarrassing areas for evolutionists.

O RLY?

Thanks for the link. I forgot to put it in. Yes, this is the study I'm discussing, and no, creationists never came up with the "junk dna" in the first place. All this study did is verify what creationists and ID'ists have been saying for years.And before it even starts, I remember arguing junk DNA years ago with evolutionists. The junk DNA theory has fallen out of favor in recent years, so this isn't particularly shocking. But anyone who has discussed these issues for many years remembers the junk DNA discussions that used to occur years ago.

I still don't get why you think that this is some sort of "embarrassment".

 

[Psychopav]

I think for some folks belief in God or Jesus is one of those cornerstone Jenga pieces that just isn't going to budge without the whole thing toppling over.

Interesting comment. I think my wife is in this boat. Her faith in God and Jesus is what keeps her sane, according to her. It doesn't matter if any of it is true or real or not. It is the belief that it is real that matters. Even if it is a placebo effect and nothing more, her faith is strong and she isn't interested in discussing any of this stuff. I wish I could have that same kind of faith.

Then you should pray for that kind of faith.

 

[shader]

To me, thinking that we are created is small minded. It's small just like some thought the Earth was flat. Just like how some thought Earth was the center of the universe. Just like how some thought the sun revolved around tether Earth. Those things are, obviously, wrong yet people fought and fought and killed those who questioned those thoughts.

To think us humans are so special, so unique, so extraordinary that we are created is much more mind boggling to me than sitting down and looking at some readily known things. Such as, South America and Africa fit together like a puzzle. Surely this was not designed to look like that. We know about plate techtonics now and can explain with 99.99% certainty that land masses were once together. (with that, animals roamed both land masses and viewing the finches we know on a larger scale, those older animals would deviate from their ancestors).

We know, DNA wise that we are really close to an Orangutan. We look alike, we learn similarly, we have hands, feet, brains and whatever else that is very close to each other. How, in all the world, can people deny that we share a common ancestor? (the funny question of "why are their still monkeys" is pure comedy gold).

We know people deviate from each other from climate to climate. From color to stature to many other variables, yet people deny that, at one time, animals can not deviate in the same manner. A dog is a dog, a wolf is a wolf and a finch is a finch. Why can those organisms no all share a common ancestor within their order? Seems mind boggling to see, read, hear people deny these 99.99% probability.

Sadly, it has been on display in this very thread the small minded way of thinking. I just dont get it.

I don't think we have a clue what we "know" Dna-wise. Witness as evidence today's study released that pretty much puts the "junk DNA" thesis in the history books. Junk DNA and vestigal organs...two embarrassing areas for evolutionists.

O RLY?

Thanks for the link. I forgot to put it in. Yes, this is the study I'm discussing, and no, creationists never came up with the "junk dna" in the first place. All this study did is verify what creationists and ID'ists have been saying for years.And before it even starts, I remember arguing junk DNA years ago with evolutionists. The junk DNA theory has fallen out of favor in recent years, so this isn't particularly shocking. But anyone who has discussed these issues for many years remembers the junk DNA discussions that used to occur years ago.

I still don't get why you think that this is some sort of "embarrassment".

It won't matter what I post, you doggedly oppose everything I say.But to those that argued in favor of junk DNA, it's embarrassing, though few will admit it. It's not embarrassing to science.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Bruce, you could write a book titled "Mr. Pickles isn't a Chemical Engineer: The Compelling Evidence for a Total Fraud" and tout it to people. It would be about as intellectually weighty as that book.

I'd buy it.

 

[Jayrok]

I think for some folks belief in God or Jesus is one of those cornerstone Jenga pieces that just isn't going to budge without the whole thing toppling over.

Interesting comment. I think my wife is in this boat. Her faith in God and Jesus is what keeps her sane, according to her. It doesn't matter if any of it is true or real or not. It is the belief that it is real that matters. Even if it is a placebo effect and nothing more, her faith is strong and she isn't interested in discussing any of this stuff. I wish I could have that same kind of faith.

Then you should pray for that kind of faith.

Think I haven't?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

But to those that argued in favor of junk DNA, it's embarrassing, though few will admit it. It's not embarrassing to science.

The easily accessed evidence was that most DNA had no function in coding proteins. That's still true. The "junk" label is embarrassing from a nomenclature perspective because it kind of stamped it as being non-essential and having no role. It's not like geneticists suddenly today realized that "junk DNA" had function. This has been known for a while, and suspected for even longer. This study is just more data and evidence of that. What aspect of evolution does this threaten?You suggested that ID "predicted" that all DNA would have function. The problem with this is that ID can "predict" anything. God did it, so whatever is observed was influenced by God. There's nothing to test. ID cannot generate a rational falsifiable prediction. It just morphs to fill in the voids.I imagine the notion of "all DNA must have function" falls under the category of "God made us in his perfect image," but this seems like a curious exercise considering how poorly life is "designed." If we were to redesign life, we'd make countless changes. The hallmarks of mutations and natural selection are all over the place. It's even more compelling once you consider specific genetic mechanisms. There is no design, and it's entirely unnecessary to describe how life has evolved.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Bruce, you could write a book titled "Mr. Pickles isn't a Chemical Engineer: The Compelling Evidence for a Total Fraud" and tout it to people. It would be about as intellectually weighty as that book.

I'd buy it.

You'd be in the foreward saying something Bruce imagined you said.

 

[Marvin]

To me, thinking that we are created is small minded. It's small just like some thought the Earth was flat. Just like how some thought Earth was the center of the universe. Just like how some thought the sun revolved around tether Earth. Those things are, obviously, wrong yet people fought and fought and killed those who questioned those thoughts.

To think us humans are so special, so unique, so extraordinary that we are created is much more mind boggling to me than sitting down and looking at some readily known things. Such as, South America and Africa fit together like a puzzle. Surely this was not designed to look like that. We know about plate techtonics now and can explain with 99.99% certainty that land masses were once together. (with that, animals roamed both land masses and viewing the finches we know on a larger scale, those older animals would deviate from their ancestors).

We know, DNA wise that we are really close to an Orangutan. We look alike, we learn similarly, we have hands, feet, brains and whatever else that is very close to each other. How, in all the world, can people deny that we share a common ancestor? (the funny question of "why are their still monkeys" is pure comedy gold).

We know people deviate from each other from climate to climate. From color to stature to many other variables, yet people deny that, at one time, animals can not deviate in the same manner. A dog is a dog, a wolf is a wolf and a finch is a finch. Why can those organisms no all share a common ancestor within their order? Seems mind boggling to see, read, hear people deny these 99.99% probability.

Sadly, it has been on display in this very thread the small minded way of thinking. I just dont get it.

I don't think we have a clue what we "know" Dna-wise. Witness as evidence today's study released that pretty much puts the "junk DNA" thesis in the history books. Junk DNA and vestigal organs...two embarrassing areas for evolutionists.

O RLY?

Thanks for the link. I forgot to put it in. Yes, this is the study I'm discussing, and no, creationists never came up with the "junk dna" in the first place. All this study did is verify what creationists and ID'ists have been saying for years.And before it even starts, I remember arguing junk DNA years ago with evolutionists. The junk DNA theory has fallen out of favor in recent years, so this isn't particularly shocking. But anyone who has discussed these issues for many years remembers the junk DNA discussions that used to occur years ago.

I still don't get why you think that this is some sort of "embarrassment".

It won't matter what I post, you doggedly oppose everything I say.But to those that argued in favor of junk DNA, it's embarrassing, though few will admit it. It's not embarrassing to science.

It's not my fault you're wrong.

 

[matuski]

Bruce, you could write a book titled "Mr. Pickles isn't a Chemical Engineer: The Compelling Evidence for a Total Fraud" and tout it to people. It would be about as intellectually weighty as that book.

Troll

If Pickles is a troll, you are being worked over soundly by a troll. How does that feel?