Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

[Stripe]

Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time.

Blablarian wants everything to be evolution.

"How can you argue against everything? Just bow before it."

The idea is to find something that can't be tested.

Blablaman ignores the call to experimental testing. He's like this any time the conversation heads toward evidence. It's like sunlight to a vampire.

 

[6days]

So again [MENTION=15431]6days[/MENTION] if it's as you say and "information always has an intelligent creator", what intelligent creator created the information for the plasmodium life cycle?

I said "information (coded info as in my examples, that require action) always have an Intelligent Creator" And "All "non-intelligent sources" that contain information that is sent/ received and requires action ALWAYS HAS AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER! Our DNA... the most sophisticated information system in existence is evidence of our Creator. "In the beginning, God..."

What created Malaria.... Corrupted information. Before this parasite existed to cause Malaria, what was its function and purpose? Pain, suffering and death (entropy) entered our world when man sinned.

 

[6days]

And reality shows us how silly that is. Death and suffering indeed are mercy, for without them how could we have children? I would like an answer to that question, please.

Do you also think death and suffering are going to exist in Heaven? No... Death and suffering are a result of creation being corrupted by sin
Gen. 3:16 “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe, with painful labor you will give birth to children."
Rom. 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned"

How could we go forth and prosper, as God Himself commanded, if nobody ever died and the world was packed to the brim with overpopulation??

Evolutionism is the root of your question and distrust. What was God's ultimate plan with mankind? Was earth going to be a permanent heaven? Did God know Adam and Eve would blow it? Do you think reproductive rates would be the same then as now? ETC. We however DO know, that pain, suffering, death entered the world only after man sinned.

I believe you've been asked to explain why God designed the malaria parasite?

I just answered you.. read Scripture. (Pain, death, suffering extinctions are a result of man's sin)

 

[Jose Fly]

I said "information (coded info as in my examples, that require action) always have an Intelligent Creator" And "All "non-intelligent sources" that contain information that is sent/ received and requires action ALWAYS HAS AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER! Our DNA... the most sophisticated information system in existence is evidence of our Creator. "In the beginning, God..."

What created Malaria.... Corrupted information. Before this parasite existed to cause Malaria, what was its function and purpose? Pain, suffering and death (entropy) entered our world when man sinned.

How does that work? How does the "corruption of information" generate the genetic sequences necessary for plasmodium's complex life cycle? Let's walk through this...

According to what you posted above, at one point in time the genetic information that codes for plasmodium's complex life cycle and allows it to infect humans and cause malaria didn't exist. Instead, plasmodium wasn't infectious and had a different life cycle.

Then, after "sin entered the world", plasmodium's genome become "corrupted" and via that "corruption" it acquired the ability to infect humans, cause malaria, and live the complex life cycle depicted in the previously posted diagrams.

Given that you've equated mutation with "corruption of information", does that therefore mean you agree that mutations can indeed generate complex specified information? If not, where did the complex specified information for plasmodium's life cycle come from?

 

[6days]

.You creationists are a peculiar lot. In one breath you call, "Creationism is the deity-of-the-gaps "explanation", it basically says life is too complex and, "Goddidit!!!"

You keep repeating that but can't seem to give examples. If you provide an example we could discuss it... Who knows, we might even agree. But, instea of examples you just keep repeating your strawman.

Sophisticated coded complexity as in DNA is evidence of an intelligent Creator

Well, why am I not surprised, "Goddidit!!!", didn't take longer for you to invoke?

HAHA hee hee Hunter..... Read my reply....Your response is a strawman.

6days quote-mine: "The human eye is a well-tread example of how evolution can produce a clunky design even when the result is a well-performing anatomical product. The human eye is indeed a marvel,..."
What the article ACTUALLY says: "The human eye is a well-tread example of how evolution can produce a clunky design even when the result is a well-performing anatomical product. The human eye is indeed a marvel but if it were to be designed from scratch, it’s hard to imagine it would look anything like it does.". The article also says: "Before I discuss the puzzling physical design of the eye, let’s start off by making one thing clear: the human eye is fraught with functional problems as well... myopia... hyperopia and presbyopia... glaucoma... cataracts... color blindness".

As I said... The article suggests both good and bad design is evidence to support their beliefs. It does not matter how "clunky"...or, how "well performing" it is... they claim evolution did it.

And... their comments are silly and not up to date with modern research. The author of the article is puzzled about the design...he should do some research. For example he says "The photons of light must travel around the bulk of the photoreceptor cell in order to hit the receiver tucked in the back". I think he must get his research from Richard Dawkins books. If you want to know why his argument is false, and you want to discuss it, I will happily do so.

"Compare this to the excellent vision of most birds, especially birds of prey, such as eagles and condors. Their visual acuity at great distances puts even the best human eyes to shame."

Hunter... that is a plain dumb argument. We wouldn't want eagles eyes... and they wouldn't want ours. BTW... Eagles eyes have the same essential design as human eyes that the article criticizes.

The point of the article is showing how evolutionists claim evolutiondidit no matter what. Within the opening statement It says both bad and good fits their beliefs... classic example of unfalsifiable belief. (It isn't science)

 

[Stripe]

And just because 6days and Stripe always act like they're in total agreement.

Nope.

Darwinists are forever wailing about nonsense such as who said what.

Evidence? They run screaming for the hills.

 

[Jose Fly]

Ok then [MENTION=4167]Stripe[/MENTION] how about you tell us what you think. You've said that "Random changes can never produce information" and "Information only comes from an informed source".

So where did the information that allows plasmodium to infect humans, cause malaria, and live out a complex life cycle come from? What "informed source" produced this information and put it into the plasmodium genome?

 

[Stripe]

Ok then [MENTION=4167]Stripe[/MENTION] how about you tell us what you think. You've said that "Random changes can never produce information" and "Information only comes from an informed source".

So where did the information that allows plasmodium to infect humans, cause malaria, and live out a complex life cycle come from? What "informed source" produced this information and put it into the plasmodium genome?

No idea.

6's explanations might be a starting point, if you're interested in a sensible discussion.

 

[6days]

Given that you've equated mutation with "corruption of information", does that therefore mean you agree that mutations can indeed generate complex specified information?

Corruption destroys or alters pre-existing information.

If not, where did the complex specified information for plasmodium's life cycle come from?

Same question to you... what is the origin of the complex specified information? If you KNOW the origin of the chloroplast in plasmodium, we might understand how the life cycle developed. Was in from plankton / Dinoflagellate? plants? If we think plasmodium came from plankton, then how many genes in each? Have both been sequence so we can compare?
In any case, it seems you are avoiding the main point... What is the origin of complex genetic information?

 

[Jose Fly]

No idea.

Ok.

 

[Jose Fly]

Corruption destroys or alters pre-existing information.
Same question to you... what is the origin of the complex specified information? If you KNOW the origin of the chloroplast in plasmodium, we might understand how the life cycle developed. Was in from plankton / Dinoflagellate? plants? If we think plasmodium came from plankton, then how many genes in each? Have both been sequence so we can compare?
In any case, it seems you are avoiding the main point... What is the origin of complex genetic information?

You're dodging again 6days.

Where did the complex specified information for plasmodium's life cycle come from? And how did it find its way into plasmodium's genome?

 

[Silent Hunter]

You creationists are a peculiar lot. In one breath you call, "Creationism is the deity-of-the-gaps "explanation", it basically says life is too complex and, "Goddidit!!!", should be invoked whenever possible to solve all the little inconveniences", a straw man then say, "Goddidit!!! is the most rational explanation". Why? "Because life is too complex and, "Goddidit!!!", solves all the little inconveniences".

You keep repeating that but can't seem to give examples. If you provide an example we could discuss it... Who knows, we might even agree. But, instea of examples you just keep repeating your strawman.

You're so predictable and I predicted you'd do it...

"Provide an example of what, you invoking, "Goddidit"? Creationists, you in particular, take every opportunity to yell, "Goddidit!!!", I long ago provided examples of specific quotes you, yourself, made and what happened? You disappeared. Now, I expect, you're going to pull a Stripe and say, "Show me", after my post(s) have long since been buried, no?"

... or did you even read that far?

If "in the beginning god (created X, Y, Z)", doesn't mean "Goddidit!!!" please explain what it DOES mean.

Sophisticated coded complexity as in DNA is evidence of an intelligent Creator.

Well, why am I not surprised, "Goddidit!!!", didn't take longer for you to invoke?

HAHA hee hee Hunter..... Read my reply....Your response is a strawman.

Well, no, it isn't a straw man but you wouldn't know a straw man even if you made one up yourself... oh, wait... that IS your M.O. isn't it? Everyone's posts are straw men (or some other fallacy)... except yours... HA HA hee hee.

If you don't mean "your personal particular version of deity" when you say, "intelligent creator", what do you mean?

6days quote-mine: "The human eye is a well-tread example of how evolution can produce a clunky design even when the result is a well-performing anatomical product. The human eye is indeed a marvel,..."

What the article ACTUALLY says: "The human eye is a well-tread example of how evolution can produce a clunky design even when the result is a well-performing anatomical product. The human eye is indeed a marvel but if it were to be designed from scratch, it’s hard to imagine it would look anything like it does."

The article also says: "Before I discuss the puzzling physical design of the eye, let’s start off by making one thing clear: the human eye is fraught with functional problems as well... myopia... hyperopia and presbyopia... glaucoma... cataracts... color blindness".

As I said... The article suggests both good and bad design is evidence to support their beliefs.

The article suggests no such thing. You're reading into it what you WISH it said as exhibited by your quote mining.

It does not matter how "clunky"...or, how "well performing" it is... they claim evolution did it.

Adjectives are often clumsily used but if you have another explanation not invoking, "Goddidit!!!", I'm sure the Nobel Committee will be happy to listen.

And... their comments are silly and not up to date with modern research. The author of the article is puzzled about the design...he should do some research. For example he says "The photons of light must travel around the bulk of the photoreceptor cell in order to hit the receiver tucked in the back". I think he must get his research from Richard Dawkins books. If you want to know why his argument is false, and you want to discuss it, I will happily do so.

... and allow you to sidetrack our present conversation, something I'm sure you'd rather do because this one has caught you in several lies, half-truths, and other attempts at deflection already... no thanks.

"Compare this to the excellent vision of most birds, especially birds of prey, such as eagles and condors. Their visual acuity at great distances puts even the best human eyes to shame."

as well as other examples of the inadequacies of the human eye...

Hunter... that is a plain dumb argument. We wouldn't want eagles eyes... and they wouldn't want ours. BTW... Eagles eyes have the same essential design as human eyes that the article criticizes.

Of course an eagle wouldn't want our eyes... theirs are far better. I know I'd certainly like to have binocular vision now and then... especially at the beach... and a cat's night vision... especially when I'm out with my telescope.

The point of the article is showing how evolutionists claim evolutiondidit no matter what.

Again, if you have another explanation not invoking, "Goddidit!!!", I'm sure the Nobel Committee will be happy to listen. Your religious beliefs are boring. "Goddidit!!!", and "Falldidit!!!", are placeholders for anything a creationist can't lie about.

Within the opening statement It says both bad and good fits their beliefs... classic example of unfalsifiable belief. (It isn't science)

No, it doesn't. Dishonest to the core, aren't you, 6days?

 

[Lon]

Well Lon, you've put waaaaaaay more effort into dodging this very basic question that it would have taken to just give a staightforward answer.

Sure, if your mantra were "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." I suppose. Otherwise? One would realize he was being asked a question back AND kindly deferred to in asking for 'help' with such a question. :noway: "Need some information" was about as sincere as I've ever been with you AND I was appreciating that you might actually have some science prowess instead of just being here on TOL for the short and Mencken-snarky.

And as a result, I've pretty much lost interest in chasing you around further, trying to get an answer out of you.

Likewise! Nice job!!!

So at this point, I'll just thank you for your time.

Er, thanks for "Mencken"ing me along?

 

[The Barbarian]

Of course... Stripe agrees with science!

If you think so, you have no idea what Stipe thinks, or have no idea what science is.

Barbarian observes:
And since a lot of creationists now admit that evolution is a fact, he's focusing on something he hopes will not be demonstrated. The idea is to find something that can't be tested. This is typical of creationists: They do not want their ideas put to the test, so they define the debate out of existence. Hence Stipe's attempt to redefine evolution. ( I restored the context you removed to make it appear I meant something I did not. You're a very dishonest person, 6days.)

Wait... You just described 'evolution' as a change in allele frequency....[/quote]

Yep. And most creationists admit the fact. Stipe is trying to equivocate it into "common descent" which is a consequence of evolution, not evolution itself. And you edited my statement to make it appear otherwise.

Now you swivel / equivocate to the word meaning something different.

Nice try. Did you really think that you were smart enough to pull off a deception like that?

Your beliefs that bacteria can evolve into biologists

Lying about what I think won't help you, either. Humans evolved from other primates, not bacteria. And I've told you this many times, so you really have no excuse. Do you think you can serve God by lying? It's highly disrespectful to Him. Please stop it.

 

[6days]

Well, no, it isn't a straw man but you wouldn't know a straw man even if you made one up yourself.

If you don't like being accused of making strawmen arguments then post actual quote and context.

"The human eye is a well-tread example of how evolution can produce a clunky design even when the result is a well-performing anatomical product. The human eye is indeed a marvel,..." As I said... The article suggests both good and bad design is evidence to support their beliefs.

The article suggests no such thing. ...

Unlike you, I provided a quote and context / link to support my claim

... and allow you to sidetrack our present conversation...

Uh... It was YOU who wanted to get into the weeds of the design of human eyes. I was willing to engage on the topic..

Of course an eagle wouldn't want our eyes... theirs are far better. I know I'd certainly like to have binocular vision now and then... especially at the beach... and a cat's night vision... especially when I'm out with my telescope.

Eagles eyes are better for spotting fish under water...cats eyes are better for seeing in the dark etc.

The point of the article is showing how evolutionists claim evolutiondidit no matter what.

Again, if you have another explanation not invoking, "Goddidit!!!",

I think the evidence best supports an Intelligent Creator... I believe that evidence supports the God of the Bible. The article we are discussing is vision. Evolutionists rely on pseudoscience saying things like 'sophisticated vision must have evolved in the geological blink of an eye'. IOW.. We have no evidence, but we believe.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning, God created...

 

[6days]

Where did the complex specified information for plasmodium's life cycle come from? And how did it find its way into plasmodium's genome?

Sorry you didn't get the answer you wanted, but you did get an answer. ...what is the origin of the complex specified information? If you KNOW the origin of the chloroplast in plasmodium, we might understand how the life cycle developed. Was in from plankton / Dinoflagellate? plants? If we think plasmodium came from plankton, then how many genes in each? Have both been sequence so we can compare?
In any case, it seems you are avoiding the main point... What is the origin of complex genetic information?

 

[6days]

Stipe is trying to equivocate it into "common descent" which is a consequence of evolution, not evolution itself.

Let's say that you suffer from a delusion.
God's Word tells us He created man from the dust of the ground and woman from man's rib.

 

[Stripe]

If you think so, you have no idea what Stipe thinks, or have no idea what science is.

Barbarian observes:
And since a lot of creationists now admit that evolution [COLOR="#FF0000"]is a fact, he's focusing on something he hopes will not be demonstrated. The idea is to find something that can't be tested. This is typical of creationists: They do not want their ideas put to the test, so they define the debate out of existence. Hence Stipe's attempt to redefine evolution.[/COLOR] ( I restored the context you removed to make it appear I meant something I did not. You're a very dishonest person, 6days.)

Wait... You just described 'evolution' as a change in allele frequency....[/quote]

Yep. And most creationists admit the fact. Stipe is trying to equivocate it into "common descent" which is a consequence of evolution, not evolution itself. And you edited my statement to make it appear otherwise.



Nice try. Did you really think that you were smart enough to pull off a deception like that?



Lying about what I think won't help you, either. Humans evolved from other primates, not bacteria. And I've told you this many times, so you really have no excuse. Do you think you can serve God by lying? It's highly disrespectful to Him. Please stop it.

:blabla:

Blablaman will do anything to avoid discussing the evidence.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Do you also think death and suffering are going to exist in Heaven? No... Death and suffering are a result of creation being corrupted by sin
Gen. 3:16 “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe, with painful labor you will give birth to children."
Rom. 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned"
Evolutionism is the root of your question and distrust. What was God's ultimate plan with mankind? Was earth going to be a permanent heaven? Did God know Adam and Eve would blow it? Do you think reproductive rates would be the same then as now? ETC. We however DO know, that pain, suffering, death entered the world only after man sinned.
I just answered you.. read Scripture. (Pain, death, suffering extinctions are a result of man's sin)

Well. I'm fairly disappointed. You ignored all of my questions.

I can't say I understand why you keep at it here. You have to be able to engage in dialogue

 

[Silent Hunter]

Well, no, it isn't a straw man but you wouldn't know a straw man even if you made one up yourself... oh, wait... that IS your M.O. isn't it? Everyone's posts are straw men (or some other fallacy)... except you... HA HA hee hee.

If you don't like being accused of making strawmen arguments then post actual quote and context.

6days, you're the ONLY one of us who relies on straw men to make an "argument". I don't like being accused of something I haven't and don't do.

"The human eye is a well-tread example of how evolution can produce a clunky design even when the result is a well-performing anatomical product. The human eye is indeed a marvel,..." As I said... The article suggests both good and bad design is evidence to support their beliefs.

The article suggests no such thing. You're reading into it what you WISH it said as exhibited by your quote mining.

Unlike you, I provided a quote and context / link to support my claim.

You "provided" a quote out-of-context to make it appear it said something it didn't and I corrected you on it. Pull the other one 6days... pull the other one.

... and allow you to sidetrack our present conversation, something I'm sure you'd rather do because this one has caught you in several lies, half-truths, and other attempts at deflection already... no thanks.

Uh... It was YOU who wanted to get into the weeds of the design of human eyes. I was willing to engage on the topic..

Huh? Perhaps you need to go back a few posts and refresh your memory of who posted the link about the evolution of eyes, YOU brought it up (post #124); I made the mistake of playing along with your red herring.

Of course an eagle wouldn't want our eyes... theirs are far better. I know I'd certainly like to have binocular vision now and then... especially at the beach... and a cat's night vision... especially when I'm out with my telescope.

Eagles eyes are better for spotting fish under water...cats eyes are better for seeing in the dark etc.

Yeah, and what fisherman or astronomer wouldn't want that kind of vision?

The point of the article is showing how evolutionists claim evolutiondidit no matter what.

Again, if you have another explanation not invoking, "Goddidit!!!", I'm sure the Nobel Committee will be happy to listen.

I think the evidence best supports an Intelligent Creator... I believe that evidence supports the God of the Bible.

Your religious beliefs are boring. "Goddidit!!!", and "Falldidit!!!", are placeholders for anything a creationist can't lie about.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning, God created...

If "in the beginning my-preferred-personally-constructed-deity created (X, Y, Z)", doesn't mean "Goddidit!!!" please explain what it DOES mean.