The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Please JC.

Be so kind as to explain what possible incentive anyone here has for pointing out anything to you anymore ?

When something is pointed out to you, you have possibly 3 different responses.

1. Completely ignore it and just continue on regardless.
2. Disappear for a few days after an awkward question, then come back and proceed with number 1.
3. Claim that the point made, which is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community is 'wrong' without any counter-evidence and then proceed with number 1.

For one simple example, your quote from Stephen Jay Gould.

You know as well as everyone else here that your quote is completely taken out of context and the meaning you have applied to it and the meaning people take from it without its context is completely false.

The man himself had to come out and make a statement about this before his death.

You know its quote mined rubbish just as well as I know my signature is quote mined rubbish from you, its taken out of context and its not what you meant.

Why do you continue to use it ?

...I'll deal with the quote from Prof Gould later on ...

... Let us finish with the Prof Dawkins Quote first ... is it not true that it says and means exactly what Prof Dawkins wrote?

... and rather than nit-picking and arguing over semantics ... please point out WHERE Prof Dawkins ACTUALLY provided EXPLICIT evidence for Evolution in his latest book!!!

...BTW I accept that you will do nothing to please me ... but do bear in mind that there are hundreds of 'lurkers' out there ... and what they see is no answer to a valid and basic question put to Evolutionists!!!!

... you should be able to provide explicit evidence for Evolution, if it exists ... but because the evidence doesn't exist ... I expect that providing any explicit evidence may take some time!!!!:eek::pac::):D

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...I'll deal with the quote from Prof Gould later on ...

So you admit you're being grossly dishonest, then? If not, then why not argue your case now?

Let's be honest here. The Dawkins quote is the one you have the strongest case for, so you're hoping to hammer at that for a while then change the subject.

... Let us deal with the Prof Dawkins Quote ... is it not true that it says and means exactly what Prof Dawkins wrote?

There are quite a few things it could mean, including what it was originally intended to mean. That isn't the easiest thing to infer, however, as it's not at all clear that he's talking about his own books.

please point out WHERE Prof Dawkins ACTUALLY provided EXPLICIT evidence for Evolution in his latest book!!!

From page one to page 437. It's all explained very clearly, to be honest.

Why don't you try arguing against some of the points he made in those pages? As usual, your silence on this matter speaks volumes more than your array of ellipses and smilies ever could.

...BTW I accept that you will do nothing to please me ... but do bear in mind that there are hundreds of 'lurkers' out there ... and what they see is no answer to a valid and basic question put to Evolutionists!!!!

... you should be able to provide explicit evidence for Evolution, if it exists ... but because the evidence doesn't exist ... I expect that providing any explicit evidence may take some time!!!!:eek::pac::):D

Just because you fail to understand the evidence doesn't mean it isn't there.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but you have never observed this limit, and neither have biologists

Biologists work on the data available to them. Given that they have never seen this limit why assume it is there just because a religion says it is

What you have basically just admitted is that you accept everything in evolutionary theory (since you need everything in evolutionary theory to get from the Ark to today) but believe that there is an invisible barrier that will stop species evolving in a particular way, a barrier that no one has defined or observed

Since we have never observed anything crossing that barrier, it is not unreasonable to (scientifically) assume it exists.

Creationists also have the advantage of revelation, which confirms it exists.

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

Since we have never observed anything crossing that barrier, it is not unreasonable to (scientifically) assume it exists.

You misunderstand. No-one has observed the barrier itself. You just say it's there.

Creationists also have the advantage of revelation, which confirms it exists.

Revelation's worthless. You may as well just say "we imagine it."

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

So you admit you're being grossly dishonest, then? If not, then why not argue your case now?

...not at all ... I just want to deal with one quote at a time !!!!

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Let's be honest here. The Dawkins quote is the one you have the strongest case for, so you're hoping to hammer at that for a while then change the subject.

... ALL my quotes are honest direct quotes from the people involved!!!

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

There are quite a few things it could mean, including what it was originally intended to mean. That isn't the easiest thing to infer, however, as it's not at all clear that he's talking about his own books.

.... the quote is in plain English ... and it means what it says and says what it means ...
... that Prof Dawkins hadn't provided explicit evidence for evolution in any of his previous books ... and he promised to remedy this situation in his current book.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

From page one to page 437. It's all explained very clearly, to be honest.

Why don't you try arguing against some of the points he made in those pages? As usual, your silence on this matter speaks volumes more than your array of ellipses and smilies ever could.

...so when I quote Prof Dawkins you accuse me of 'quote mining' and misrepresentation ... I provided a series of quotes from 'The Blind Watchmaker' together with my comments thereon and nobody responded to any of them ... and now you want me to start using further quotes from 'The Greatest Show on Earth' ... so that you can start semantic nit-picking and whinging all over again!!!

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Just because you fail to understand the evidence doesn't mean it isn't there.

... try providing some (any) evidence ... and we'll see exactly WHO is misunderstanding it !!!!:D:):eek:

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

Since we have never observed anything crossing that barrier, it is not unreasonable to (scientifically) assume it exists.

...we don't need to assume it exists ... this 'barrier' DOES exist and it is due to the mathematically proven fact that non-intelligently directed processes cannot produce new functional Complex Specified Information ... and therefore all organisms are constrained by the diversity of the Created genetic information compliment that they have inherited ... and that is why cats always produce cats and mice mice ... and Poodles have LOST so much genetic diversity... that they can ONLY produce more Poodles!!!!:D

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...we don't need to assume it exists ... this 'barrier' DOES exist and it is due to the mathematically proven fact that non-intelligently directed processes cannot produce new functional Complex Specified Information ... and therefore all organisms are constrained by the diversity of the Created genetic diversity compliment that they have inherited ... and that is why cats always produce cats and mice mice ... and the twain have NEVER genetically met!!!!

None of this is true, as is evident from molecular information papers I provided you.

Since we have never observed anything crossing that barrier, it is not unreasonable to (scientifically) assume it exists.

We have never seen a non-poodle give birth to a poodle, or a non-parrot give birth to a parrot yet it is reasonable to assume that no barrier exists to prevent such gradual evolution from non-parrots to parrots, and non-poodles to poodles. Likewise, genetic and paleontological evidence suggests that, even though we have never directly observed evolution across many years, it is reasonable to assume no barriers exist when there is no evidence for such barries.

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

Speciation is creationism. End of thread?

Not if you know what speciation is. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. Speciation suggests that what you would call 'kinds' can diverge into groups that can no longer reproduce. These are new branches in the tree of life. This is evolution.

It's all very simple.

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

Since we have never observed anything crossing that barrier, it is not unreasonable to (scientifically) assume it exists.

Creationists also have the advantage of revelation, which confirms it exists.

Wow, wow an infinite limit exists???Even if it does, it's hardly going to effect life on a macroscopic scale. Just take one look at the blue whale, it can swim at 20 mph and weighs up to 200 tonnes! It is even close to it's limit of growth - nope:)
Seeing as you acknowledged speciation look at how small the dinos were when they began, and look how big they were able to er speciate in size..(all in the course of a few thousand years :rolleyes:)

J C

Morbert wrote: »

None of this is true, as is evident from molecular information papers I provided you.



We have never seen a non-poodle give birth to a poodle, or a non-parrot give birth to a parrot yet it is reasonable to assume that no barrier exists to prevent such gradual evolution from non-parrots to parrots, and non-poodles to poodles. Likewise, genetic and paleontological evidence suggests that, even though we have never directly observed evolution across many years, it is reasonable to assume no barriers exist when there is no evidence for such barries.

...the invalidity of the above argument can be adjudged from the fact that it identical to an argument that although perpetual motion machines have never been observed to exist and they breach the laws of thermodynamics, it is still reasonable to assume that they could exist!!!!

...I don't know what planet you are living on .... but on the planet where I reside ... such arguments are regarded as scientific nonesense!!!:eek::)

J C

...anyway, getting back to the Prof Dawkins quote in my sig ... do you all now accept that it is a true reflection of what he wrote in the Preface.

Please AGAIN note the following:-

1. The quote is fully referenced so that anybody can check its veracity to the original sentence in the book - as well as checking it's meaning in it's full context by reading around the sentence as well.

2. The quote is an exact quote of every word in the full sentence - no more and no less.

So where is there any 'misrepresentation' by me in this quote ?
The quote says that Prof Dawkins believes that the evidence for evolution itself was nowhere explicitly set out in any of Prof Dawkins previous books - and that is what he seems to be actually saying when you read this sentence within the context of the entire Preface - or on it's own in my sig!!!

The importance of the quote is obvious - because it is a frank admission by one of the leading proponents of Darwinian Evolution that he hasn't explicitly set out the evidence for evolution in any of his previous books about evolution ... and a promise by him to close this 'serious gap' by writing this book!!!

This then leads us on to the question as to whether Prof Dawkins did actually 'close the gap' by providing explicit evidence for evolution in his latest book?

I have read it and I don't believe he did - but I am open to correction on this belief - if anybody can provide the evidence!!!!

... so two questions:-

1. Do you now accept that the quote from Prof Dawkins in my sig does NOT 'misrepresent' the substantive meaning of what he wrote?

2. What explicit evidence for evolution was provided in 'The Greatest Show on Earth'?

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...I'll deal with the quote from Prof Gould later on ...

Why ? Because you know you are wrong and you won't admit it ? Your trying to waste time until you no longer have to answer it ?

... Let us finish with the Prof Dawkins Quote first ... is it not true that it says and means exactly what Prof Dawkins wrote?

I have not made a single comment about Prof Dawkins quote, that has been you and other posters. I have always been talking about Prof Goulds quote and now you are trying to derail me onto it as well.

I'll make you a deal, if you answer my questions about Gould's quote and tell everyone why you are misquoting a dead man for your own personal agenda even after he explicitly came out and defended himself from this very nonsense. Then I will remove your quotes from my signature.

Gould's quote is completely false and dishonest and you know it. Defend it now or do the decent thing and remove it.

... and rather than nit-picking and arguing over semantics ... please point out WHERE Prof Dawkins ACTUALLY provided EXPLICIT evidence for Evolution in his latest book!!!

I am not going to let you derail me from the Gould issue but ...

The book is full of explicit evidence for Evolution. Why don't you show me where you disagree and I will respond. AFTER you answer my questions about the Gould quote.

...BTW I accept that you will do nothing to please me ... but do bear in mind that there are hundreds of 'lurkers' out there ... and what they see is no answer to a valid and basic question put to Evolutionists!!!!

I have been asking you the same question for 3 days and until this time you have ignored me. I think the lurkers are getting a very good picture of who is not answering the questions JC.

... you should be able to provide explicit evidence for Evolution, if it exists ... but because the evidence doesn't exist ... I expect that providing any explicit evidence may take some time!!!!

Dawkins book is full of evidence from the first page to the last. Please point out an issue you have with some of the evidence in the book.

But first answer my questions or remove your Gould quote.

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Stephen Jay Gould on intermediate forms
"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt"

The context that immediately follows demonstrates that this view is articulated only in order to reject it:

"Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question."

Gould was scathing on such misleading quotations:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups"

It all depends on which 'Gould' we are talking about ... the one who made the statement quoted in my sig (in Natural History, vol. 86, June-July, 1977) or the one who desperately tried to retract it during heated debates with Creation Scientists in the 1980's!!!!

I will answer this question with grateful attribution to the Discovery Institute site which has dealt in depth with this precise issue - and I have extensively used their information in my reply below.
Despite the fact that numerous statements could be provided from evolutionary paleontologists admitting the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, sometimes Darwinists try to engage in damage control to disavow their previous statements that the fossil record lacks plausible transitional intermediates. Stephen Jay Gould certainly complained about being quoted on the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, saying “it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”
This statement was written during the heat of political battles over teaching creationism in the early 1980s, and it directly contradicts one of Gould’s earlier statements where he clearly admitted that “transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”

Which Gould are we to believe?
The answer is clear: Gould’s scientific partner in promoting the punctuated equilibrium model, Niles Eldredge, concurs with the former Gould that “most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors.” (Niles Eldredge Macroevolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, pg. 22 (New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, 1989).

Elsewhere, Eldredge again validates the former Gould, stating that “the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be.” (Niles Eldredge, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, pg. 65-66 (New York: Washington Square Press, 1982).

It seems very clear which Gould we should believe--and it is not the one who made his statements in the heat of debates with young earth creationists.

Some paleontologists (including Gould and Eldredge) attempted to explain the lack of transitional forms by speculating that evolutionary transitions occurred in small populations, too rapidly or too remotely for evolutionary change to be recorded in the fossil record. This theory of “punctuated equilibrium” was problematic not only because it required too much evolutionary change in too little time, but because it predicted that the direct fossil evidence confirming an evolutionary transition should not be expected to be discoverable - and therefore is strictly outside of science!!!

Rather than documenting the evolution of new species, the fossil record consistently shows a pattern where new fossil forms come into existence “abruptly,” without clear evolutionary precursors. Scientists have dubbed many of these events “explosions” of new life forms.

A striking example is the Cambrian explosion, where nearly all of the major living animal groups (called “phyla”) appear in the fossil record in a geological instant about 530 million years ago. As one college-level textbook acknowledges, “Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record first appear, 'fully formed,' in the Cambrian ... The fossil record is therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early diversification of the various animal phyla."

...so Gould's original and accurate quote in my sig remains both scientifically valid and a truthful reflection of his position AT THE TIME THAT IT WAS MADE !!!

...the lack of transitional forms WAS the reason Prof Gould proposed Punctuated Equilibrium, after all - or are you also in denial about that as well???

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

It all depends on which 'Gould' we are talking about ... the one who made the statement quoted in my sig (in Natural History, vol. 86, June-July, 1977) or the one who desperately tried to retract it during heated debates with Creation Scientists in the 1980's!!!!

I will answer this question with grateful attribution to the Discovery Institute site which has dealt in depth with this precise issue - and I have extensively used their information in my reply below.
Despite the fact that numerous statements could be provided from evolutionary paleontologists admitting the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, sometimes Darwinists try to engage in damage control to disavow their previous statements that the fossil record lacks plausible transitional intermediates. Stephen Jay Gould certainly complained about being quoted on the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, saying “it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”
This statement was written during the heat of political battles over teaching creationism in the early 1980s, and it directly contradicts one of Gould’s earlier statements where he clearly admitted that “transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”

Which Gould are we to believe?
The answer is garbage: Gould’s scientific partner in promoting the punctuated equilibrium model, Niles Eldredge, concurs with the former Gould that “most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors.” (Niles Eldredge Macroevolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, pg. 22 (New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, 1989).

Elsewhere, Eldredge again validates the former Gould, stating that “the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be.” (Niles Eldredge, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, pg. 65-66 (New York: Washington Square Press, 1982).

It seems very clear which Gould we should believe--and it is not the one who made his statements in the heat of debates with young earth creationists.

Some paleontologists (including Gould and Eldredge) attempted to explain the lack of transitional forms by speculating that evolutionary transitions occurred in small populations, too rapidly or too remotely for evolutionary change to be recorded in the fossil record. This theory of “punctuated equilibrium” was problematic not only because it required too much evolutionary change in too little time, but because it predicted that the direct fossil evidence confirming an evolutionary transition should not be expected to be discoverable - and therefore is strictly outside of science!!!

Rather than documenting the evolution of new species, the fossil record consistently shows a pattern where new fossil forms come into existence “abruptly,” without clear evolutionary precursors. Scientists have dubbed many of these events “explosions” of new life forms.

A striking example is the Cambrian explosion, where nearly all of the major living animal groups (called “phyla”) appear in the fossil record in a geological instant about 530 million years ago. As one college-level textbook acknowledges, “Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record first appear, 'fully formed,' in the Cambrian ... The fossil record is therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early diversification of the various animal phyla."

...so Gould's original and accurate quote in my sig remains both scientifically valid and a truthful reflection of his position AT THE TIME THAT IT WAS MADE !!!

...the lack of transitional forms WAS the reason Prof Gould proposed Punctuated Equilibrium, after all - or are you also in denial about that as well???

I'm sorry, but I just cannot help laughing at that (And that a first for a boards post not meant to be humourous)...the Cambrian explosion was when complex life began?:eek::D:rolleyes: Gould made a grave error and he acknowledged it. Maybe you guys should do the same...

monosharp

I am just going to copy and paste the answer to this foolishness.

Quote #50

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution." (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, p. 127)

This is a rather unspectacularly predictable mined quote, as everyone who has had a few hours exposure to Gould's writings on evolution can instantly see that he's arguing against gradualism and probably in favor of punctuated equilibrium, a theory that he co-originated with Eldredge in 1972. Contrary to possible first impressions of the uninformed, Gould is presenting a problem FOR gradualist evolution, and countering WITH solutions to this apparent "problem" later in the paragraph.

And, in typical quote-mining style, this sentence has been taken out of its natural ecosystem. In this section of the paper, Gould is outlining the challenge to gradualist models of macroevolution in three loosely united themes. He is not challenging evolution itself nor is he discounting the vast wealth of fossil data that already exists.

Therefore, someone unfamiliar with Gould who would read the quote alone, above, who does not understand Gould's argument in the paper nor his scientific history will not realize he's just questioning gradualism as a theory of evolutionary change, and not realize he's simultaneously proposing a better idea of evolutionary change to fit the observed data.

As far as the paper goes, the quote above is actually from point #2 in his argument, and you'll have to see the full context to see where it's been selectively snipped. Here's the full context, starting with his point #2 but not encompassing the entire section #2 (which goes on in the same vein a while longer).

" 2. The saltational initiation of major transitions: The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary states between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. St. George Mivart (1871), Darwin's most cogent critic, referred to it as the dilemma of "the incipient stages of useful structures" -- of what possible benefit to a reptile is two percent of a wing? The dilemma has two potential solutions. The first, preferred by Darwinians because it preserves both gradualism and adaptation, is the principle of preadaptation: the intermediate stages functioned in another way but were, by good fortune in retrospect, pre-adapted to a new role they could play only after greater elaboration. Thus, if feathers first functioned "for" insulation and later "for" the trapping of insect prey (Ostrom 1979) a proto-wing might be built without any reference to flight.

I do not doubt the supreme importance of preadaptation, but the other alternative, treated with caution, reluctance, disdain or even fear by the modern synthesis, now deserves a rehearing in the light of renewed interest in development: perhaps, in many cases, the intermediates never existed. I do not refer to the saltational origin of entire new designs, complete in all their complex and integrated features -- a fantasy that would be truly anti-Darwinian in denying any creativity to selection and relegating it to the role of eliminating new models. Instead, I envisage a potential saltational origin for the essential features of key adaptations. Why may we not imagine that gill arch bones of an ancestral agnathan moved forward in one step to surround the mouth and form proto-jaws? Such a change would scarcely establish the Bauplan of the gnathostomes. So much more must be altered in the reconstruction of agnathan design -- the building of a true shoulder girdle with bony, paired appendages, to say the least. But the discontinuous origin of a proto-jaw might set up new regimes of development and selection that would quickly lead to other, coordinated modifications." (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pp. 126-127)

Gould then goes on to show that Darwin conflated gradualism with natural selection, and then talks more in point #2 about future work in the field of evolutionary development that yields testable hypothesis for small changes in developmental pathways (corresponding to small evolutionary changes) yielding large changes in adult body plans. Gould states that this is the kind of approach that will give forth real information rather than adaptive stories or hypothetical intermediates. Gould was probably not exactly a 'visionary' for proposing this in print, but evolutionary developmental biology seems to be giving plenty of support to the theory of evolution these days.

Please remove the quote from your signature and show a little respect for the dead.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...the invalidity of the above argument can be adjudged from the fact that it identical to an argument that although perpetual motion machines have never been observed to exist and they breach the laws of thermodynamics, it is still reasonable to assume that they could exist!!!!

...I don't know what planet you are living on .... but on the planet where I reside ... such arguments are regarded as scientific nonesense!!!:eek::)

Darwinian Evolution does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.

J C

Morbert wrote: »

Darwinian Evolution does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.

...any time it postulates the emergence of new Complex Specified Information without an intelligent input it violates the laws of Mathematical Probability!!!!:eek::D

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...any time it postulates the emergence of new Complex Specified Information without an intelligent input it violates the laws of Mathematical Probability!!!!:eek::D

Err...how does one violate laws of probability??

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...any time it postulates the emergence of new Complex Specified Information without an intelligent input it violates the laws of Mathematical Probability!!!!:eek::D

That's like saying planes violate the theory of gravity. It is clearly nonsense.

J C

monosharp wrote: »

I am just going to copy and paste the answer to this foolishness.



Please remove the quote from your signature and show a little respect for the dead.

...The quote in my sig has ALWAYS made it clear that Prof Gould WAS an Evolutionist ... and it highlights the 'nagging problem' of absence of fossil intermediates that STILL continues to be a problem for a gradualistic (i.e. Darwinian) account of Evolution - and which Prof Gould tried to reconcile with his ideas on Punctuated Equilibrium/Evolution AKA 'The Hopeful Monster' Theory!!!!!

I have decided to further clarify in my sig that Prof Gould was a Punctuated Evolutionist.

The quote is valid and true quote from the man and it highlights the CONTINUING controversy within Evolution over the absence of intermediates ... which,of course, is what you would EXPECT if Creation is true!!!!

It is used by me with full espect for a great scientist who 'called it like it is' ... until he discovered that it was helping the Creation Science Movement.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Err...how does one violate laws of probability??

..by postulating something that is possible when it is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE!!!:)

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

..by postulating something that is possible when it is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE!!!:)

And evolution is mathematically impossible, how?

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

And evolution is mathematically impossible, how?

...because the production of functional irreducible Complex Specified Information without the appliance of intelligence is mathematically impossible!!!

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...because the production of functional irreducible Complex Specified Information without the appliance of intelligence!!!

And how exactly is this mathematically impossible?

Also, I forgot what exactly you mean by?
Complex Specified Information, and Intelligence?
Semantic Satiation ftl:(

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Also, I forgot what exactly you mean by?
Complex Specified Information, and Intelligence?
Semantic Satiation ftl:(

...go look up a Dictionary!!!

BTW I was an Evolutionist when the Punctuated Equilibrium Contoversy was in full swing and I remember that poor Prof Gould was treated like ID proponents are today by some Evolutionists at the time!!

Prof Gould was a hero of mine at the time and I remember thinking that his Punctuated Equilibrium Theory was like a 'breath of fresh air' within Evolutionary Science.

So don't come to me crying 'crocodile tears' for Prof Gould and his quote - when I was a Punctuated Evolutionist, I was using this quote to DEFEND Prof Gould against his Darwinist detrators, probably before you were in nappies!!!!!:eek::D

...and the quote is still as valid as the day this great original thinker first uttered it!!!

...the reality expressed in this quote was one of the main REASONS why Prof Gould postulated Punctuated Equilibrium ... but unfortunately for the theory, it has been superceded by breakthroughs in ID and Creation Science research, since then!!!!

...but this doesn't in any way take away from the status of this great Evolutionary Scientist!!!

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...go look up a Dictionary!!!

BTW I was an Evolutionist at the time that the Punctuated Equilibrium Contoversy was in full swing and I remember that poor Prof Gould was treated like ID proponents are today by some Evolutionists at the time!!

Prof Gould was a hero of mine at the time and I remember thinking that his Punctuated Equilibrium Theory was like a 'breath of fresh air' within Evolutionary Science.

So don't come to me crying 'crocodile tears' for Prof Gould and his quote - when I was a Punctuated Evolutionist, I was using this quote to DEFEND Prof Gould against his Darwinist detrators, probably before you were in nappies!!!!!:eek::D

...and the quote is still as valid as the day this great original thinker first uttered it!!!

Please do not lie : you were never an evolutionist. If you were you would at least demonstrate some understanding of it.
It is not a game of chance, nor will it ever be.
So I ask you again , what does Complex Specified Information mean, perhaps give an example of it in real-life?

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Please do not lie : you were never an evolutionist. If you were you would at least demonstrate some understanding of it.

...unbelievable arrogance ... and in somebody so young!!!
....that probably expains it!!:D:)

Malty_T wrote: »

It is not a game of chance, nor will it ever be.
So I ask you again , what does Complex Specified Information mean, perhaps give an example of it in real-life?

...this is what I find most frustrating about evolutionists like you!!!
...you instinctively know that life COULDN'T arise and develop by chance alone ... because the odds against Complex Specified Information arising are simply mathematically impossible.

....but then you turn around and 'hey presto' you think that NS will save the day ... but you forget that NS can ONLY select from pre-existing Complex Specified Information (CSI) ... and it therefore doesn't ACTUALLY explain how such CSI could arise in the first place!!!:)

A simple example of CSI would be a nut and bolt...and if randomly directed processes were used to manufacture them, not a single bolt would fit any other nut ... some would have no thread, others would have incompatible diameters while others would have incompatible threads and most would simply be 'blobs' of formerly molten metal without any 'make or shape' to them...

....you could randomly manufacture a mountain of nuts and bolts the size of Mount Everest and there wouldn't be a functional nut and bolt between them all ... but apply intelligence to the process and you could produce an infinite variety of different fully functional nuts and bolts or millions of specific nuts and bolts that work every time!!!

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Please do not lie : you were never an evolutionist.

....do you think that a belief in Evolution is some kind of 'life sentence'????

...and nobody ever changes their mind, when something better comes along???

J C

Morbert wrote: »

That's like saying planes violate the theory of gravity. It is clearly nonsense.

..planes overcome and utilise the Laws of Physics ... BECAUSE intelligence has been applied to DESIGNING them and their manufacturing systems ...

...and living organisms overcome and utilise the Laws of Chemistry ... BECAUSE intelligence has been applied to DESIGNING them and their manufacturing systems !!!:)

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

..by postulating something that is possible when it is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE!!!:)

You can't show that life, even your ridiculous idea that a protein randomly forms, is impossible, just unlikely.

Therefore nothing is breaking the "laws of probability", what ever they are and you are just talking out of your back side.