Most atheists dont know about science (Page 71) Blackshoes: All that matters in the end is whether you built your life on the truth or on sand ! A wise man or woman would follow the truth not what their feed by fools !  Angry Beaver: This thread is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off topic now.... should ask the mods to shitcan it,as soon as the glod ppls turned up it was doomed lol (Edited by Angry Beaver) Angry Beaver: Pretty much every evolutionary topic BS infests goes off topic when he starts to arrogantly assert his "truth" and implies that anyone who disagrees with him is of limited intelligence and doesn't know how to think logically... That's why the mods delete them. Learn a little humility BS, I'm sure your bible says somewhere that you should Blackshoes: Then show me where I've misrepresented the truth . Oh no", there I go again asking for real science I'm just so evil LOL Maybe you could show me a cat dog of whale bird ? I know you cannot show any evidence because it takes eons of time . How convenient . Your theory doesn't need any evidence Whatever you tell us we have to believe because you say so  Because we just cannot understand anything your ego doesn't allow us to understand  (Edited by Blackshoes) Angry Beaver: theHating: theHating: blackshoes, if you were looking for an understanding of evolution, you wouldn't be gaining very credible info from a forum as opposed to the scientists themselves, would you? sounds to me like you are the only one here with a confirmation bias. i will discredit myself before you get a chance to by saying i am not a scientist, so dont take me seriously. i am informing you that i am not a professional, so if your excuse for not understanding evolution is based on my misunderstanding of evolution, then your argument against evolution has to be based on my assessment. do you understand how burden of proof works? i am not the geologist or the community collaboration at large, i have at most a rudimentary understanding, this is what you exploit in your "debates" on wireclub. you assume that my amateur knowledge of evolution is representative of what scientists claim. i could say scientists said "x did y and produced z" and it could be something no scientist has ever said, but as long as it contradicted your worldview and supported evolution theory, you would rail against it for all the wrong reasons. thats what makes you so more discredible than a skeptic, a skeptic challenges the consensus, and a denier refuses to accept any challenge to his worldview. sorry blackshoes, but you are no skeptic if you dont know how to source credible information. you wage war on credible information to bolster your ego because life was cruel to you and its your pragmatic coping mechanism to succumb to the antiquity of the magic sky daddy and woman coming from a man's rib, and carbon before primordial subatomic structures to make light (which is required to make carbon :/ ).... 17 minutes ago • Edit • Delete • Report theHating theHating: long story short, i could say literally anything to support evolution and you would rail against it for all the wrong reasons. even if i claimed something that is definitely not true, as long as it supported TOE, you would rail against it. because you do not understand how systems science works, and you indoctrinate yourself with creationist blogs 14 minutes ago • Edit • Delete • Report theHating theHating: if i made a claim, say that scientists said something, and put it in quotes, you would likely never bother tracking down the source of my claim because you have a confirmation bias for creationism. 13 minutes ago • Edit • Delete • Report theHating theHating: if you understood how systems science works, you would be attacking the beat at the source instead of trolling amateurs on forums 11 minutes ago • Edit • Delete • Report theHating theHating: ...with circular creationism blogs 11 minutes ago • Edit • Delete • Report theHating theHating: thats what is so funny, you fundies always claim you think about this stuff and how you devote your lives to thinking about the contrarians argument makes you knowledgeable, but none of it is yours, you didnt go do any experiments, you didnt go out and study carbon atoms, you probably never looked at tree bark under a $20 microscope for crying out loud! so keep posting those circular blog posts and claiming your conclusion is the result of this aggregate of discredited bloggers, because for every 1 source you post, an "evolutionist" can give you 160 independent sources to prove you wrong and support their model. that is why modern creationists are forced to accept TOE in their universities. 6 minutes ago • Edit • Delete • Report theHating theHating: when you post from a creationist blog, and they get a guy with a ph.d to go along with their creationism narrative and present evidence, where da fuq do you think they get the data they use in their presentations? god? where do you think that scientist picked up a photo of a 2 million year old lobster to strawman evolution with on "Origins"? 2 minutes ago • Edit • Delete • Report theHating theHating: fkn for real, get on your computer old man, and study the actual science before you come to any premature conclusion, or heaven forbid, a confirmation bias that is your favorite criticism of "evolutionists" Angry Beaver: Despite your pages and pages of "rebuttals" from your creation sites, you can;t see past your "god did it" bias..... stock reply from now on as posted above. And thank you TheHating (Edited by Angry Beaver) Angry Beaver: Here you go, this thread took a BS turn around page 4: "Blackheads..I see ', as many believers do ,the Glory of God in his Creation ,and the Variety of Life, and the Universe The Atheist is Blinded by his unbelief ',and rejects that God create all things ', rather they chose accept a *Pseudoscience ,and chance ',as the author of all things Time will soon tell , which is the fool' and which has been Wise enough to accept ,the Eye witness reports of all things * Present Day Science Clearly shows the Folly of DNA or Abiogenesis Developing or coming about by chance" See, you can't stay on topic for a minute, can you?...It wasn;t about YOUR beliefs at all...stop making every damn thread about you! Blackshoes: I don't ! You and those that have no evidence or knowledge of ToE other than what you've been feed or indoctrinated into believing DO ! They have to personalize it' because they have nothing to support their opinions and assumptions ! Note how you use insults to belittle me in the very post you claim I'm making the issue about myself I wonder if you even have a clue of how ignorant you look "Blackheads..I see ', as many believers do ,the Glory of God in his Creation ,and the Variety of Life, and the Universe" Insults and criticisms are the stock and trade of those that wish to control and enslave others minds . By insulting anyone that disagrees with them or shows their opinions and fairytales as false', they fear the truth ! Note how all of Richard Dawkins videos and books all belittle anyone that shows his claims false and disagrees with his beliefs ! Just as HATEs earlier Video did ! They control you through fear ! You're afraid to think for yourself .You're afraid to be labeled and insulted ! All the wile thinking your self wise ! Evolution is false Not because I say so ToE is false", because it 's not based in Science or anything other than Bias ,Assumptions and Opinions ! I have stated more than once show Evidence ! Show facts ! Show real science ! Show something other than the endless brainwashed ,conditioned, and faithful rhetoric 'all Evolutionists spew of their religion ToE ! James Tour is one of the Brightest most intelligent chemist there is ",and he has stated it as plainly as it can be said . We haven't a clue of how life works ! Claiming ToE is fact is just ludicrous ! (Edited by Blackshoes) Angry Beaver: Like you never use insults!.... Calling thelonius monkey is cool then? All very christian?? Ditto to you mate, show us YOUR proof, not cherry picks and buzzwords from creation sites, you do exactly what you accuse everyone else of doing... (Edited by Angry Beaver) Blackshoes: LOL You're welcome to find all five or six' I've stated in the last few years. LOL Note also there general and I don't think other than once I made it personal LOL I'm not perfect Just forgiven  I'm not sure if calling anyone of you a Is a insult ? after all Evolutionist claim to be little more than a bacteria LOL (Edited by Blackshoes) Angry Beaver: Yeah yeah, go on believing that if it gets you through the night Oops had to edit...forgot to say LOL LOL LOL.... (Edited by Angry Beaver)  theHating: "evolutionists" dont call themselves bacteria, you do. "evolutionists" might say we EVOLVED from bacteria. what a pathetic strawman, i would expect nothing more from the cult of personality theHating: i bet if blackshoes watched a photon obliterate an oxygen molecule and rain ionized aresols upon the earth, he would have zero idea that it was likely caused by a large solar flare, and probably think the prophecy of the book of revelations was happening. Blackshoes: What makes you believe you evolved ? There's certainly no reseach or science that would lead any reasonable logical or informed person to accept such a fairytale Evolution is not Science according to all present and past Scientific methodology ! It's a Religious belief ! Other than the geological record , Which is inconclusive, and suggestive ",All of the Scientific evidence and facts show this ! 'Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome' Introduction Dr. John Sanford is an imminently qualified geneticist, a long-time Professor and Researcher at Cornell University. Among his many contributions is his invention of the "gene gun", a method of direct gene transfer used in plant genetic engineering. In the Prologue to Genetic Entropy he begins with this statement: "In retrospect, I realize I have wasted much of my life arguing about things that don't really matter." It takes a supremely honest man to make a statement like that, but he admits to previously subscribing to the, "ideological foundation of undirected and pointless Darwinian evolution." He admits also to previously being, at heart, a eugenicist. Not all evolutionists believe in eugenics, but many do believe that the future of the human race depends on our helping evolution along by assuring the survival of the fittest of our race. Not many, fortunately, have the opportunity as did Adolph Hitler, to actually begin such a program. In the Prologue to this revolutionary book, Dr. Sanford states that the foundation of modern Darwinism is built upon what he calls "The Primary Axiom", the idea that man is merely the product of, "random mutations plus natural selection." In graduate school he accepted the Primary Axiom primarily by trust in the authorities rather than by his own personal understanding. As Dr. John Baumgardner points out in the Foreword to the book, most professional biologists are not aware of the unjustifiable assumptions that form the foundation of evolutionary beliefs. It is rare to find anyone in academia in this country who would dare to question Darwinism. And yet, late in his career, Dr. Sanford did something that seemed unthinkable to a Cornell professor; he began to question the Primary Axiom. He stated that he did so with "great fear and trepidation." This is understandable, as anyone who has been through the educational system will testify, especially those in many of the science curricula. But to Dr. Sanford's great amazement, he found that the revered foundation built around the Primary Axiom was a "house of cards"; the theory itself extremely vulnerable and indefensible. And in the final analysis the Axiom stands on little but the faith of the true believers. Consequently he began to realize that he would probably be offending the very religion of many people. But whatever the cost, he came to the place where he must say it out loud: "The Emperor has no clothes!" Dr. Sanford does a masterful job of presenting a complicated subject in a way that can be understood by non-scientists. He promises that with "a reasonable mental effort" on the part of the reader, he can persuade the reader that the Primary Axiom is false. And if the Primary Axiom is wrong, there is an ominous and surprising consequence: "When subjected only to natural forces, the human genome must irrevocably degenerate over time." He states that such a sober realization should cause us to reconsider where we should place our hope for the future. The Genome The size and complexity of the human genome is staggering; there is simply nothing designed by man with which to compare it. The genome is the sum total of our genetic makeup - the blueprint or instruction manual that determines our physical makeup. Genetic coding within the genome is carried with the chemical DNA. DNA forms the familiar "double helix" that looks like a twisted ladder. Letters in the blueprint are molecules - nucleotides known symbolically as A, T, C, and G that form the cross pieces of the DNA ladder. Each cross piece (base pair) is composed of a pair from the group of the four nucleotides. A human genome consists of two sets of 3 billion individual letters. If the letters were arranged linearly, in one long string, the result would be equivalent to many complete sets of a large encyclopedia. But the genome is not just a long, one-dimensional string of information. Most DNA sequences carry information on several different levels; i.e. they are poly-functional. And because they carry information on several levels, any change at one level will effect a change in another message contained on another level. Geneticists call this attribute poly-constrained. For example, imagine a sentence that coveys a certain message when read in the usual way, from left to right, and an entirely different message when read from right to left. Then suppose another message was stored by reading every other letter, or every other word, and so on. It is obvious that changing one letter would impact more than one instruction. More complex schemes make the problem worse with respect to tolerance for misspellings or other "typographical" errors. For example consider the so-called Sator Square, a Latin palindrome (reads the same left to right and right to left) written as a square. This example dates back to 79AD, and loosely translated says "The Farmer named Arepo works with wheels". Notice it reads the same up and down and left and right. If you change just one letter in "ROTAS" across the top, you have not only changed that word, but have also messed up all the words that read up and down. R O T A S O P E R A T E N E T A R E P O S A T O R To add further to its complexity, the genome is full of countless loops and branches. Linear DNA can also fold into two- and three-dimensional structures, providing coding for still higher levels of information through data compression. And all of this complexity is stored in a genome that resides inside a cell's nucleus in a space much smaller than a speck of dust. This is what the author calls the "mystery of the genome". He concludes (p. 154) that, "It should be very clear that our genome could not have arisen spontaneously." Suffice it to say that we know enough about the complexity of God's blueprints to be in awe, but will probably never come close to knowing everything about it. It is likely that there is coding imbedded in the DNA that we cannot even anticipate or imagine. What are Mutations? The current thinking of evolutionists is that all biological information arose through mutation and selection ("survival of the fittest". Mutations are errors that occur when a DNA segment (gene) is damaged or changed. And here we come to what Dr. Sanford sees as a major flaw in evolutionary theory: Darwinists must believe that the genome is gradually improved by being damaged and changed in a random and un-ordered fashion through natural selection. Imagine a modern automobile factory using a highly complicated system of robotics and human workers placing individual parts as the chassis moves along the assembly lines. Let's further suppose that there is an Instruction Manual that is the guide to the entire operation. Every step, every operation goes strictly by the Instruction Manual. Now let's introduce "mutations" - random errors in the instructions. Admittedly, the operations could survive a few random errors. A misspelled word now and then, a letter or even an entire word occasionally deleted might not spell doom for the production process. But it certainly wouldn't help. If an occasional error is introduced into this Instruction Manual, any effect at all would be detrimental - there is no way it could be otherwise unless guided by intelligence, purpose, and design. Therefore if random errors can be introduced without intelligent oversight (as they could if copies of the Manual were produced by typists re-typing every additional copy), the quality of the Instruction Manual, and therefore the automobiles coming off the assemble line, would slowly deteriorate over time. Eventually, the effects would be made known not only in the appearance of the product, but in how well the engine and other critical components function. Only in the minds of devoted Darwinists could this system even maintain the status quo, much less improve the product. But evolution from microbes to man depends on coding errors not only improving the quality of automobiles (in Dr. Sanford's example), but even in transforming them into space ships! Even if randomly introduced errors in the Instruction Manual could, on occasion, produce a car with a rocket engine (not likely), it would immediately be eliminated by the Inspector. What good is a car with a rocket engine? It would be a complicated monstrosity that would not even qualify as a good car, much less as a spacecraft. The only way small changes in the Instruction Manual can improve the automobiles is if they are guided by intelligence. And the Primary Axiom does not allow the introduction of any intelligence, purpose, or forethought! An important point is that, as a genetic principle, the Primary Axiom also does not allow for direct selection for misspellings themselves, but only for the finished product. This is only one of many serious obstacles to the widely held belief that natural selection improves the genome. The reasons for this are convincing but too numerous to be mentioned here. Can Random Mutations be Beneficial? "Random mutations consistently destroy information." (P. 15) Mutations cause birth defects. Cancer is caused by mutations, and there is growing evidence that aging itself is caused by the accumulation of mutations. But random mutations are not observed to increase genetic complexity. In fact, in studies of bacterial resistance to antibiotics (one of the Darwinists favorite examples of "evolution", it has been shown that mutations that have imparted resistance to populations of the bacteria have actually digressed (lost genetic information). But in the special case of the environment inside a host's body infused with an antibiotic there are cases in which mutant bacterial strains happened to have resistance to the antibiotic, and thus survive. These strains are rapidly replaced by superior strains with natural genetic makeup as soon as the selective pressure (the antibiotic) is removed. And yet, thanks to an extensive miss-information campaign, many today have been led to believe that microbial resistance to antibiotics is some of the best "proofs" of molecules to man evolution! Dr. Sanford gives several examples in his own field of plant genetics where much research was done in order to screen mutations for beneficial effects. From a huge number (billions of mutation events) many, "small, sterile, sick, deformed, aberrant plants were produced." Almost no meaningful crop improvements resulted. The exceptions were a very few cases where, although a mutant was beneficial in a certain context (low phytate corn for animal feed, for example), the mutant strain had lost genetic complexity and could not possibly be an example of evolution through favorable mutations. Other examples given were in the field of ornamental plants, where dysfunctional attributes were found to be valued for aesthetic or other reasons. These attributes include sterility, dwarfing, mottled and variegated foliage, and misshaped flowers. Beneficial mutations are much too rare to be used for genome-building; their acceptance for this purpose is based on unquestioned acceptance of the Primary Axiom. One of the well-known problems (that is, well-known to geneticists!) with thinking that natural selection can fix the mutation problem in the genome is Selection Interference due to physical linkage. As it turns out, there is a, "tight physical linkage between beneficial and deleterious mutations." (p. 81) The ability to separate good and bad mutations is obviously a basic requirement for natural selection to work at all. The death knell for this procedure is the fact that essentially the entire genome exists in large linkage blocks. So even though the rare presence of a few beneficial mutations would seem to offer a glimmer of hope for forward evolution, the presence of physical linkage erases those beneficial mutations from consideration. Is the human genome deteriorating? Geneticists have long worried about the impact of mutations on the human population, and that at a rate of one deleterious mutation per person per generation, genetic deterioration would result. Earlier reports were based on estimates of mutation rates considerable lower than what we now know to be the case. Findings going back to 2002 show that the human mutation rate is at least 100 mistakes (misspellings) per person per generation. Some scientists believe the rate is closer to 300. Even a rate of 100 has profound implications, and the mutation rate is itself increasing. Furthermore, most, if not all, mutations in the human genome must be deleterious. "And nothing can reverse the damage that has been done during our own generation, even if further mutations could be stopped." (P. 40) It would appear that the process is an irreversible downward spiral that will end in "mutational meltdown". A considerable array of information is presented to show why natural selection is unable to stop this deterioration of the genome. Many of these arguments are too involved to be covered in a short review such as this one. To quote the author, "On a practical level, it means natural selection can never create, or even maintain, specific nucleotide sequences." One problem is that selection occurs on the level of the whole organism, while mutation is occurring on the molecular level, "It is like trying to fix a computer with a hammer." To qualify his statements on the limits of natural selection, Dr. Sanford makes it clear he is not saying that selection does not work. In his work as a plant breeder, many useful plant varieties were derived by selecting desirable traits from each generation. And natural selection has eliminated the very worst human mutations. But both natural and artificial selection have very limited ranges of operation; and they can never create higher genomes. An example with selective breeding of animals are modern swine breeds. Although converting pig feed to bacon more efficiently than their forbears, they are definitely not more fit in general, except in the pampered and protected environment of a pig farm. What are the implications of genomic deterioration? The author cites research showing that the human race is currently degenerating at 1-2 % per generation due to accumulation of mutations. At a 1% decline in fitness per generation, there is a sharp reduction in fitness after 300 generations (about 6,000 years). One of the most interesting revelations in Genetic Entropy is Dr. Sanford's and other workers' analysis of the Biblical account of life expectancies. In a statistical regression analysis of declining life spans since Noah (lived 950 years), after 32 centuries since Noah the life expectancy has declined to about 70. The remarkable aspect is that this curve, which shows a sharp drop-off after Noah and a more gradual decline about 1,000 years ago, is that it is very similar to theoretical curves presented by other researchers that show genetic degeneration. Either Moses faithfully recorded the events (and ages) recorded in Genesis, or he was a skilled statistician who made up data with a remarkable fit to an exponential curve! On page 83 the author states, "The extinction on the human genome appears to be just as certain and deterministic as the extinction of stars, the death of organisms, and the heat death of the universe." In a summary statement on p. 139 he states, "We have reviewed compelling evidence that, even when ignoring deleterious mutations, mutation/selection cannot create a single gene within the human evolutionary timescale. When deleterious mutations are factored back in, we see that mutation/selection cannot create a single gene, ever. This is overwhelming evidence against the Primary Axiom. In my opinion this constitutes what is essentially a formal proof that the Primary Axiom is false." Conclusions This review can not do justice to the vast amount of scientific information which Dr. Sanford meticulously presents in the book, which includes 81 reference citations. Some of the many problems with natural selection improving the genome are covered in topics such as Invisible Mutations, Nearly Neutral Mutations, Too Ma Minor Mutations, Reproductive Elimination, The Low Heritability of Fitness, Excessive Noise Overrides Selection. Major problems, from the scientific literature, are presented in Appendix 1. Topics included are, • "Muller's Fear" • "Muller's Ratchet" • "Neel's Realization" • "Kondrashov's Question" • "Kondrashov's Numbers" • "Nachman and Crowell's Paradox" • "Crow's Concerns" • "Lynch et al.'s Mutation Meltdown" • "Higgins and Lynch - More Meltdown" • "Hoyle's Big Picture" • "Howell's Challenge" • "Loewe's Limit" We hope the reader will read the book to learn just how strong the case is for Genetic Entropy - and against the Primary Axiom. by Gerald H. McKibben and Everett C. McKibben 2008 (Edited by Blackshoes) theHating: blackshoes, how do you rule out that evolution could be true and is god's intelligence test for heaven entrance exams? theHating: i mean, think about it, if you were god, would you let a bunch of ignorant atheists into heaven that didnt understand science? Blackshoes: . All that matters is that you cannot accept the facts and evidence ! You'll just have to deal with why that is within yourself ? I can only tell you the truth . It's up to you to fix yourself ! I would suggest you ask for help . However: I'm pretty sure your ego and pride will reject any help from on high  I already know better  Note this ; some of the greatest minds in history ', such as Sir Isaac Newton and many others were not afflicted with such blindness or arrogance . "From this fountain (the free will of God) it is those laws, which we call the laws of nature, have flowed, in which there appear many traces of the most wise contrivance, but not the least shadow of necessity. These therefore we must not seek from uncertain conjectures, but learn them from observations and experimental. He who is presumptuous enough to think that he can find the true principles of physics and the laws of natural things by the force alone of his own mind, and the internal light of his reason, must either suppose the world exists by necessity, and by the same necessity follows the law proposed; or if the order of Nature was established by the will of God, the [man] himself, a miserable reptile, can tell what was fittest to be done. " Sir Isaac Newton "I build molecules for a living. I can't begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. My faith has been increased through my research. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God. " James Tour "There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist..denies that this is so. It is simply a fact, Darwin's theory and the fossil record are in conflict." David Berlinski "Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading Origins of Life with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear that biological evolution could not have occurred. " Richard Smalley "You cannot change how someone thinks, but you can give them a tool to use which will lead them to think differently. " R. Buckminster Fuller (Edited by Blackshoes)  kittybobo34: So he is saying its a mystery to him and he doesn't understand how it works, he didn't say it was impossible. Only recently did they manage to record the ability of proteins to move and build things. | Science Chat Room 1 Person Chatting Similar Conversations |
