Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@farmerman,

also, the proteins and aminos in life, not only are limited to 64 and 20, but they are all rotating in a unique single direction

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Youre just easily impressed by bullshit if it leans your way. Is your head up your ass just for the warmth or is your laptop up there too?

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

btw do you know the book "Icons of evolution "?

I have seen it, but haven't read it, and I have heard about all the noise around it about 'pseudoscience', 'misquoting', 'dishonest interpretation', 'misused data', etc. of the so called atheists.
They don't acknowledge the ID as valid scientific theory and alternative interpretation but claim it is pseudoscience, and after that they (inter alia FM) claim that their interpretation - the Evolution - is the best (in comparison exclusively to itself). WFM.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

That's because all life only needs those 20.

Where is the prove to this claim - that life needs only these aminoacids and any other would be redundant. Where is the mathematical prove of this claim, or it is just ... ?

farmerman wrote:

You've got probably a generation or two left (except for the Sharia govts wherein Fundamentalist Orthodoxy IS their science)

Religion has survived through the ages for over 12500 years. How did you come to know that there are probably 'a generation or two left'? Where do you have this information from?

farmerman wrote:

... whose merely gone a bit too far (IMHO) in his viewpoints

You are saying this perhaps because he claimed in the end that he is agnostic rather than atheist. At least some people hold to be honest with the public ... unlike some others.

farmerman wrote:

You need to read about genetics a lot more than just flapping around the Creationist sited from Google. new genes are always being formed and they don't necessarily constrain anything.

New genes are formed continuously - this is obvious from the history record of the fossils that you have with you, but this is not necessarily as a result of mutations. In the very same way new operation systems are continuously emerging on the market inter alia the new viruses ... which does not necessarily mean that they are made by the computer viruses themselves.

farmerman wrote:

MAny phenotypic traits are coded by ONE allele (a Single Nucleotide Polymorph) or by many.

This is phenomenology – just observations. I was asking about what is the mechanics standing behind this? ... anyway.

farmerman wrote:

I hope youre taking notes because this is another area where youre dead wrong.

This could not be an answer to the statement ... as it can be stuck to any statement ... without any problems. Instead of complaining about jump-overs why don't you simply reply exactly to the statements concerned?
A validation test for a spam is when some super universal answer could be used as 'an answer' to any statement ... notwithstanding the context.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

by bullshit if it leans your way.

Can you specify exactly the phrases that are bullshit (obvious fallacies) and classifiy them on the list of common fallacies ... and provide some justification, which would not be calling names, red herring, ad hominem, appeal to ignorance or argument from omniscience?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

Can you specify exactly the phrases that are bullshit (obvious fallacies) and classifiy them on the list of common fallacies ... and provide some justification, which would not be calling names, red herring, ad hominem, appeal to ignorance or argument from omniscience?

Your gooooooodddd!!!

I had have it with this fm! he is on my ignore. Love it!

1 Reply

@Herald,

Lets see.
THE following I bullshit or a miscasting of a bit of truth (another way of saying bullshit. Of these , Ive already explained what you should take back home

Quote:

Evolution explains micro-changes that allow species to adapt to some extend to the changing environment (which is also diputable), and does not explain changes that generate new bio-code and create new species.

That's bullshit

Quote:

The theory of the Big Bang claims that it has discovered the evolution of the stars ... which on the Earth has continued somehow into the evolution of the species.

this is bullshit

Quote:

The species cannot appear without the bio-code.

this is merely a non-understanding of how life appeared. It appeared before DNA and RNA and maybe XNA

Quote:

2. They met and formed amino acids.

This is bullshit because I never waid anything like this and you are mixing me with some other reading you've done. Please try to follow the bouncing ball

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

Where is the prove to this claim - that life needs only these aminoacids and any other would be redundant. Where is the mathematical prove of this claim, or it is just ...

I didn't have any mathematical proof, but I did copy it out of Watsons book about his 20 "necktie club" (where a famous scientist was made part of the club if their name was close to the amino acid.

Heres the URL, I hope the mods leave it in since its just table
http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/courses/27619/codon.html

Quote:

Religion has survived through the ages for over 12500 years. How did you come to know that there are probably 'a generation or two left'?

I didn't say that RELIGION only had a few generations, I SPECIFICALLY SAID that the "fundamentalist" belief in Creationism hs but a few generations left .

Quote:

New genes are formed continuously - this is obvious from the history record of the fossils that you have with you, but this is not necessarily as a result of mutations.

We don't find ANY genes in fossils so you've totally lost me here. Maybe you and Quahog can try to salvage some sense outta your statement

talking about Single Nucleotide Polymorphs or many alleles being in charge of one trait, you said

Quote:

This is phenomenology – just observations. I was asking about what is the mechanics standing behind this? ... anyway

This is also the WAY IT IS. You should spend some quality time with the WATSON book on DNA, its highly readable and is quite approachable for citizen scientists

Quote:

This could not be an answer to the statement

Actually it was. You had a misunderstanding and I set you right and I hoped youd take notes or otherwise try to remember for your next "debate"
You seem to be at war with any science that doesn't submit to a Creationiwt or ID mindset. SOrry, I got be me. Atheist or not.

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

I had have it with this fm! he is on my ignore. Love it!

It's quite sad actually Q. I am convinced that when fm asserts something is bullshit he actually thinks it's slam dunk evidence. And it's meaningless outside of his head.

2 Replies

@spendius,

every time Ive said something is bullshit, Ive either had a long history of already provieing evidence or Ive produced some additional evidence to the bullshit. I was surprised at Heralds not knowing about the structure of DNA and asking for some "mathematical proof", that's grade school stuff.
SO, if you and your "colleagues" have trouble with my explanations and ignore the evidence, Maybe Im not the one who's being the

obtusosaurus here.
As far as Quahog, I have no idea what his major mental problem is but its serious. Whether he ignores me or not makes little difference as long as he posts. After all,He is not the arbiter of what he says, we are.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

THE following I bullshit or a miscasting of a bit of truth

1. Bullshit is a noun, not a verb. You cannot say I bullshit for it is invalid as grammar.
2. Miscasting is a gerund and cannot be synonym to bullshit. The nearest construct that can perform this role is 'miscust'.
3. bullshit means nonsense, or logical fallacy; miscast means allot an unsuitable role to (a particular actor, or statement, or whatever). Which one of the above two is your actual interpretation, for if we start up with fake assumptions we may end up step by step with the very theory of the Big Bang.

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Evolution explains micro-changes that allow species to adapt to some extend to the changing environment (which is also disputable), and does not explain changes that generate new bio-code and create new species.
That's bullshit

Why? Can you give an example for a cat becoming a dog as a result of evolutionary changes ... and where it will get the genetic code to become this (except from another dog, with whom it is incompatible as species).

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
The theory of the Big Bang claims that it has discovered the evolution of the stars ... which on the Earth has continued somehow into the evolution of the species.

this is bullshit

In case you have some problems with the theory of the evolution of the stars you may start your reading with the article in Encyclopaedia Britanicca ... and continue with the article at: http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlversion/archean3.html ... for example.

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
The species cannot appear without the bio-code.
this is merely a non-understanding of how life appeared. It appeared before DNA and RNA and maybe XNA

O.K. appeared out of nowhere ...then what. How have they developed and succeeded to live without the genetic code. How have they replicated? ... propagated? ... improved & propagate the improvement to the next generation, etc.

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
2. They met and formed aminoacids.
This is bullshit because I never waid anything like this

Exactly, you are never saying anything ... about the geophysical, chemical and biological stage of the Abyogenesis, for example. You are just commenting the things and denying everything that does not match to the rocks of the right type ... by never saying what exactly it actually is and how have it appeared (on the grounds of fake assumptions) on the Earth. You are never saying anything - you only need a person to make ad hominem constructs ... because this is much more easier than saying anything that might explain something ... for it will be vulnerable to attacks by people like you, having your attitude to finding the truth and verification of the information, notwithstanding the source.

3 Replies

@Herald,

I don't mean to be negative with your education but< I don't think that science is for you. I hve a feeling that Im arguing silliness with a 14 year old. Your inability to recognize the complement of amino acids c that code for lifes proteins is kind of revealing .
Your misquoting of websites in what would normally be considered "dishonest assertions" is also surprising.
you cannottrap people by stating that the Big Bang and organic evolution are linked by process. The Creation of a planet was a "pallette" on which life arose. If you wish to try to assert that one controls the other , well Ill leave that to your science fiction book.

The article in Britannica ays NOTHING o what you say it does. Why do you keep up ith trying to miscast and falsely attribute hat I say hen I didn't?? That's fraud and Im really tired of your being fraudulent in your attempts at debate.

I think you hould read some from Watsons book "DNQ" about howlife was composed in the Hadean (THATS IN THE BRITANNICA ARTICLE),
You seem really obsessed with your "biocode" and some sort of math "proofs" and yet you don't understand the first thing about what youre speaking in this matter. The archean life, Prokaryotic cells appeared without RN and DNA. They most likely used other polymers to transmit replicating information. This is the .

YOUVE failed to answer any of my questions so I can only assume that you've not given me the courtesy to continue a discussion when really all your trying to do is maintain the typical creationist approach of asking dumb questions or trying to sustain illogical points like'How can you mathematically prove that 20 amino acids are in DNA"?

EITHER ANSWER THESE few questions or just go away.

1How do you explain the appearance of new species through time?

2Why don't mammal or bird fossils appear in the Cambrian sediments and why don't dinosaurs and trilobites appear in Holocene sediments

4 why do island dwelling species of plants and animals have totally different families and genera than those of their near mainlands?

5 How does Creationism answer any of the questions bout appearances and disappearances of new genera.

6 In your view, Why doesn't macro evolution occur ?

2 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

THE following I bullshit or a miscasting of a bit of truth

1. Bullshit is a noun, not a verb. You cannot say I bullshit for it is invalid as grammar.
2. Miscasting is a gerund and cannot be synonym to bullshit. The nearest construct that can perform this role is 'miscust'.
3. bullshit means nonsense, or logical fallacy; miscast means allot an unsuitable role to (a particular actor, or statement, or whatever). Which one of the above two is your actual interpretation, for if we start up with fake assumptions we may end up step by step with the very theory of the Big Bang.

Please don't make fun of my spelling because yours is just as bad and your English usage blows. Ive got my reasons for my spelling errors and typos and if you don't accept that then **** off.

s far as my statement, merely substitute "IS" for the "I" and don't try to be funny because youre also without any sense of humor that Is detectable.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I don't mean to be negative

You are not negative ... for you are out of the scale.

farmerman wrote:

with your education

My education is IQ 147 ... and you are not even at a level to assess it, let alone to make frivulous comments.

farmerman wrote:

I don't think that science is for you.

You are absolutely right - science is not for me. My naivistic understanding about science is that the real assignors of the scientific research - the taxpayers, not the government - have the right to know the truth, the whole truth, only the truth and nothing but the truth ... about the results of what they have paid for (scientific research in this case) ... which is obviously not shared.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

You are absolutely right - science is not for me. My naivistic understanding about science is that the real assignors of the scientific research - the taxpayers, not the government - have the right to know the truth, the whole truth, only the truth and nothing but the truth ... about the results of what they have paid for (scientific research in this case) ... which is obviously not shared

Spot on! Again!

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

It's quite sad actually Q. I am convinced that when fm asserts something is bullshit he actually thinks it's slam dunk evidence. And it's meaningless outside of his head.

Exactly! And you see, I am willing to discuss anything with anyone, if they are , most of the time, polite. I didn't throw AH's at him? Why should I?
So, my guess is also that he is very fearfull and defensive.
Because, the truth need not be defended, it can defend itself!
So, that is a clue for me that somewhwere deep down he knows 'science' is full of bullshit. But he is working with his head now, not with his heart and head. And for that I don't blame him, That is done by schooling and 'science' upbringing.
You know, if you do lots and lots of research in alternative things. sooner or later you are going to find out that the ones who have done important things in their alternative fields, nearly always state that if they had formal schooling (that is university), they would not be able to do their work!
Well, that says something, doeasn't it!?

1 Reply

@Herald,

so you wont answer the simple questions .I see. You merely wish to preen.

Anyone can acquire results of science research and new data, they must only maintain an open mind. Blaming someone like me because you don't understand the structure or components of DNA is not my fault. Look to your own education.
If you only read stuff that is leaning to Creationism, then I can see how youd be jaded about "education"
But that's easily resolved.
Id really start with the book "DNA" by James Watson, then Id read "Darwin's Black Box". That is an IDers view of evolution and, while its outwardly pleasing. Its wholly otherwise. (But one must arrive at ones own conclusions)

I can see you wont answer my questions . My feeling is that your ill equipped (what with a Creationist worldview, anything that smacks of objective knowledge, would appear to be "threatening" to the Creationist mindset)

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

Exactly! And you see, I am willing to discuss anything with anyone,

No youre not. You blather on with idiotic baseless claims that theres no evidence. AND you do this by "flaming" (as if youre screaming). That's not debating that's "bumper sticker Creationism"

Ive tried to discuss with you first politely and with an avuncular benevolence. You spit back and kept yelling your fact-free rants.

When I challenged you with several points of question you ignored it and kept yelling.

You are a fraud Quahog, your worldview is not open to inspection and youre a mere coward for not engaging me in real debate.
I promised I wouldn't be judgemental (but you were violently so)

If you wish to insult me, feel free but I think most other people have already left this thread except for me and your Panza( spendi). I am merely having to make up my mind who is the fawning sycophant, you or he.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

YOUVE failed to answer any of my questions so I can only assume that you've not given me the courtesy to continue a discussion when really all your trying to do is maintain the typical creationist approach of asking dumb questions or trying to sustain illogical points like'How can you mathematically prove that 20 amino acids are in DNA"?

You really are a piece of work fm. You have repeatedly failed to answer the two most significant questions relating to why people deny evolution. So you are a fine one to lecture H about courtesy.

Descartes said animals were machines and left open the question of whether man is an animal. After Darwin that option is closed. You can repress the question from your consciousness all you want but it doesn't go away.

And I don't accept your wrong spelling or your typos because you have time to read your posts and correct them. They signify laziness and disrespect for A2Kers.

And there is scientific proof, which I'm too polite to mention, that monogamy is contrary to evolution as you must know from your dabblings with sheep.

So spare us the twee homilies eh? They are dishonest. Amino acids etc. are irrelevant.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Look to your own education.

FM, I have no problems with my education, but obviously you have some problems with my education .... which is not my problem.

farmerman wrote:

I can see you wont answer my questions.

You have noticed rightly. I will not only not answer your questions, but if you are curious to know I even haven'd read them ... because I don't see any point.

farmerman wrote:

My feeling is that ...

By claiming that you are outstanding scientist, you should not rely too much on your feelings, but rather on your rational assessments ... for otherwise you may end up some day as a Jedi Master (owing to the currently ongoing evolution).

farmerman wrote:

objective knowledge ...

What exactly do you have in mind by this objective knowledge ...
By definition knowledge is: data acquisition and understanding of the world, awareness or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning.
Do you know what do 'experience', 'perceiving' & 'learning' imply: they imply subjective nature of the knowledge ... and the next question is: How did you find out that your knowledge is objective ... and simultaneously yours?

farmerman wrote:

... would appear to be "threatening" to the Creationist mindset

I wished I had your conceit. Your 'knowledge' is exclusively contribution only to the logical fallacies, and in this respect it is threatening only the math logic.

2 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know