Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Herald,

Quote:

Quote:
Not much happened there either.

You seem to have ignored the "mmeat" of my point about the Discovery Institute. How come? hve you stipulated to a fct tht they've just "Given up"?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Simply put, all the scientific findings for the age of this planet seems to coincide with about 4.5 billion years old.

You have no convincing explanation why everything on the Earth is 4.5 Bya, even the newly erupted lava.
You have no convincing explanation why the Universe is supposed to be 13.8 Bya (all of it, even the 'newly formed space along the edges') and the Earth is only 4.5 Bya. What has been right here 'before' that?
You haven't any convincing explanation why the RF spectrum is silent - along all possible frequencies, along all possible known modulations ... and quantum encryption mechanisms.

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's not about eugenics which is an idea that's based on people's imagination.

How did you come to know that eugenics is "people's imagination"?
By Def.: Eugenics is the belief and practice of improving the genetic quality of the human population. It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human genetic traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of people with desired traits (positive eugenics), and reduced reproduction of people with less-desired or undesired traits (negative eugenics).
This is 1:1 the claims of the theory of evolution - survival of the fittest.

BTW have you watched the 'Survival' series on the TV? The people there, who 'survive' (to the end of the show), are not the strongest ones, are not the fastest runners, are not the most beautiful 'representatives', ... and are not even the smartest ones - it is the biggest schemers and the greatest 'snails', which means that IF the evolution exists, with double capital IF, and if it is feasible and is in operation, it will not choose 'as survivals' the fastest runners, the strongest individuals, and the brightest ones - but rather the biggest schemers and the greatest 'snails'.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

You have no convincing explanation why everything on the Earth is 4.5 Bya, even the newly erupted lava.

youre being silly again. The age of the planet is 4.5 By. The age of its COMPONENTS can vary because we live in a dynamic physical system . (Even you mentioned "newly erupted lava").
You've gotta try hanging around with logic more

Quote:

BTW have you watched the 'Survival' series on the TV?

Something of that show's makeup is best handled by unique personality traits that we often call "Street smarts".

The winners hve always hd a plan for their own success. SOmetimes it workd, usually it doesn't. ITs a perfect analogy for the world of biotic competition in an environment of limited resources. "Best fit" is relative. Of all the individuals competing for the same food, space, water, mates, it doesn't mean that the winners were THE BEST FIT, they were actually jut better fit than the others of their species. Same thing with the contestants.

Your use of "eugenics" is noted. Its a silly phrase worthy of your Creationist mind. It assumes that theres a plan working and some committee in charge. e know that's the way you think. Its unfortunate that you've failed to open your mind even a bit but hey, were not here to change your mind. Im here so that other people can see the evidence-free basis of all your points of discussion.

A conclusion is derived from the evidence for all evolution theory. For you, your conclusions come first , despite what evidence presents.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

The age of its COMPONENTS can vary because we live in a dynamic physical system . (Even you mentioned "newly erupted lava").

Yes, but the observations are just the opposite - everything is 4.5 Bya. Why can't you find anything of the 'old space' - the matter that has been in the place of the SS before 4.5 Mya? It cannot disappear just so ... and all of it.

farmerman wrote:

Something of that show's makeup is best handled by unique personality traits that we often call "Street smarts".

Yes, but it is modeled 1:1 after the evolution theory, which means that even if the evolution exists and is in operation, it should operate in practice a little bit differently from what is claimed. Can you give an example of 'street smarts' in nature.

farmerman wrote:

"Best fit" is relative.

In your claims it is so much relative that almost is has some fuzzy semantics.

farmerman wrote:

Of all the individuals competing for the same food, space, water, mates, it doesn't mean that the winners were THE BEST FIT

... however the theory of the evolution claims exactly that: Survival of the fittest by means of natural selection (operating on stochastics).

farmerman wrote:

they were actually jut better fit than the others of their species.

Perhaps you mean better dislocation and better positions in the society ... by birth.

farmerman wrote:

Your use of "eugenics" is noted. Its a silly phrase worthy of your Creationist mind.

This is the generally accepted definition. I was wondering what is your definition of eugenics (if you have any at all).

farmerman wrote:

Its unfortunate that you've failed to open your mind

The very same could be said about you as well.

farmerman wrote:

For you, your conclusions come first , despite what evidence presents.

You don't even know what my conclusions are ... but 'know' that they come first. WFM

2 Replies

@Herald,

You asked,

Quote:

Why can't you find anything of the 'old space' - the matter that has been in the place of the SS before 4.5 Mya?

These are the kind of questions that makes you look more stupid than the average joe. The reasons are that man has not been able to go beyond that 4.5 mya from what has been able to be observed through radio carbon dating methods.

Radio carbon dating was discovered in 1960. In terms of man's ability to discover new technologies that allows us to understand more of our environment, that's a very recent discovery.

You need to come down to earth, and GET REAL! Asking more dumb questions only proves your ignorance.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

You need to come down to earth, and GET REAL! Asking more dumb questions only proves your ignorance.

So, your claim is that no methods exist to measure time over 4.5 By in the SS. I doubt.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

Yes, but the observations are just the opposite - everything is 4.5 Bya. Why can't you find anything of the 'old space' - the matter that has been in the place of the SS before 4.5 Mya? It cannot disappear just so ... and all of it

here do you think 4.5BY comes from? It cames from things that are able to be dated at 4.5 BY. Whats so hard to understand?

Quote:

Yes, but it is modeled 1:1 after the evolution theory

youre delusional . You don't get anything of this planet do you? ITS ENTERTAINMENT.

Quote:

... however the theory of the evolution claims exactly that:

NO it doesn't. The way you pronounce it is a "tautology" and its not, silly boy.

Quote:

This is the generally accepted definition

Perhaps in your mind. "eugenics" presupposes something that's directed by humans, not nature.
Your mind is so shut tight that even the light of ordinary words that have meanings other than what you WANT them to mean, cannot permeate your skull.

Youre getting a bit boring because youre only travelling in cirxles and by me continuing to answer , merely justifies your silly beliefs.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

So, your claim is that no methods exist to measure time over 4.5 By in the SS. I doubt.

If you doubt it, please provide credible facts that is scientifically proven?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

_here do you think 4.5BY comes from? It cames from things that are able to be dated at 4.5 BY. Whats so hard to understand?

Yes, it is difficult to understand how things that might be much older than 4.5 By (like 13.68 billion years, for example) are accepted as a little bit older than 4.5 By, hence approximately 4.5 billion years old. How do you round 13.68 to 4.5?

farmerman wrote:

You don't get anything of this planet do you? ITS ENTERTAINMENT.

Yes, obviously the show is entertainment, but the rules of the show are 1:1 in compliance with the claims of the evolution theory ... and actually they are verifying in practice the claims of the evolution theory - that proved to be fake by the results of the show.
I wonder if the results proved for the evolution theory to be possible and feasible, whether you would comment that 'ITS ENTERTAINMENT'.

farmerman wrote:

NO it doesn't. The way you pronounce it is a "tautology"

Yes, it does, and even how.

Quote:

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations

The keywords here are 'change in the inherited characteristics' and 'successive generations' ... by reason & by mechanics unknown, but these are details.

Quote:

Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.

The winners not only survive, but lay the foundations of brand new species, and the losers become extinct.

Quote:

Charles Darwin was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection

The process of 'natural' selection is based on survival of the fittest ... and the selection of cats when you are breeding dogs is quite naturally called 'speciation'.

Quote:

Evolution by natural selection is a process inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to different rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable.

Every new generation is: 1) naturally subjected to population overgrowth (it is not because it is brainless to have more than 2-3 children) 2) comprises mutations & transmutations ... at various rates 3) the mutations become somehow heritable and naturally selected in case they design the fittest individuals ... & brand new species, better adapted to the environment.

Quote:

Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection takes place.

It is the environment that makes somehow the genetic sequences (out of whatever), and drives the processes of the evolution (notwithstanding that evolution has never been proven to be possible, feasible, and existing in the real world).

Quote:

Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, non-adaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift.

Obviously the mutants cannot be adapted, but somehow they become part of the natural selection and the 'speciation' (the emergence of brand new species out of unfounded theories).

Quote:

Discoveries in evolutionary biology have made a significant impact not just within the traditional branches of biology, but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology and psychology) and on society at large

... like eugenics, for example.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

The keywords here are 'change in the inherited characteristics' and 'successive generations' ... by reason & by mechanics unknown, but these are details.

Unknown by you? that can be overcome by some open minded education. If you merely deny everything that you've read, then I imagine that you shall remain ignorant and unable to consider answers to your own questions.
Thank a teacher.

Quote:

The winners not only survive, but lay the foundations of brand new species, and the losers become extinct

Maybe a trip to a museum or a book of paleontology (Id recommend the "Treatise of (Vertebrate and Invertebrate) Paleontology",Its bout 26 volume equivalent on the net.)After a close look I assert that
Its hard to ignore the tons of evidence of inherited characteristics or,phylogenetic evolution.

Quote:

The process of 'natural' selection is based on survival of the fittest ... and the selection of cats when you are breeding dogs is quite naturally called 'speciation'

Of the order CARNIVORA, we have 3 suborders
A. CREODONTIA-which contains several of the ancient (extinct) carnivores
B. PINNIPEDIA-marine carnivores
C. FISSIPEDIA(which containsTwo living and evolutionarily related SUPERFAMILIES) These superfamilies are the Canoidea which contain 4 FAMILIES

1.Canidae-which are the dogs wolves and foxes
2.Ursidae-which are the bears
3.Procyonidae-which are the raccoons coatis and kinkajous
4.Mustellidae-which are the weasels wolverines, otters, badgers,
THE other superfamily is the Feloidea which has 3 FAMILIES. These FAMILIES are the
1.Viverridae , which contains the civets
2. Hyenidae, which contain the hyens
3. Felidae-which contains the cats, large and small.

As you look at all the classification groupings, and looking at how the hyenas (which are rather dog-like) are related more closely to cats. Your statement of incredulity maybe helped by looking at the follow on genetics of these groups of animals and look at their reltionshipw on the hierarchy of life. Then prhaps, youd be abl to see relationships better, (Rther than posting some childish "You cant make dogs from cats" statement).
Remember , its a game of common ancestry, not a game of something popping out of some other living thing. The connections are made at the higher taxa , like suborders

Quote:

It is the environment that makes somehow the genetic sequences (out of whatever), and drives the processes of the evolution (notwithstanding that evolution has never been proven to be possible, feasible, and existing in the real world).

Respectfully stated, The reason you've failed to absorb ANYTHING that our converations have caused you to "look up" is that you've had your head securely placed in one place and have not left any facts sway you. (I wont go into where I think your heads been at).
ID has no fossils, no genetics , no interrelated sciences to enable you to maintain a worldview. Your entire views are based on suppositions nd Biblical myth, not anything repeatable.

Quote:

Obviously the mutants cannot be adapted, but somehow they become part of the natural selection and the 'speciation' (the emergence of brand new species out of unfounded theories).

I think that , for your next segments of "larnin English" , you should really concentrate on comprehension. You've gotten most ALL of the above statements incorrect by parsing phrases out of entire thoughts. Interesting.
In reality, YOU are probably such a "mutant" (Carrying a mutation in your genes DOS NOT mean that youre a "mutant"). You are probably carrying more than one genetic variation that you've acquired from one or more of your parents and its unique as a single nucleotide polymorphism.
If you deny everything about the fossil record or genetics or the use of tools like "knock out genes" you are more Creationist than you think. SO, again, where do you go from here? Denial of a forward moving science by saying its "Unreal" is kind of silly and a little creepy. You re trying to assert that you are an open minded science type, yet you seem to want to avoid an entire area of several coalescing science disciplines.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Unknown by you? that can be overcome by some open minded education.

You are talking as if you know what it is about.
O.K. Let's have the Alligator. It has had a lot of cousins Dinosaurs - by the time of extinction 65 Mya. Why haven't this species revived to life some of its cousins? They have been fit for survival for over 160 Mya and all of a sudden they cannot be revived to existence, notwithstanding there is beautiful code out there all the time, and there are also appropriate conditions, however no evolution is observed for a period of over 65 million years.
FM, 65 million years is a lot of time - it is exactly the time that all the apologetics of the evolution is complaining that if they had the time, they would have proved this and that. Now, as it appears, they have had obviously the time - and nothing has happened. How can you explain that, FM. Nothing - no new species, not even a trial of any new species - no Pterodactyls, not Pteranodons ... nothing.

farmerman wrote:

As you look at all the classification groupings, and looking at how the hyenas (which are rather dog-like) are related more closely to cats.

Is this your personal contribution to the theory of evolution or the Hyenas have always been classified as wild dogs.

farmerman wrote:

The connections are made at the higher taxa , like suborders

O.K. you have the above said species - the Alligators - where are the next Dinosaurs developed from it as subspecies and as a result of the operation of the evolution for over 65 million years?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

ID has no fossils, no genetics , no interrelated sciences to enable you to maintain a worldview.

How did you come to know that the fossils belong to the evolution and not to ID. In what and ID made fossil would differ from the fossils you are finding all the time?

farmerman wrote:

Your entire views are based on suppositions nd Biblical myth, not anything repeatable.

You cannot prove that it is a myth and not phenomenology, for example.
BTW a few posts ago I asked you where do you classify in the taxonomy the Mummy of the Visitor (and also the Bigfoot and the Monster of Loch Ness, the skull of Chilan Balan ... and any other non-classifiable phenomenology) ... and you conveniently skipped the answer.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

O.K. Let's have the Alligator. It has had a lot of cousins Dinosaurs - by the time of extinction 65 Mya. Why haven't this species revived to life some of its cousins?

Proof positive you have absolutely no understanding about evolution and its effect on biological life.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Proof positive you have absolutely no understanding about evolution and its effect on biological life.

... and as you are so well acquainted with the things why don't you explain to us, the dumb ones, how exactly the six delay bite poisons have evolved with the Varan de Komodo - and out of what? No combination of five of them can 'do the job'. How does that happen?

1 Reply

@Herald,

fossils show a clear relationship among animals and plants and units of all other kingdoms. ID has to "ignore" the fact that no later species are ever found in early stratigraphy.
Name one mammal from the Cambrian

Quote:

In what and ID made fossil would differ from the fossils you are finding all the time?

unless you can accept "common ancestry" youre SOL pal. ID uses the concept of "irreducible complexity"
Your favorite example, the Komodo dragon is related to other varanid species from the mainland an Flores, all of whom have a slightly different complex of commensal flora and toxicants in their saliva. If you look at the biogeography of these lizards, they are phylogenetically related to several other monitors that liv all the way through Indonesia to Australia. In fact, the only thing unique about these speicies is that they are ALL on one side of Wallaces Line (my observation from looking over the Biogeography of V. komodoenis).
The main fact is that NOONE is scientifically sure that the V komodoensis and V Florensis have real venom or just bioactive proteins that actually aid in the sepsis that results from the bacteria present in the dragons mouth.
You seem to be waay ahead of scientific certainty.

Now that's a pretty good example of evidence of evolution.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Your questions are 'out of line' and infantile. Grow up! It only continues to prove your ignorance about evolution.

You see, your questions about poisons that has to do with Varan de Komodo isn't something I know anything about - and you should know that! Silly questions like yours deserve to be challenged. What makes you think I know anything about Varan de Komodo? Do you know anything about "how to cure cancer?"

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

he uses the French pronunciation for the kiard. The generic name I Varani komodoensis. So far as I know, generic names are still Latinized and with a wee bit o Greek chukked in.
Greek.

Of course we do honor some individuals with local nmes but we alwys try to Latinize the species name. Like Tiktaalik roseae was named using an Innuit name for a species of CODFISH and the roseae was a latinized cryptic name of an American benefactor who put up some of the money for the entire expedition

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

fossils show a clear relationship among animals and plants and units of all other kingdoms.

FM, couldn't you construct a more general statement: 'fossils show a clear relationship' - LOL.
I was asking a simple question:
     1. You have the reptile - 70 Mya old species - the Alligator, contemporary of the Dinos.
     2. You claim that the evolution operates over enough long period of time - you have 65 million years since the extinction of the Dinos. This is enough long period of time for the evolution to execute any creation operation of some brand new species.
     3. Your favorite theory claims that all the birds have evolved from reptiles if they have had enough evolutionary time to do so - right?!
     4. Thus you have ancient species, you have enough time, and you have all the conditions for the evolution to make any Neopterodactyles and Neopteranodones (not the old extinct species) - you have all the conditions for your theory to create some flying reptiles and some octacopters and to convert them into birds - and what it has done - nothing. Not a single brand new species evolved from the Alligator. Zero. How does that happen, FM - the evolution 'works' with some species and it does not do anything with some others?

farmerman wrote:

Name one mammal from the Cambrian

The tube-worm on the bottom of the Atlantic - where do you classify it?

farmerman wrote:

unless you can accept "common ancestry"

Common ancestry might mean common designer, for it is not obligatory for this to be common root of development.
In order to claim that it is exactly the evolution that is making the branches of the tree of taxonomy you have to exclude all the other possibilities ... and you don't even know which are they.

farmerman wrote:

You seem to be waay ahead of scientific certainty.

With its bite it kills the buffalo - slowly, and chases the victim all the way to its fatal ending. How does the Varan de Komodo know what will happen and to be so patient waiting for the dinner - if it is some 'infection by chance' as you claim. There are videos about hunting buffaloes by varans and a not entirely bad idea is to educate yourself jointly with your favorite student - Mr. Ci, who knows a priori everything about anything.

farmerman wrote:

Now that's a pretty good example of evidence of evolution.

What 'good example' - you are denying that the Varan has complex poison at all? Where is the example of evolution.
Some variety of geese have slow acting toxin as well, so the obvious morphology is that they have evolved directly from the varans ... moreover the varans are reptiles and the geese are birds. One more evidence for the evolution mumbo jumbo.
FM, this morphology classification cannot be serious in any case scenario.

4 Replies

@Herald,

That you continue on the same path of ignorance is your problem.

Biological life has many environmental influences in which way they end up.
Most acclimate to their changing environment - measured in billions of years.

Those changes affects how biology will cease to exist or change to the changing environment to survive. What we now have is the ability to study those changes through many ways including what's left over in the way of fossils or other medium such as DNA that can be examined, tested, and researched for the best explanations we can arrive at.

Evolution has been proven through scientific research in many areas of biological life and changes whether you have a few questions about a few species. The BIG PICTURE provides all the facts needed that evolution is real.

0 Replies

@Herald,

I cant account for your ignorance . Regardin the"Alligator" which genera nd species are you referring to? Alligtors nd crocs hve also evolved as a species. (Not all evolution requires something to do a genera jump, or don't you understand? We have Coelecanths living in small enclaves of the Indian Ocean and SUnda Sea. If an environment is suitable long term, why would a species need to adapt? It could, like coellecanths , merely apply genetic drift and become modified over geologic time.
Think about it, e still have cockroaches and dragonflies, yet e didn't hve bees in the fosil record until e see that flowering plants evolved from seed bearing gymnosperms.
EVOLUTION IS a game of gene flow. Major genera jumps seem to occur after one of the big 5 extinction events. Crocodilians, as we know em, didn't evolve (from fossil evidence) until well after the Permian Extinction. PROTOSUCHUS didn't show up from primitive diapsid reptiles until the Late Triassic and early Jurassic (so they didn't match dinosaur evolution year by year)There are strong diversions between crocodilian diapsids and the saurichian and ornithischian diapsids(the real dinosaurs).
There are many differences in the anatomy and development between these two orders of diapsids. Most of the unique structures of thw crocodilians (includes lligtors) occurs as a result of their biogeography. They seemed to evolve in areas that were along the edges of Pangea (that makes good geographical sense since today these reptiles live in ocean margin swamps, large marsh areas and river basins that discharge to deltaic environments.
There are about 60 different genera and species of extinct crocodilians nd today there are almost as many extant species.
As far as your "neoptrodactylians "etc--They all qent extinct In the K?T boundary event. (They didn't make it . Was the ketzochoatlus not impressive enough? Damn thing hd a 50 ft wingspan.

Quote:

The tube-worm on the bottom of the Atlantic - where do you classify it?

I asked for a mammal from the Cambrian. Please do not play conveniently stupid. You know what a mammal is.

Quote:

Common ancestry might mean common designer, for it is not obligatory for this to be common root of development

Explain how this would work? Is your "common designer" NOT TOO INTELLIGENT because its futzing around with all kinds of "dead ends". Or is this what the CReationists , who wish to remain relevant, say. "Intelligent Design" takes the form of evolution.
Im sorry but I cant buy a statement that comes out of your ass like that. It requires abit more evocation . You seem to just be "covering your ass" with feeble attempts at sounding scientific. (It aint working, Im impressed with your inability to consolidate a hypothesis

0 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know