Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

There is NOTHING in this Wiki that even mentions DNA, let alone compares DNA of birds to that of t REX.

Are you claiming that notwithstanding that 'you know' that T. rex. and the Birds are cousins, it is not obligatory for the 'solitaire to go out' (for the DNA sequences to have common ancestor) - how does that happen, FM.

farmerman wrote:

Reading comprehension is a skill.

... and your sills of reading comprehension are reduced to reading only.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

Are you claiming that notwithstanding that 'you know' that T. rex. and the Birds are cousins, it is not obligatory for the 'solitaire to go out' (for the DNA sequences to have common ancestor) - how does that happen, FM.

FIRST, I guess you give up on trying to show us here the article clip even mention DNA. As far as the above comment,I suspect that, once again, you are trying to hide behind a bag of hockeypucks with gibberish.

Still, Ill try some of these
1.Common ancestry refers to the phenotype, not the genotype

2The "Solitaire" HAVE DISAPPEARED. tHE RULE THAT COEXISTING species cannot be common ancestors of each other STILL HOLDS UNIVERSALLY (AND IS,at least for T rex and birds) Separated by AT LEAST 70 MILLION YEARS .

3 I never made the claim" that T rex and birds were "cousins", but cladistics based solely on fossils (and demonstrated by "knock-out genes" ) apparently does.
Ive always been supportive of the cladistics connection between Dromaeosaurs nd pre-Aves, but Im not any kind of expert in that area. I , like anypne else, red the work of my colleagues in Paleo and Evolutionary biology

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

FIRST, I guess you give up on trying to show us here the article clip even mention DNA. As far as the above comment,I suspect that, once again, you are trying to hide behind a bag of hockeypucks with gibberish.

Still, Ill try some of these
1.Common ancestry refers to the phenotype, not the genotype

2The "Solitaire" HAVE DISAPPEARED. tHE RULE THAT COEXISTING species cannot be common ancestors of each other STILL HOLDS UNIVERSALLY (AND IS,at least for T rex and birds) Separated by AT LEAST 70 MILLION YEARS .

3 I never made the claim" that T rex and birds were "cousins", but cladistics based solely on fossils (and demonstrated by "knock-out genes" ) apparently does.
Ive always been supportive of the cladistics connection between Dromaeosaurs nd pre-Aves, but Im not any kind of expert in that area. I , like anypne else, red the work of my colleagues in Paleo and Evolutionary biology

Herald, just give it up! This one is not normal!

More delusional. He thinks if he add details a fairy tale becomes true!

But yes, it is very funny to read!

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

point to anything I wrote that is untrue. Ill try to explain it so you can understand it.
Obviously a guy who is so interested in Piltdown and Peppered moths is a "Classicist"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

point to anything I wrote that is untrue. Ill try to explain it so you can understand it.
Obviously a guy who is so interested in Piltdown and Peppered moths is a "Classicist"

Ohhhh that is so simple.
You wrote evolution is true. IT IS NOT
it is all bollocks and shite.
That it is written in some fancy glossy magzine doesn't make it true mate!

But as I have said, you can't 'get that' and you won't ever because your job, hence your lifelihood, is related to this. So you have to hang on to this rubbish, whatever the costs!

I understand that.

2 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

That's it? That's the best you've got?
Cmon try some fact. wheres the facts to support your gibberish?

Ive debunked your "peppered moths" and Piltdown fixation. Now you just want to fire a broadshot that is fact-free?

Where you and I differ is that I emand evidence from claims, you just buy crap as long S ITS anti science.

Theres deep hidden story of failure in your past academic life here, Im sure.

As far as doing it for a living, that's pretty much evidence alone isn't it.?

Whod knowingly waste investment money?
Do you have any retirement accounts invested in the world markets or natural resources?
You better quickly check because resource development is ALL based upon science and engineering .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

@QuMath Cmon try some fact. wheres the facts to support your gibberish?

     FM, do you know what is your problem - it is not in the collection of relevant (and irrelevant) facts, but rather in their systematic misinterpretation.
     Do you remember the talk about the poisonous African birds - what did you say then: 'You are what you eat'. Good.
     So you explained the 'appearance' of the poisonous meat with the African birds with the impact of the food.
     What about the talk about the nanoplastics - acrylamid, nitrosamine, and acrylonitrile - if someone eats too much fried starch containing nanoplastics, sooner or later the RNA will get fucked up. It was again the food, right.
     Now, in the context of your sequential reasoning, why don't you explain us the T.rex. Why in some cases it is the food that has strong impact on the epigenetics ... and with some other cases it is 'stochastic mutations', why the presence of the 'bird-like proteins' with T. rex is not due to its nutrition with birds (eating them perhaps together with the nests and the eggs therein), but because it has great plans for the future - to become a bird? Where does that 'evolutionary break-through' come from? Why do you have objective reasoning is some cases, and biased prejudices in the explanations in some other cases. Doesn't it come from some arguments from omniscience, appeals to tradition, arguments from authority, bandwagon fallacies, circular reasoning, confirmation bias, observational selection, excluded middle, and half truths ... perhaps only part of the whole story?

farmerman wrote:

Do you have any retirement accounts invested in the world markets or natural resources?

... and do you know what you are doing when investing in the destruction of the planet that you sugar coat and candy as 'investment in natural resources'. Is the spill of natural gas into the potable water springs your 'investment in natural resources', or perhaps the capsules with arsenic on the seabed.

farmerman wrote:

You better quickly check because resource development is ALL based upon science and engineering.

FM, you cannot simply stop digging oil and gas, can you. You would not stop doing your 'investments' for funding easy makering of any kind, even if you find out that tomorrow you will have to walk through the park (or at least what has left from it) with a gas mask.

1 Reply

Quote:

You better quickly check because resource development is ALL based upon science and engineering.

Are you sure?
btw the boy doeasn't define them!
'science' really has nothing to with it. Engineering yes, and that is technology and no, technology is NOT applied science,
Engineering is far above 'science'

Most scientists even don't understand their own 'science', yep, including evol-ut-ion, The greatest hoax on earth.

2 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

'science' really has nothing to with it. Engineering yes, and that is technology and no

what you don't know is legion.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

FM, you cannot simply stop digging oil and gas, can you

my resource is primarily Titanium,

Quote:

Now, in the context of your sequential reasoning, why don't you explain us the T.rex. Why in some cases it is the food that has strong impact on the epigenetics ... and with some other cases it is 'stochastic mutations',

Im sure that anything I say will be denied by you and the "Clam". SO why bother? Actually I have no idea what youre saying here.

Quote:

why the presence of the 'bird-like proteins' with T. rex is not due to its nutrition with birds (eating them perhaps together with the nests and the eggs therein), but because it has great plans for the future - to become a bird?

well, at least your imagination is in gear. "Plans to become a bird" seems to require a big leap in a specie's intellect

Quote:

Doesn't it come from some arguments from omniscience, appeals to tradition, arguments from authority, bandwagon fallacies, circular reasoning, confirmation bias, observational selection, excluded middle, and half truths ... perhaps only part of the whole story?

...Says the mn who feels tht the Bible is "Science Book".

From your list of debate fllcies you've been in Wikipedia again. Youfogot "Straw men". As far as "CIRCULAR REASONING"--Ive been having a great time reading how you skip about your arguments in that fshion.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Your profound hatred of science is very funny. Its none of my problem but I think you must spend a huuge part of your life with your head up your ass so as not to be in constant conflict with reality.

The real orld will proceed ahead and find more and more understandings of the FACT of evolution, and you can stand over there and scream at it like an idiot , or you can try to begin to understand what it is youre even talking about (For with knowledge comes understanding).
However, Im not gonna hold my breath. You sound like you've got some deep seated emotional problem that's tied with almost all knowledge.

Ill bet you never even buy new hybrid seed varieties for your garden. Very Happy

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

my resource is primarily Titanium

So, you are buying primarily Titanium Mines on the Moon. I don't want to frighten you, but the Moon has another resource that is outperforming Titanium - Helium 3. You can build a NPPs on this.

farmerman wrote:

Actually I have no idea what youre saying here.

Is T.rex cousin of the birds, or it has similar proteins becuase it is eating birds all the time.

farmerman wrote:

Says the mn who feels tht the Bible is "Science Book".

Forget about the Bible ... for a moment. I am asking you, whether you are biased in assessing the facts, and how can you claim that something is exactly that thing, when you have not excluded all the remaining possibilities.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

So, you are buying primarily Titanium Mines on the Moon.

Good thing youre not spending clients money. Profit is calculated by a relatively simple concept Profits= Sale price per pound-expenses pr pound. (Now what part of that equation would moon mining maximize in todays dollars?) we get more Ti from beahes than we do from lunar deposits .

Quote:

I am asking you, whether you are biased in assessing the facts, and how can you claim that something is exactly that thing, when you have not excluded all the remaining possibilities.

Funny, I was going to ask you the same thing Laughing

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

What is bollocks is your claim that you have math that proves evolution can't exist.

We are all still waiting for your "******* EVIDENCE."

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Funny, I was going to ask you the same thing

FM, O.K., let's start from the very beginning. Can you name all the possible explanations of the detected bio-code with T.rex producing bird-like proteins and amino-acids ... besides the evolutionary intentions of T.rex to become a bird.

0 Replies

Evolutionary intention? That's a rather pathetic attempt to sucker someone into accepting your thesis. It's a leading question, classically called a "have you stopped beating your wife question." The only "intention" of evolution is reproductive success, and it is an inchoate "intention"--that is, it's just an arifact of the process. There is no intent involved.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

"have you stopped beating your wife question."

     I don't know what your wife has to do with your inability to answer an elementary question: Do you have any other explanations about the "intentions" (sorry for not being in quotation marks the first time) of T.rex 'to be a bird', 'to become a bird' ... or 'to become a cousin of all birds' ... except for the evolutionary 'explanation'? ... and do you understand what does the question actually mean?
     Do you understand that the question of your fellow evolutionist herein above is absolutely invalid ... as a question? One cannot ask about prove of non-existence in the general case. You, for example, can never prove that alternative explanations of evolution are impossible to exist. You can only prove that if there are some alternative explanations formulated, they are either implausible or impossible, hence exactly these explanations are inapplicable or cannot exist even as a theory, but this does not necessarily mean that some other alternative explanations do not exist and cannot appear at some time of development of the dispute.
     Do you have the alternative explanations or you are going to write a Grand Doctoral Thesis ... in philosophy ... and stimulate the others to do so?

2 Replies

@Herald,

Suggesting that there is any intention in evolution is invalid. The "have you stopped beating your wife?" is a reference to the Loaded Question Fallacy. To answer you silly question about the evolutionary "intention" of T. Rex is to accept that there is such a thing as intention in the process of natural selection. So answering or attempting to answer your foolishness is pointless, and any questions which incorporate that foolish thesis are loaded questions. Any adaptation which does not enhance successful reproductive opportunities is neutral. Any adaptation which harms successful reproductive opportunities is detrimental, and will eventually result in the loss of the adaptation from the genome of the species. Any adaptation which enhances successful reproductive opportunities will be incorporated into the genome. There is no intention involved.

Nothing obliges anyone to disprove your fairy tale explanations for the diversity of life on this planet. You bleat about intention because you cannot comprehend that this is a natural process without external guidance from entities such as your imaginary friend.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

You, for example, can never prove that alternative explanations of evolution are impossible to exist.

As long as any alternative "explanations of evolution" come with enough evidence to be considered we have no reason to discount
them. However, Im not aware of anylterntive explnations of evolution other than nturl selection tht come ith good btch o vidence.

ID proponents had tried about 10 years ago in some famous articles and a book by a molecular biologist. This concept , called "irreducible complexity" state that some biochemical processes were so complex in nd of themselves that they could only be arrived at through the intercession of an "intelligent being".
Well, irreducible complexity, was exposed as a bit short. (It appears that the very processes the author usd to explain how irreducible complexity works-could be further traced back via even simpler and simpler processes on less complex organisms)

Island biogeography and the development of unique species related to , and derived from, mainland species sort of like your komodo dragon) are all evolutionarily emplaced as the islands and the mainland became separated.

Island biogeographic means of specieation is difficult to explain using any other other process than natural selection.

It all about evidence and facts. SCience gets the evidence and tries to assemble it into what it means. That's quite a bit different from ID or Creationism where an "explanation" I defaulted to and evidence isn't even considered significant to their "story"

So far, you fit in a sort of niche that the IIDers occupy. You've got to learn to begin making arguments derived from evidence , becaseall you've been doing is trying to argue AGAINST evolution, rather than for your camp.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

As long as any alternative "explanations of evolution" come with enough evidence to be considered we have no reason to discount
them

lol

lol

You people talk but never walk the talk!

This one is hilarious!!!!!!

There is a zillion evidence evolution is not true but you choose to ignore it!

what bloody lies this ****** tells!!

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know