I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...

by ILoveTTATT2 113 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Vidqun

  Cofty, small genome, big genome, does it matter? The Amoeba is doing well. Under the right conditions, Paris japonica is doing well. Nothing wrong with their design, internally or externally. If left alone they will flourish, as will the rest of the fauna and flora on the planet. There’s one problem though. A recent Time Magazine reported on the meeting of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) and our new age, called Anthropocene:

  “For 12,000 years, we lived through an epoch known as the Holocene, which provided a stable and relatively warm climate that allowed humans to develop everything from agriculture to atomic power. But that success remade the planet we live on through widespread deforestation, overfishing of the oceans, the extinction of countless species and the altering of the planet’s climate through the emission of greenhouse gases. Most telling is the spread of radioactive material across Earth since 1950 as a result of the testing of nuclear bombs.

  “Paul Crutzen, a Nobel Prize-winning chemist, first described this human-influenced era more than a decade ago with a focus on climate change. The downside of human influence should be obvious – we’re not just changing our planet but destroying it.” Article by Justin Worland in Time Magazine, Vol. 188, No. 10-11, 2016, p. 8.
• 

  cofty

  Cofty, small genome, big genome, does it matter?

  It mattered a lot to you as evidence of design right up to the point that I shared some inconvenient facts. Then suddenly it doesn't matter.

  As usual your intellectual honesty is nil.
• 

  Vidqun

  Any flaws in Amoeba or Japonica? They work very well, thank you. By the way, let us hear your exulted explanation of their super genome size. None of the scientists seem to pinpoint the reason. However, you seem to be an expert on the subject. Can you (or Dawkins) enlighten us? You insinuate bad or superfluous design? Not that I am aware of anything amiss in that department.

  You seem to latch on a subject, and then just cannot let go. Must be the English Bulldog in you. Do you drool a lot? If so, then it must be those genes coming through strongly. If it's not "what books have you read"? then it is "you say you're a microbiologist." Now it seems to be the large Amoeba and Japonica genome. Perhaps your next tangent is going to be intellectual dishonesty, not that you would know what that means.

  As above quote show, the problem lies with you and people like you. An evolutionist/atheist is indeed a rather nasty piece of work. No accountability, no morality, no ethics. You and your ilk just carry on regardless, with no regard for future generations. What did A ha say, there's no causality, it's all just random.
• 

  cofty

  An evolutionist/atheist is indeed a rather nasty piece of work. No accountability, no morality, no ethics. - Vidqun

  This is the result when creationists are forced to face facts.

  Why does christianity make people so unpleasant?
• 

  Vidqun

  Cofty, you are really funny. It's in order for you to insult and say your say, but when you receive in the same measure, you are unhappy. Talking of facts, we are still on the large genome of Amoeba and Japonica, or have you forgotten. You insist on my version, I am still waiting to be enlightened by yours. I am sure your fellow evolutionists would also be interested in your revolutionary revelation. None of them seemed to have cracked it. We are all waiting with bated breath.

  I put my money on Dr Leitch and her team to answer the conundrum eventually. Big genome means bad news for the organism, especially in the adverse conditions of today. Try to follow her logic. Having such a large genome could help explain why Paris japonica was so slow-growing and vulnerable to pollution and other extreme conditions. She added: "Having that much DNA does have consequences for the plant – plants with big genomes are at greater risk of extinction, more sensitive to pollution. Having so much DNA means every time you want to divide a cell in order to grow, you have to replicate all that DNA and it takes a lot longer."
• 

  cofty

  It's in order for you to insult and say your say, but when you receive in the same measure, you are unhappy

  I never make personal insults. To say that you are intellectually dishonest is not a controversial observation to anybody who reads your ramblings.

  You labelled everybody who does not share your superstitions as having no ethics or morality.

  Shame on you.
  
• 

  Vidqun

  Cofty, you don’t see how saying one has no intellectual honesty could be a personal insult? Like I said, you’re funny. Accusing me of having no intellectual honesty means you view me as a liar and deceiver. Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the "kernel" of intellectual honesty to be "a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception." Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are called intellectual dishonesty. You are actually comparing me to JWs. Now that’s an insult!
  
• 

  rebel8

  I remember telling people about Noah and the inability of a TV to evolve from nothing. I am really embarrassed when I remember saying those things, even though it was totally not my fault I believed those things. I was prevented from participating in science courses as a teen. I was exposed only to the cult's version of things. I accept no blame for being duped.
  
• 

  A Ha

  Vidqun, I apologize. I should not have attributed your sources. Still, I think my larger objections stand. You are invoking the PTB to claim that what he's saying is accepted by the scientific community at large, and this doesn't seem true at all. Specifically, you said, "They were actually formulated by the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt Braunschweig)," and I haven't seen any evidence of this, or of your newer claim that his writings were published "under the auspices" of the PTB. If he publishes papers containing "standard" ideas of information, and also writes books and articles using "non-standard" definitions and ideas, he doesn't get to co-opt his [former] position within PTB to give legitimacy to his non-scientific ideas, and neither do you.

  Here is my point: Gitt uses made-up definitions for information, and then doesn't apply his new definition consistently.
  

  In the video you linked, he claims "Ten Laws of Information," listing "Laws" which don't support his/your point regarding DNA--even when he had made up the definitions! For example:
  

  6. all codes result from an intentional choice and agreement between sender and recipient.

  This is actually more of an honest definition of information but then, under this "law," DNA wouldn't apply as information. You have tried to assert that the "sender" in DNA is God, which I've pointed out is assuming your conclusion, but in addition this law requires intelligence on the part of the recipient. The mRNA, DNA, and cell are not intelligent recipients.
  

  7. the determination of meaning for and from a set of symbols is a mental process that requires intelligence [bold mine]

  Same problem. DNA and cells are not intelligent, so DNA does not count as information under his "laws."

  The creationist's answer to this is, as you have done, to sometimes apply it and sometimes not; to sometimes say an intelligent sender is good enough without an intelligent recipient, and hope nobody notices that your claim is that all of these laws must be obeyed for it to count as information.
  

  After listing his ten inviolable laws of information, Gitt lists the conclusions which must be drawn from them.
  

  C1. since the DNA code of all life forms is clearly within the definition domain of information, we conclude there must be a sender.

  He hopes his audience will miss the fact that the DNA code violates his laws, since there is no intelligent recipient. He posts charts indicating that proteins and RNA do things like "Reading & Understanding," but in order for his idea of information to hold, this must be used in a literal sense. He wants to switch back and forth between literal and figurative uses of phrases as it suits him.
  
• 

  A Ha

  What did A ha say, there's no causality, it's all just random.

  I repeatedly corrected this error. You can have randomness and non-randomness in a world with or without causality. Causality and randomness are not the same thing.

  I suppose it's easy for you to claim you "have not encountered much refutation," when you just ignore anything you don't like.