Re: comments by Abaddon. Responses to numerous false accusations by Abaddon regarding myself and the sources that I use can be found on the following thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/106111/3.ashx and its accompanying links as well as the statement to him that: "Finally, I hope to discontinue all further discussions with you regarding your accusations against myself and the sources I use as several more than sufficient responses have been given and I see no need to take any more time."
hooberus
JoinedPosts by hooberus
-
46
HAS AN EVOLUTIONARY LINK BEEN DISCOVERED?
by badboy inscientists have claimed to have found the missing link between fish and land animals on ellesmere island ,canada.
-
-
-
46
HAS AN EVOLUTIONARY LINK BEEN DISCOVERED?
by badboy inscientists have claimed to have found the missing link between fish and land animals on ellesmere island ,canada.
-
-
hooberus
Hooberus,
I see you have revisited this thread multiple times since I last posted my response to the AnswersInGenesis link that you posted. I had looked forward to your reply to the points that I made regarding the problem with those links. This would be a good opportunity for you to show FunkyDerek, and others, that you actually know what you are talking about and are interested in the actual truth...not maintaining a belief that you already hold.
Slacker, I already have hundreds of posts on creation/evolution subjects on this forum, and thus I see no need "to show FunkyDerek, and others," that I "actually know what" I am "talking about and are interested in the actual truth" etc.As far as your comments regarding one of the links that I posted, it appears that there may be an ongoing dispute over the issue of the mechanism for the nylon degradation, as well as its relevance regarding neo-darwinian evolutionism. I would recommend that you consider writing a letter to Dr. Batten if you are interested in a specific resonse regarding Musgrave's and other's technical points on this specific issue. However, I will comment on your main point which seems to be the issue of the addition of new genetic information by mutation and creationist claims reagarding this. You state: "This new bacteria literally has a different amino acid sequence, as opposed to its ancestor, and this is strictly due to the additional genetic information contained within the bacteria, something every creationist website spends their entire existence saying doesnt happen. " I think that if you will read in detail you will find that creationist websites do not necessarily deny the possibility of the addition of new genetic information ever being added by mutation (let alone that these sites spend spend their "entire existence" denying the possibility of such), but instead that creationists point out things such as ". . . the likelihood of it happening is so remote that it cannot be the mechanism that could have generated the encyclopedic quantities of information of all living creatures." and that though "It is just possible that some trivial cases of increased information could occur amongst the billions of mutations that occur . . . the problem is that the process is overwhelmingly negative (information loss)." http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/2005/0311.asp
Creationists also point out the lack of documented examples of information gain by mutation in the neo-darwinian sense (the nylon degradation one being possibly one of the better candidates though), and importantly the fact that some of the most common examples of evolutionary change used by evolutionists (such as antibiotic resistance) frequently involve the loss of genetic information- and thus are not valid as examples of upward evolution as they involve the opposite process (see my second link in my first post here).
-
46
HAS AN EVOLUTIONARY LINK BEEN DISCOVERED?
by badboy inscientists have claimed to have found the missing link between fish and land animals on ellesmere island ,canada.
-
-
hooberus
Are you sure it's not because you were so far out of your intellectual depth in any arguments you had on the subject that you resorted to just copying and pasting from your favourite creationist websites? I guess people can look at your post history and make up their own minds.
They certainly can.
-
46
HAS AN EVOLUTIONARY LINK BEEN DISCOVERED?
by badboy inscientists have claimed to have found the missing link between fish and land animals on ellesmere island ,canada.
-
-
hooberus
You'll get used to that. Hooberus is a fundamentalist Christian with no scientific background. If someone posts something he doesn't understand but that upsets his blinkered creationist worldview, he'll look up his favourite web site (answersingenesis.org) and find what he thinks is a rebuttal. There's no point arguing with him as he doesn't understand much of what he posts. But the place wouldn't be the same without him.
Anyway, welcome to the board. Great stuff so far.
Comments such as the above are one reason why I try to no longer dialogue with the evolutionists here anymore. Thanks for the reminder.
-
46
HAS AN EVOLUTIONARY LINK BEEN DISCOVERED?
by badboy inscientists have claimed to have found the missing link between fish and land animals on ellesmere island ,canada.
-
-
hooberus
And also, statements like this one drive me crazy "Where did they come from? An accidental big bang from nothingness?" The big bang has nothing to do with evolution. It has everything to do with cosmology. They are not related at all. But, why would the big bang have to be an accident? Do you equate belief in the big bang with athiesm? Why? What evidence do you have? What does the bible say about the mechanism that God used to create the universe? Why dont you like the big bang?
"Evolution comprises all the states of development of the universe; the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic matter, and man is a product of the evolution of life."
Theodosius Dobzhansky
Science, 155:409-415, 1967
And though Funkyderek already addressed the statement that "DNA is set in stone", AK also said that "there is still no science to backup the evolution of DNA to progress to a more complex species." If the following REAL LIFE example does not completely prove these two statements to be wrong, then I do not know what will. The example has to do with bacteria. As everyone posting here no doubt knows, bacteria are known to consume anything from crude oil to our own tissues. What they can or can not consume depends upon the instructions contained in their genome. In 1975, Japanese scientists reported finding a bacteria that could even consume Nylon. This would not seem to be too extraordinary of a finding except for the fact that Nylon is completely synthetic. It did not exist in nature prior to 1935 when it was manufactured by Dupont. So where did the genetic information come from? The bacteria did not lose the ability to consume what it was able to consume previously, but it gained the ability to consume this new, synthetic, material in addition to what it could consume previously. This new ability within the bateria Flavobacterium is the result of an additional Thymine nucleotide to be added to the DNA sequence of this bacteria. In my mind, this proves that not only is DNA NOT set in stone, it also proves that order can arise from chaos, and that evolution does occur in order to cause one species to progress into a more complex one. Because, just because the bacteria evolved on the micro level, it still became more complex in the process. This is a real life example of the one thing that creationists insist that evolution can not do, add new genetic information, and yet here it is! The genome for this bacteria actually grew and became more complex by the addition of the Thymine nucleotide! This really isnt any surprise to scientists and other people that like to actually learn, but in my mind this is proof on the most basic level that creationists for some reason insist that they need...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/bact_resist.htm
-
3
For Christians- Evolution vs. creation the order of events matters!
by hooberus in.
.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0404order.asp.
-
-
-
98
Wow that UN scandal really DOES work wonders
by osmosis ini'm totally amazed.
i gave that un report to my (hardcore jw to the extreme max, but in a nice way) aunt, and she didn't speak of it for several days.
when she said nothing, i knew i'd gotten somewhere.. today she finally spoke up.
-
-
hooberus
Note that (in the above letter) even the WT admits: "Still, the Criteria for Association with DPI contain some language that we cannot subscribe to."
Therefore, the issue is the specific "Criteria for Association with DPI" which from what I have read seems to have been the same in the year when the WT became associated as when they became disassociated.
-
41
U.N. Scandal Clarfications Please.
by lowden insince i joined the forum a short while ago i was confronted by the above scandal, hadn't known about it , haven't been in touch with anything to do with the org for a while.
so i've read all the posts and questions and i think iget the drift, but what i want to kno now is why did they do it?
i hear their excuse of the library card, but that's obviously a load of tosh.
-
-
hooberus
(1) The NGO agreement was to support the principles of the UN charter and its work, but ONLY as defined as being “in accordance with” the WTS’ own “aims and purposes.
Do you have primary source documentation for this? If so please provide.Some of the other points were responded to here: http://www.geocities.com/thewatchtowerstudy/un1.htm
-
17
Interesting site-30 yr jw, elder, df last year writes book
by orbison11 inand apparently he still believe in it go figuire??
orbi
http://www.jehovah-has-become-king.com/?ovraw=jehovah&ovkey=jehovah&ovmtc=standard
-
-
-
66
Is The watchtower Dishonest When It comes to the Trinity?
by RevFrank inin 1989 the watchtower society published a 32-page booklet entitled "should you believe in the trinity?
" the aim of this publication was to discredit the christian doctrine of the triune nature of god.
the method that the society used to accomplish this goal was to quote from a plethora of resources, both secular and religious, such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, books and historical literature written by individual authors.
-
-
hooberus
Hooberus: You don't honestly expect me wade through all of that stuff do you? If you disagree with me, tell me why, and I'll reply to you.
I posted the link for those who are interested or questioning, not to generate a dialogue with you specifically.