hooberus

Joined

• started 119 topics
• posted 2,517 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by hooberus

• 
  40

  GENETICS- CREATIONISTS need not be INTIMIDATED.

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  genetics- creationists need not be intimidated.. .

  internet evolutionists almost universally and repetitiously proclaim that modern neo-darwinian evolutionary theory is supported by overwhelming evidence and that there is no evidence for biblical creation (or even mere intelligent design) for that matter.

  they will dogmatically claim that evolution receives universal support from all the real scientists and all the facts from genetics, biology, geology, paleontology, and every other ology that one can think of.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus
• 
  40

  GENETICS- CREATIONISTS need not be INTIMIDATED.

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  genetics- creationists need not be intimidated.. .

  internet evolutionists almost universally and repetitiously proclaim that modern neo-darwinian evolutionary theory is supported by overwhelming evidence and that there is no evidence for biblical creation (or even mere intelligent design) for that matter.

  they will dogmatically claim that evolution receives universal support from all the real scientists and all the facts from genetics, biology, geology, paleontology, and every other ology that one can think of.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  As I said perhaps you could try doing the research and explaining your objections in your own words.

  I have done "research". In addition to other materials, I have actually read the books listed in the O.P. (unlike evolutionist "book reviewers" on this forum), Furthermore some (most) of the summaries in the O.P. are my own words such as:

  "showing that the deleterious mutation rates are vastly higher than evolution can allow for. Evolutionists admit that the deleterious mutation rate needs to be less (much less in reality) then 1 deleterious mutation on average per individual per generation - otherwise genetic degradation and extinction is inevitable."

  "why evolutionists came up with the (now falsified) claim that 99% of DNA is “junk”. (This was not based on observation, but instead on what would be needed to “save” evolution in light of the high observed rates of mutation). Other evolutionists (possibly unaware) later parroted this “ 99% junk” DNA claim as “evidence” against a designer, when in reality it was a figure calculated to bring the effective deleterious mutation rate down by a factor of a hundred to push it to less then one per individual per generation to “save” evolution.

  "regardless of the deleterious mutation rates, that the substitution rate of beneficial mutations into a population with long generation times i.e. humans, is so vastly slow that only a negligible amount of beneficial evolution (only a few hundred nucleotides) could occur even over the evolutionists own time frame ."
• 
  40

  GENETICS- CREATIONISTS need not be INTIMIDATED.

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  genetics- creationists need not be intimidated.. .

  internet evolutionists almost universally and repetitiously proclaim that modern neo-darwinian evolutionary theory is supported by overwhelming evidence and that there is no evidence for biblical creation (or even mere intelligent design) for that matter.

  they will dogmatically claim that evolution receives universal support from all the real scientists and all the facts from genetics, biology, geology, paleontology, and every other ology that one can think of.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Tuesday said:

  Ugn, these articles are great at ignorning VAST amounts of information.

  Could you please explain why we only have 22 pairs of chromosomes and primates have 24? . . . This is just one small example of things that are left out in articles like these.

  Nothing addressing the merger of chromosome 2 eh? Big shock. That's because all creationists ever do is address straw men that have nothing to do with evolution.

  cofty said:

  Here is a very simple snippet of evidence that I personally find very convincing....

  Occasionally a virus will infect an animal and get its DNA implanted in its host genome, HIV is an example of such an infection. Most infections are of soma (body) cells and end with the death of the hapless victim. Very occasionally a virus will infect a germ (sex) cell of its host and will then become part of the genome of all of its victims descendants.

  These kind of infections, known as "endogenous retroviruses", . . .

  We see again, and again, that evolutionists here obviously don't even bother to read creationists posts. From the opening post: Some responses to Evolutionists claims on things like junk DNA, Endogenous Retroviruses, Chromosome fusion, etc.

  http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html
• 
  40

  GENETICS- CREATIONISTS need not be INTIMIDATED.

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  genetics- creationists need not be intimidated.. .

  internet evolutionists almost universally and repetitiously proclaim that modern neo-darwinian evolutionary theory is supported by overwhelming evidence and that there is no evidence for biblical creation (or even mere intelligent design) for that matter.

  they will dogmatically claim that evolution receives universal support from all the real scientists and all the facts from genetics, biology, geology, paleontology, and every other ology that one can think of.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Recent articles poining out that even most "beneficial" mutations involve deleterious (information loosing) processes.

  Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?

  http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/2005v41n4p318.pdf

  Darwinism and the Deterioration of the Genome

  http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp
• 
  40

  GENETICS- CREATIONISTS need not be INTIMIDATED.

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  genetics- creationists need not be intimidated.. .

  internet evolutionists almost universally and repetitiously proclaim that modern neo-darwinian evolutionary theory is supported by overwhelming evidence and that there is no evidence for biblical creation (or even mere intelligent design) for that matter.

  they will dogmatically claim that evolution receives universal support from all the real scientists and all the facts from genetics, biology, geology, paleontology, and every other ology that one can think of.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  bohm said:

  hooberus: I cannot speak of all the resources you posted since i have not read many of them. HOWEVER:...

  Dr. Sanford base many on his claims on a particular simulation he wrote.

  The primary documentation for the main claims in his book are taken from printed [evolutionary] genetics sources. His simulation (which came later) is additional evidence. Hence, his claims can be examined regardless of his simulation.

  WHENEVER you write a simulation, you want to VALIDATE it to make sure you didnt make a mistake. To my knowledge Dr. Sanford never validate his model. Speaking as someone who has read countless papers on various simulations this is a giant red flag. Its like saying a particular type of drug works without testing it. Sanford appears to do it for good reasons - his simulation is not compatible with the real world, and make some unphysical assumptions about evolution so that it HAVE to give poor results. Furthermore, when i examined the simulation, it contained a rather grave bug in the code that controlled how surviving species was selected.

  Interested readers can compare with the following:

  http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Mendels-Accountant.pdf

  "Verification and Validation"

  "Most features on Mendel have been tested for correctness in implementation as well as for agreement with theoretical predictions (Sanford, Baumgardner, Gibson, Brewer, & Remine, 2007a). Simulation results compare very well with the theoretical expectations for situations where mathematical predictions are available. In cases where we could not make specific mathematical predictions, results still matched what general population genetic theory and logic would predict. Altering input parameters consistently resulted in expected effects. Although further validations are under way, current results indicate that Mendel produces reliable results for a wide range of parameter values."
• 
  16

  What is the greatest act of love God has done? Interresting question for non-trinitarians

  by teel in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  currently i am not taking any of sides, but here's an interresting topic, i would be interrested what can an anti-trinitarian answer to this.. i found this article here: has the jehovah's witness' god performed the greatest act of love?.

  in a nutshell: john 15:3 "greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends".

  jesus laid down his life.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  bttt
• 
  40

  GENETICS- CREATIONISTS need not be INTIMIDATED.

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  genetics- creationists need not be intimidated.. .

  internet evolutionists almost universally and repetitiously proclaim that modern neo-darwinian evolutionary theory is supported by overwhelming evidence and that there is no evidence for biblical creation (or even mere intelligent design) for that matter.

  they will dogmatically claim that evolution receives universal support from all the real scientists and all the facts from genetics, biology, geology, paleontology, and every other ology that one can think of.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  This is the best recent book for “extincting” neo-Darwinian theory by showing that the deleterious mutation rates are vastly higher than evolution can allow for.

  This book is another pseudo-scientific junk publication stunt by creationists.

  Here we see Gerard dismissing yet another book without having read it. This is similar to what he perviously said about another book that he hadn't read either (but only the preface that was posted). see: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/148600/2714534/post.ashx#2714534

  Remember my warning in the O.P.

  All living things undergo mutations during their lifetime; some are benign, some are not and some are apparently irrelevant. If the individuals monitored live in a green valey, they will have less mutations than those next to a toxic waste dump site; no secret about poison being bad for you. So for the 100000th time, those mutations helpful to better adapt to the environment are most likely to be passed on to future generations.

  If you would actually read the book, you would see that the author wouldn't necessarily disagree with the above statements.

  And someone put in this guy's religious head that evolution happens at the level of species over a time period of millions of years.

  Lets see, the author has a P.h. D. in genetics and is the (among other things) the:

  • Primary inventor of the biolistic (gene gun) process
  • Co-inventor of the Pathogen-derived Resistance (PDR) process
  • Co-inventor of the Genetic Vaccination process
  • Primary inventor of numerous conventionally-bred fruit varieties
  • Most of the world's transgenic crop acreage were transformed via my biolistic process

  http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/hort/faculty/sanford/

  So I think that even his now"religious" (former atheist) mind might understand that "evolution" supposedly "happens at the level of species over a time period of millions of years".

  A rouge writer will never "debunk" evolution while mixing fantasy with facts.

  And a post writer here will never "debunk" a book while mixing fantasy with facts either.
• 
  40

  GENETICS- CREATIONISTS need not be INTIMIDATED.

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  genetics- creationists need not be intimidated.. .

  internet evolutionists almost universally and repetitiously proclaim that modern neo-darwinian evolutionary theory is supported by overwhelming evidence and that there is no evidence for biblical creation (or even mere intelligent design) for that matter.

  they will dogmatically claim that evolution receives universal support from all the real scientists and all the facts from genetics, biology, geology, paleontology, and every other ology that one can think of.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  GENETICS- CREATIONISTS need not be INTIMIDATED.

  Internet Evolutionists almost universally and repetitiously proclaim that modern neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is supported by “overwhelming evidence” and that there is “no evidence” for Biblical creation (or even mere intelligent design) for that matter. They will dogmatically claim that evolution receives universal support from “all the real scientists” and “all the facts” from genetics, biology, geology, paleontology, and every other “ology” that one can think of.

  I think that the situation actually somewhat different. Now, I’m not claiming that the following genetics specific resources “prove the Bible” or even that they “disprove evolution”. But they do show that the evolutionary dogmatist claims like the above are well . . . dogmatist claims, - and that creationists need not necessarily be intimidated by them.

  “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Human Genome” (second edition), available from http://www.creationresearch.org

  “Dr. Sanford’s popular book explores the limitations of evolution’s primary axiom. This axiom is the evolutionary change (i.e., common descent) is accomplished by a combination of natural selection and random mutations. Using modern genetics research, the former Cornell University scientist provides several challenges to this axiom. Organisms, including humans, are declining in health, not evolving to more advanced stages of evolution. This newest edition contains the addition of a glossary, index, and author’s notes.”

  This is the best recent book for “extincting” neo-Darwinian theory by showing that the deleterious mutation rates are vastly higher than evolution can allow for. Evolutionists admit that the deleterious mutation rate needs to be less (much less in reality) then 1 deleterious mutation on average per individual per generation - otherwise genetic degradation and extinction is inevitable. Contains shocking appendix documenting this from recent top evolutionary journals. Written by a very prominent geneticist. Highly damaging.

  This is also the best book available for an easily understandable explanation of other issues as to the absurdity of neo-Darwinism as our "creator". Very enlightning.

  A DVD is also available. See also: http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_1/j21_1_43-47.pdf -

  The book “The Biotic Message”. http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm

  Though not a biblical creationist book this is still a very informative and (though technical) resource providing information on how evolutionists developed their genetic models and the SEVERE remaining problems. For example gives the history on why evolutionists came up with the (now falsified) claim that 99% of DNA is “junk”. (This was not based on observation, but instead on what would be needed to “save” evolution in light of the high observed rates of mutation). Other evolutionists (possibly unaware) later parroted this “ 99% junk” DNA claim as “evidence” against a designer, when in reality it was a figure calculated to bring the effective deleterious mutation rate down by a factor of a hundred to push it to less then one per individual per generation to “save” evolution.

  The book also shows that regardless of the deleterious mutation rates, that the substitution rate of beneficial mutations into a population with long generation times i.e. humans, is so vastly slow that only a negligible amount of beneficial evolution (only a few hundred nucleotides) could occur even over the evolutionists own time frame . This was discovered a long time ago by a very prominent evolutionist and was never solved. "In my opinion the [Haldane's Dilemma] problem was never solved, by Wallace or anyone else."George C. Williams, a highly respected evolutionary geneticist, 1992,
  in his book, Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenges, p 143-144

  http://saintpaulscience.com/Haldane.htm

  The book also offers an excellent treatment of problems with a naturalistic origin of life and the genetic code. Responses are given to evolutionists attempts to defeat probability calculations. (Also available from the Creation Research Society)

  Article:

  “Astonishing DNA complexity demolishes neo-Darwinism”

  http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_111-117.pdf

  Article:

  “Mitochondrial eve and the biblical Eve are looking good: criticism of young age premature”

  http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_1/j19_1_57-59.pdf

  Some responses to Evolutionists claims on things like junk DNA, Endogenous Retroviruses, Chromosome fusion, etc.

  http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html

  A WARNING: Many internet evolutionists will frequently try to suppress the reading of any materials against their generally secular, evoltionary naturalist, worldview. They will often dismissively “review” books without even reading them, or search and link you to other “reviews” by other evolutionists who have never really read them. They will often immediately parrot any counter article on the internet without doing virtually any research, and dogmatically claim that the anti-evolutionary claims have thusly been “refuted”. They will also ad hominen the writers. They will appeal to the fact that any referenced evolutionary geneticists still “believe” in evolution, and claim that therefore it is wrong to cite them (even for specific technical points). Even if the anti-evolutionary article has been written and reviewed by qualified scientists (and even though it may document many of its technical point from even evolutionary technical literature), they will still proclaim that the explicit anti-evolutionary article is invalid since it has not been both peer-reviewed and published by editing evolutionist bodies in their evolutionary science journals.
• 
  21

  The Probabilty of there being an Intelligent Designer part 2. (some responses)

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  on the thread "the probabilty of there being an intelligent designer" the poster "elsewhere" wrote:.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/187282/1/the-probabilty-of-there-being-an-intelligent-designer.

  here is my basic reasoning on why i reject id:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  bomh said (In response to the O.P.):

  Just some thoughts..

  First off, i dont want to put words in the mouth of Elsewhere, but i believe the thread was a very odd mix of the cosmological argument and a whole lot of other stuff. I believe the main points Elsewhere put forth are valid, but it is not meant as a 'strict' but rather an intuiative argument.

  Regardless of whether or not it is classified as a "strict" or "intuative" argument it is not a valid argument against actual ID theory, since it omits the important fact that ID theory always has had specifying criteria such as " organized complexity that has an origin," being best explained as the result of an intelligent designer, rather than by the result purley naturalistic processes. Only by omitting these or other explicit or implicit specifying criteria, can opponets claim that ID thoery some also (to be consistent) "requires" the creator to himself have had his "own creator".

  For example there is nothing in the statement that "the origin of organized complexity from non-complexity is best explained as the result of an intelligent designer, rather than by purely naturalistic processes" that also requires the designer to also be himself composed of organized parts, or even to also have an origin. Hence, there is no necessity by the same argument for the designer to have his "own" designer.

  Perhaps the poster "elsewhere" is simply unfamiliar with actual ID arguments from theorists, and didn't realize that his reasoning chain thusly made errors. To be more accurate of ID theory his first point (listed in the O.P.) should be something more like:

  "1. People who support ID say they do because of how complex life and the universe are. They say such complexity certainly must have been created by a higher being, because they believe that "organized complexity that has an origin from non-complexity is best explained as the result of an intelligent designer, rather than by purely naturalistic processes"

  I dont think anyone would claim ID is a-priori illogical.

  Oh yes they would !!!

  As a matter of fact, the claim that ID is a priori "illogical" and "self - refuting" has been one of the main arguments used by evolutionists on this very forum (and by Dawkins in the God Delusion).

  It never seems to bother them much however that they accept ID as a logical, valid explanation for their posts here, (and the computer that they post on).
• 
  21

  The Probabilty of there being an Intelligent Designer part 2. (some responses)

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  on the thread "the probabilty of there being an intelligent designer" the poster "elsewhere" wrote:.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/187282/1/the-probabilty-of-there-being-an-intelligent-designer.

  here is my basic reasoning on why i reject id:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  On the thread "The Probabilty of there being an Intelligent Designer" the poster "Elsewhere" wrote:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/187282/1/The-Probabilty-of-there-being-an-Intelligent-Designer

  Here is my basic reasoning on why I reject ID:

  1. People who support ID say they do because of how complex life and the universe are. They say such complexity certainly must have been created by a higher being.

  2. I reject this because one is left wondering: Who created the creator?

  3. If the universe is so complex that it needs to have been created, then why does the creator not need to be created. The creator is, after all, more complex than the universe itself.

  4. I say leave out the extra step of the more complex creator and just leave the less complex universe by itself.

  There are several problems with your reasoning. First of all you are probably not consistent. You claim that you "reject ID", however I suspect that you (like other evolutionist) accept ID as a logical and valid explanation for things such as watches, pyramids, cameras, future confirmed SETI signals, etc. Therfore evolutionists are inconsistent when they claim that ID is somehow necessarily illogical.

  Secondly, you claim that the creator must be "after all, more complex than the universe itself" This assumes that a creator must be a material entitity composed of interdepenant parts. This is not something that the design argument logically requires, nor is it an attribute theologians believe that the God of the Bible posesses. Finally, you are overlooking the very revelant fact that the design argument has always either implicitly or explicitly dealt specifically with items believed to have an origin.- that is: "organized complexity (systems composed of componet parts) that has an origin (like watches, or biological life), is best explained as the result of an intelligent designer, rather than as a result of purley naturalistic processes." There is nothing in such an argument that requires the designer himself to also be composed of organized complexity, nor even to have an origin at all, hence there is nothing in the above design argument that necessarily requires the designer to himself have his own creator.