Posts by Vidqun

218

Debating With Evolution Deniers is Just Like This

by cofty in

arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....

Vidqun

EdenOne, good observation. Cofty is the expert. He knows all about it. He insists that that was the place the miracle of life started happening, according to one of the books he read. Alas! The formation of new life forms has not been observed. One would have thought they would be able to replicate the process in laboratory conditions. No luck so far. If they do formulate life, then I would be a believer, but then, I know that it's impossible. Life doesn't work like that. Even if it did, the one-celled organism would have to evolve in multi-celled organisms and complex life forms, another impossibility.

218

Debating With Evolution Deniers is Just Like This

by cofty in

arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....

Vidqun

A friendly reminder of what a microbiologist is: A microbiologist (from Greek μῑκρος) is a scientist who studies microscopic life forms and processes or works in the field of microbiology. Microbiologists investigate the growth and characteristics of microscopic organisms such as bacteria, algae, fungi, or some types of parasites (Wiki).

Caedes, what did you think a microbiologist is? Let me tell you about the field. The curriculum starts with Antonie van Leeuwenhoek and the invention of the microscope. He is viewed as the "father of Microbiology." From there you learn about Louis Pasteur and his experiments. Let me tell you about them. He is renowned for his discoveries of the principles of vaccination, microbial fermentation and pasteurization. In his day, the theory of "spontaneous generation" was in vogue. Def. "(Biology) a theory, widely held in the 19th century, but now discredited, stating that living organisms could arise directly and rapidly from nonliving material. Also called Abiogenesis" - The Free Dictionary.

Pasteur effectively demolished this theory with his sealed and open glass jar experiments. I am sure you are familiar with these. From there you learn of the great lights of Microbiology, such as Ferdinand Cohn and Robert Koch, and about the major breakthroughs in Microbiology, such as Alexander Fleming and his discovery of penicillin. As mentioned, then you study the different bacteria, fungi, and viruses. You also do extensive courses in staining, microscopy, and electron microscopy.

Interestingly, you touch on the theory of evolution in your studies. Lo and behold! Here the ugly head of "spontaneous generation" pops up with its new name Abiogenesis, a theory that had been efficiently debunked by microbiologists. The only difference between the biologists' theories of evolution and abiogenesis: This does not happen "directly and rapidly," as in "spontaneous generation." This happens over millions of years. However, it is impossible for life of any form to spontaneous generate from non-living matter, we've established that, haven't we?

Perhaps now you can understand my problem with evolution. If you don't, don't worry about it.

218

Debating With Evolution Deniers is Just Like This

by cofty in

arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....

Vidqun

Cofty, you're welcome.

Yes you're right, we live on different planets. You live on a planet, a fantasy land, where everything just happen. Out of basic elements life "came to be." Here life not only appeared out of the blue, it became more complicated as time went on.

I live on a planet where everything was made. Things were placed there for a purpose. Two different planets altogether.

218

Debating With Evolution Deniers is Just Like This

by cofty in

arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....

Vidqun

Sorry, I was sidetracked by another matter, as you might have noticed. Back to the business at hand.

Chance is certainly a factor in evolution, but there are also non-random evolutionary mechanisms. Random mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation, however natural selection, the process by which some variants survive and others do not, is not random – Berkeley – Understanding Evolution.

So contrary to your opinion, according to the experts, a certain amount of chance is involved in the process of evolution. Wait, I am for design and against chance. You are supposed to be against design and for chance. But actually you are against chance and against design. This is very confusing. My agent of design is God. Your agent of design, let me see now, the process of natural selection. The mechanism you put your money on, random mutations. So we should not bring abiogenesis into this equation. There it is all chance.

Cofty: The differences in sequence of cytochrome C between different species.

Common ancestry or design? You scream common ancestry. It smacks of design to me. The same entity designed life on earth using the same blueprint/template or whatever you want to call it.

Vidiot, first things first. I refer you to no. 6 in Webster. One is never too old to learn. 6. a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena - evolutionarily adverb, evolutionary adjective, evolutionism noun, evolutionist adjective. Evolutionism means the whole package and everything related to it. Don’t rely too much on Spellcheckers of Word processing programs. They are not all that good.

Secondly, it's easy to draw a tree of life on paper. It is not so easy to connect the dots in real life. You'll see there's lots and lots of versions of the tree of life. Few can agree on the details.

Redpilltwice, I also find it hard to connect the dots from sea creature to land creature back to sea creature (in some cases, e.g., dolphins, whales).

DJS, Western civilization is based on our Judaeo-Christian-Roman background. That's where our laws and ethics come from, whether you like it or not. Take that away, and what do you have?

13

JW Headquarters Horror Story

by Vidqun in

i discovered this on youtube, it's quite recent:.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cam-nzcaa_q.

the woman's story sounds believable and credible, but i just don't know.

Vidqun

Sorry, my bullshit meter was not calibrated. It is now.

13

JW Headquarters Horror Story

by Vidqun in

i discovered this on youtube, it's quite recent:.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cam-nzcaa_q.

the woman's story sounds believable and credible, but i just don't know.

Vidqun

Yes, Finkelstein, you're right. She sounded sincere and I fell for it. Another snag in her story is the ghostly cowboy. So, the ghostly cowboy attire would materialize on the demon, etc. She definitely slipped up there.

13

JW Headquarters Horror Story

by Vidqun in

i discovered this on youtube, it's quite recent:.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cam-nzcaa_q.

the woman's story sounds believable and credible, but i just don't know.

Vidqun

Yes, it does sound far-fetched, now that I think of it. Because of Russel's links with the Free Masons, one could easily be drawn into believing such accusations, typically the stuff for an elaborate conspiracy theory. Raymond Franz would have mentioned it, even if he suspected such activities. Yes, and Barbara Anderson would be the ideal person to examine her claims and refute them if necessary. Thanks.

13

JW Headquarters Horror Story

by Vidqun in

i discovered this on youtube, it's quite recent:.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cam-nzcaa_q.

the woman's story sounds believable and credible, but i just don't know.

Vidqun

I discovered this on Youtube, it's quite recent:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAm-NZcaa_Q

The woman's story sounds believable and credible, but I just don't know. Her facts are in order and she knew these people personally. Sounds like Free Mason activities? Raymond Franz didn't know. He would have mentioned it in his writings. Perhaps there are some of you that have heard similar rumours? I would appreciate your input. Thanks in anticipation.

218

Debating With Evolution Deniers is Just Like This

by cofty in

arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....

Vidqun

Cofty: There is a little thing in every cell of every living thing on earth that is essential to life. It is slightly different in every species but the amazing thing is that the amount by which it is different is identical to what evolution would predict.
It is impossible for this to happen by chance - really, really impossible. Therefore evolution is true.

Is this a paradox or what? Is evolutionism not based on chance? If you really believe what you said here, our views are not so far from each other. I also believe that it is impossible for all of this to happen by chance. Anyway, I do believe the creation model explains the above satisfactorily.

There is no 100% “neutral” mutation. This is a misnomer, one of many. One should excuse the scientists. Not many linguists amongst them. Cf. Crick’s “central dogma of molecular biology.” Similar to Newton’s third law, in the nucleus of a cell every action would be having a reaction. The reaction might be minor or unnoticible. E.g., even then, it would be causing the genome to change and expand. In the end, multiple minor mutations would be detrimental to health of a cell. Since certain codons are less-used than others, the body does not produce as much tRNA for that specific codon. Protein synthesis would be slowed. On the long run, such so-called “neutral” mutations would be influencing the genome negatively. Summary: Even “neutral” mutations, compounded over time, could result in loss of the original specified use of the genetic code.

That brings me to “junk DNA.” There is no “junk DNA.” This is another misnomer. It should be called Noncoding DNA. Splice out all socalled “junk DNA” and the organism dies. Everything in the genome is interconnected. No part should be seen in isolation. Evolutionary scientists should be thanking creation scientist for insisting that every part of the genome has a purpose. The fact that nobody could work out the function of Noncoding DNA, doesn’t mean it has no function. According to ENCODE, they predict that over 80% of the genome is functional.

Stefan Schwarz has compiled the following arguments, of which I concur wholeheartedly.

1. There is no mechanism for evolution - mutations only cause deleterious effects.

Mutations cause cancer, deformities, ageing (in somatic cells) and other deleterious effects.

Even neutral mutations, compounded over time, result in loss of the original specified use of the genetic code.

This points to a more perfect genetic past.

Random mutations are not a mechanism that creates new, usable, specified, complex genetic information. They only add to, subtract from, or replace the original DNA with random changes.

There are many claims that beneficial mutations occur, from nylon digesting bacteria to citrate digesting bacteria. Under closer examination, these so-called mutations are repeatable in laboratory experiments where the same mutation occurs under similar situations....which shows that it is not a mutation, but an ability to adapt under certain environmental pressures. Further, none of the examples invent digestion or anything novel.

2. DNA Copying - chicken and the egg

DNA is copied using complex machines that can copy DNA forward and backwards in segments.

If evolution is true, this method of copying would have evolved.

Yet, evolution cannot occur according to the theory if there is no copying mechanism or no method of reproduction.

Therefore, DNA could not begin to evolve before it supposedly evolved a copying mechanism.

If the mechanism of copying slowly evolved, every generation would have to have at least one fully working copying mechanism for it to evolve, which presupposes that the thing evolving caused itself to evolve which is absurd. Something can not cause itself to exist before it exists!

Some will suggest self replicating pairs of RNA might have gotten the whole process going....and then evolved a programmed molecular machine that could copy DNA and then changed itself into DNA, all in one generation (the machine doesn't work without DNA or all the parts, or the parts of the DNA that have the instructions to create the DNA copying machines, and therefore could not incrementally work).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqESR7E4b_8

Many will say, "but evolution doesn't explain origins!" They are correct, if there is no way to get evolution started. Evolution, at minimum, supposes that the process could start on its own. No matter how much time you wait for something that is impossible to happen, it will be impossible for it to happen.

There are a few other arguments, such as the Cambrian explosion where the sudden appearance of most phyla (and broad genetic diversity) originates, the flawed presumptuous ad hoc dating methods used in geology, the impossibility of the evolution of gender, the logical contradictions inherent in the claims of evolution, the inexplicable commonality of convergent evolution among disparate phyla, and so on.

If someone has put all their faith in evolution, they will most likely reject these arguments. They are then left believing something that is absurd. Either the self-contradictory mechanism of unguided random mutations being intelligently directed or that something can create itself before it exists.

218

Debating With Evolution Deniers is Just Like This

by cofty in

arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....

Vidqun

You are the only "scientist" in the whole universe who is aware of this terrifying idea. Please publish your evidence in a peer-reviewed journal immediately.

Don’t worry Cofty. It has been done. An animal that has a harmful near-neutral mutation will not die out because the mutation is not big enough to be ‘noticeable.’ The animal lives on to reproduce — with its offspring also acquiring that mutation (if it affected the reproductive cells). But now, those offspring not only have the mutation it got from its parents, but 100-300 entirely new near-neutral mutations.1 By stark contrast, the famous geneticist, H.J. Muller, said a rate of only 0.5 mutations per person per generation would doom the human race!2

1. Kondrashov, A.S., “Direct Estimate of Human Per Nucleotide Mutation Rates at 20 Loci Causing Mendelian Diseases,” Human Mutation 21:12-27, 2002; Nachman, M.W., Crowell, S.L., “Estimation of the Mutation Rate Per Nucleotide in Humans,” Genetics156:297-304, 2000; Sanford, John C., Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome (New York: FMS Publications, 2005), third edition, p. 21.

2. Muller. H.J., “Our Load of Mutations,” American Journal of Human Genetics 2: 111-176.