Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Dr.K.Hovind SHATTERS Evolution
11 views
Skip to first unread message
BroilJAB
Sep 27, 2012, 10:00:18 AM9/27/12
to
Evolutionism believers went ballistic today when
Dr.K.Hovind destroyed 2 of their best in debate.
He pointed out that, just today, a leading evolutionist
'Master Chemist' had faked her credentials and so
botched up the lab tests against thousands of dopers.
www.drdino.com/
Dr.K.Hovind destroyed 2 of their best in debate.
He pointed out that, just today, a leading evolutionist
'Master Chemist' had faked her credentials and so
botched up the lab tests against thousands of dopers.
www.drdino.com/
Malcolm McMahon
Sep 27, 2012, 12:21:52 PM9/27/12
to
believe in the TOE care a jot about the relatively minor individuals
that are involved in evolving the theory.
Once you've really grasped the TOE it's practically self-evident, you
see evidence everywhere you look.
Andrew
Sep 27, 2012, 1:34:07 PM9/27/12
to
"Malcolm McMahon" wrote in message news:k41uf0$rfe$1...@dont-email.me...
What you are seeing is variation and adaption within genetic limits
that our Creator has so programmed to be since the beginning when
He created it all - not the TOE.
that our Creator has so programmed to be since the beginning when
He created it all - not the TOE.
Davej
Sep 27, 2012, 1:52:28 PM9/27/12
to
On Sep 27, 9:00 am, BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> [...]
Maybe he needs to get out of jail first.
"Since January 2007, Hovind has been serving a ten-year prison
sentence after being convicted of 58 federal counts, including 12 tax
offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents, and 45 counts of
structuring cash transactions. He is incarcerated at the FPC Satellite
Camp of the ADX Florence prison in Florence, Colorado."
-Wikipedia
> [...]
Maybe he needs to get out of jail first.
"Since January 2007, Hovind has been serving a ten-year prison
sentence after being convicted of 58 federal counts, including 12 tax
offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents, and 45 counts of
structuring cash transactions. He is incarcerated at the FPC Satellite
Camp of the ADX Florence prison in Florence, Colorado."
-Wikipedia
Devils Advocaat
Sep 27, 2012, 1:55:37 PM9/27/12
to
On 27 Sep, 18:32, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Malcolm McMahon" wrote in messagenews:k41uf0$rfe$1...@dont-email.me...
Andrew, you keep claiming your alleged deity programmed in genetic
limits.
To demonstrate the truth of this claim, you'd need to present a
mechanism that inhibits change beyond which no organism or population
can progress.
Can you do that?
> "Malcolm McMahon" wrote in messagenews:k41uf0$rfe$1...@dont-email.me...
limits.
To demonstrate the truth of this claim, you'd need to present a
mechanism that inhibits change beyond which no organism or population
can progress.
Can you do that?
Ralph
Sep 27, 2012, 4:37:52 PM9/27/12
to
simple to the complex?
Syd M.
Sep 27, 2012, 6:50:28 PM9/27/12
to
Syd M.
Sep 27, 2012, 6:50:46 PM9/27/12
to
On Sep 27, 1:32 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Malcolm McMahon" wrote in messagenews:k41uf0$rfe$1...@dont-email.me...
Nope.
Wrong answer, ignorant one.
> "Malcolm McMahon" wrote in messagenews:k41uf0$rfe$1...@dont-email.me...
Wrong answer, ignorant one.
Syd M.
Sep 27, 2012, 6:51:10 PM9/27/12
to
On Sep 27, 4:37 pm, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 9/27/2012 1:34 PM, Andrew wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Malcolm McMahon" wrote in messagenews:k41uf0$rfe$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 9/27/2012 1:34 PM, Andrew wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Christopher A. Lee
Sep 27, 2012, 7:26:44 PM9/27/12
to
repeats the lies creationist leaders make up.
There are limits, but these are statistical not absolute, and they're
no what he imagines.
Eg a dog won't give birth to a cat because enough random changes would
have to happen all the right way to replace all the dog descendence
since the common ancestor and replace it with the equivalent cat
descendence.
harry k
Sep 28, 2012, 1:09:08 AM9/28/12
to
On Sep 27, 10:32 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Malcolm McMahon" wrote in messagenews:k41uf0$rfe$1...@dont-email.me...
If baseless assertions were money you would be rich.
Harry K
> "Malcolm McMahon" wrote in messagenews:k41uf0$rfe$1...@dont-email.me...
Harry K
Fred
Sep 28, 2012, 3:32:36 AM9/28/12
to
harry k <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>If baseless assertions were money you would be rich.
speaking of rich, "doctor" hovin is still in prison for stealing money
from these stupid christian fucks.
>On Sep 27, 10:32=A0am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> What you are seeing is variation and adaption within genetic limits
>> that our Creator has so programmed to be since the beginning when
>> He created it all - not the TOE.
what a fucking insane idiot.
>> What you are seeing is variation and adaption within genetic limits
>> that our Creator has so programmed to be since the beginning when
>> He created it all - not the TOE.
>If baseless assertions were money you would be rich.
from these stupid christian fucks.
Kelsey Bjarnason
Sep 28, 2012, 6:29:47 AM9/28/12
to
rather than the science. It's like they think that if they can discredit
the individual, somehow this affects the science involved.
Are they really stupid enough to think that? It would appear so.
Devils Advocaat
Sep 28, 2012, 9:02:06 AM9/28/12
to
thrown in jail for not paying his taxes.
And there's nothing in the news reports that even begins to imply the
chemist in question is an "evolutionist".
She may not have her masters, but she would have needed at least a
bachelors to fox her employers enough to get the job.
Funny how it's taken people almost a decade to find her out.
That says more about their incompetence than her lies.
linuxgal
Sep 28, 2012, 9:28:55 AM9/28/12
to
Devils Advocaat wrote:
> On 27 Sep, 15:00, BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>> Evolutionism believers went ballistic today when
>> Dr.K.Hovind destroyed 2 of their best in debate.
>> He pointed out that, just today, a leading evolutionist
>> 'Master Chemist' had faked her credentials and so
>> botched up the lab tests against thousands of dopers.
>>
>> www.drdino.com/
>
> Your lord and master "Dr." Hovind hasn't hit the news since being
> thrown in jail for not paying his taxes.
He has a prison ministry now. Takes his tithes in cigarettes.
> On 27 Sep, 15:00, BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>> Evolutionism believers went ballistic today when
>> Dr.K.Hovind destroyed 2 of their best in debate.
>> He pointed out that, just today, a leading evolutionist
>> 'Master Chemist' had faked her credentials and so
>> botched up the lab tests against thousands of dopers.
>>
>> www.drdino.com/
>
> Your lord and master "Dr." Hovind hasn't hit the news since being
> thrown in jail for not paying his taxes.
Devils Advocaat
Sep 28, 2012, 9:53:15 AM9/28/12
to
shower room. :P
Syd M.
Sep 28, 2012, 10:48:15 AM9/28/12
to
so.
I've tried to correct him, but you know what they say about horses and
water...
Syd M.
Sep 28, 2012, 10:49:14 AM9/28/12
to
Devils Advocaat
Sep 28, 2012, 12:30:43 PM9/28/12
to
But sometimes my self-control slips its clutch.
Especially when I read some posts from people here.
Ones where folk partake of self aggrandizement.
Putting themselves on a pedestal.
Implying others are less able.
All because they supposedly.
Believe in the right god.
BroilJAB
Sep 28, 2012, 9:27:50 PM9/28/12
to
George
Sep 28, 2012, 10:03:43 PM9/28/12
to
Seth lePod
Sep 28, 2012, 10:20:38 PM9/28/12
to
On Sep 28, 12:32 am, repo...@scientology.org (Fred) wrote:
that very claim. To the best I can recall, the only
attempt he ever made was to reply with a link to a book
on Amazon. When queried what the thrust of arguments in
that book were, silence ensued.
I'm guessing that it's related to his oft-repeated
claim that no new information ever arises in a given
genome. And at that point, it's entirely futile to
bring up duplication-plus-mutation, lateral gene
transfer, or genomic capture. You might as well be
talking about megnetohydrodynamics.
Seth
> harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 27, 10:32=A0am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
:
> > What you are seeing is variation and adaption within genetic limits
> > that our Creator has so programmed to be since the beginning when
> > He created it all - not the TOE.
:
> >On Sep 27, 10:32=A0am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
:
> > What you are seeing is variation and adaption within genetic limits
> > that our Creator has so programmed to be since the beginning when
> > He created it all - not the TOE.
> If baseless assertions were money you would be rich.
Andrew has been challenged many, many times to support
that very claim. To the best I can recall, the only
attempt he ever made was to reply with a link to a book
on Amazon. When queried what the thrust of arguments in
that book were, silence ensued.
I'm guessing that it's related to his oft-repeated
claim that no new information ever arises in a given
genome. And at that point, it's entirely futile to
bring up duplication-plus-mutation, lateral gene
transfer, or genomic capture. You might as well be
talking about megnetohydrodynamics.
Seth
Kelsey Bjarnason
Sep 29, 2012, 2:28:15 AM9/29/12
to
BroilJAB
Sep 29, 2012, 4:31:13 AM9/29/12
to
Evolutionism believers went ballistic today when
Dr.K.Hovind destroyed 2 of their best in debate.
He pointed out that, just today, a leading evolutionist
'Master Chemist' had faked her credentials and so
botched up the lab tests against thousands of dopers.
www.drdino.com/
Dr.K.Hovind destroyed 2 of their best in debate.
He pointed out that, just today, a leading evolutionist
'Master Chemist' had faked her credentials and so
botched up the lab tests against thousands of dopers.
Andrew
Sep 29, 2012, 9:02:12 AM9/29/12
to
"Seth lePod" wrote in message news:ff3f87fa-c3dc-4094...@w3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> (Fred) wrote:
>> harry k wrote:
that would result in macroevolution. You should know
that.
Furthermore, explain the origin of the existing genetic
information apart from a creation by a super-intelligent
Creator.
You cannot.
> (Fred) wrote:
>> harry k wrote:
>> >"Andrew" wrote:
>
>> > What you are seeing is variation and adaption within genetic limits
>> > that our Creator has so programmed to be since the beginning when
>> > He created it all - not the TOE.
>
>> If baseless assertions were money you would be rich.
>
> Andrew has been challenged many, many times to support
> that very claim. To the best I can recall, the only
> attempt he ever made was to reply with a link to a book
> on Amazon. When queried what the thrust of arguments in
> that book were, silence ensued.
>
> I'm guessing that it's related to his oft-repeated
> claim that no new information ever arises in a given
> genome. And at that point, it's entirely futile to
> bring up duplication-plus-mutation, lateral gene
> transfer, or genomic capture.
Reshuffling of existing information is not a mechanism
>
>> > What you are seeing is variation and adaption within genetic limits
>> > that our Creator has so programmed to be since the beginning when
>> > He created it all - not the TOE.
>
>> If baseless assertions were money you would be rich.
>
> Andrew has been challenged many, many times to support
> that very claim. To the best I can recall, the only
> attempt he ever made was to reply with a link to a book
> on Amazon. When queried what the thrust of arguments in
> that book were, silence ensued.
>
> I'm guessing that it's related to his oft-repeated
> claim that no new information ever arises in a given
> genome. And at that point, it's entirely futile to
> bring up duplication-plus-mutation, lateral gene
> transfer, or genomic capture.
that would result in macroevolution. You should know
that.
Furthermore, explain the origin of the existing genetic
information apart from a creation by a super-intelligent
Creator.
You cannot.
Seth lePod
Sep 29, 2012, 11:06:01 AM9/29/12
to
On Sep 29, 6:00 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Seth lePod" wrote in messagenews:ff3f87fa-c3dc-4094...@w3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Excuse me?
Did you read the part where I list three
recognized mechanisms whereby NEW information
is added to a genome? That's "new", as in "wasn't
there before; is there now".
Do you understand the difference between "new" and
"reshuffled"?
If so, and if you wish, we can continue the discussion
at that point.
(oh, and a helpful hint if I may: before we pick this back
up again, you might well go do a bit of reading on the three
mechanisms I mentioned. otherwise this will be fruitless)
Seth
> "Seth lePod" wrote in messagenews:ff3f87fa-c3dc-4094...@w3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> > (Fred) wrote:
> >> harry k wrote:
> >> >"Andrew" wrote:
>
> >> > What you are seeing is variation and adaption within genetic limits
> >> > that our Creator has so programmed to be since the beginning when
> >> > He created it all - not the TOE.
>
> >> If baseless assertions were money you would be rich.
>
> > Andrew has been challenged many, many times to support
> > that very claim. To the best I can recall, the only
> > attempt he ever made was to reply with a link to a book
> > on Amazon. When queried what the thrust of arguments in
> > that book were, silence ensued.
>
> > I'm guessing that it's related to his oft-repeated
> > claim that no new information ever arises in a given
> > genome. And at that point, it's entirely futile to
> > bring up duplication-plus-mutation, lateral gene
> > transfer, or genomic capture.
>
:
> Reshuffling of existing information is not a mechanism
> that would result in macroevolution. You should know
> that.
"Reshuffling?
> >> harry k wrote:
> >> >"Andrew" wrote:
>
> >> > What you are seeing is variation and adaption within genetic limits
> >> > that our Creator has so programmed to be since the beginning when
> >> > He created it all - not the TOE.
>
> >> If baseless assertions were money you would be rich.
>
> > Andrew has been challenged many, many times to support
> > that very claim. To the best I can recall, the only
> > attempt he ever made was to reply with a link to a book
> > on Amazon. When queried what the thrust of arguments in
> > that book were, silence ensued.
>
> > I'm guessing that it's related to his oft-repeated
> > claim that no new information ever arises in a given
> > genome. And at that point, it's entirely futile to
> > bring up duplication-plus-mutation, lateral gene
> > transfer, or genomic capture.
>
:
> Reshuffling of existing information is not a mechanism
> that would result in macroevolution. You should know
> that.
Excuse me?
Did you read the part where I list three
recognized mechanisms whereby NEW information
is added to a genome? That's "new", as in "wasn't
there before; is there now".
Do you understand the difference between "new" and
"reshuffled"?
If so, and if you wish, we can continue the discussion
at that point.
(oh, and a helpful hint if I may: before we pick this back
up again, you might well go do a bit of reading on the three
mechanisms I mentioned. otherwise this will be fruitless)
Seth
Budikka666
Sep 29, 2012, 11:17:39 AM9/29/12
to
Budikka writes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
has shown how this begins, and your own genome is replete with examples
of how new information came into being through gene duplication and
reassignment and through mutation.
In short, you're a lying hypocrite.
However, I'd be delighted to formally debate your *objective evidence*
supporting your claim above if:
1. You can actually find any
and
2. You can dredge up the guts to face me for once in your worthless life
of cowardice for Christ
and
3. You're still not 100% lacking in faith in your supposedly omnipotent
creator to help you.
But do feel free to go ahead and RUN yet again, thereby openly admitting
that your fictional god is useless. I'll be right here to see you off.
Budikka
>"Andrew" wrote:
> Reshuffling of existing information is not a mechanism that would result
> in macroevolution. You should know that.
It is indeed such a mechanism. The Richard Lenski project:
> Reshuffling of existing information is not a mechanism that would result
> in macroevolution. You should know that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
has shown how this begins, and your own genome is replete with examples
of how new information came into being through gene duplication and
reassignment and through mutation.
In short, you're a lying hypocrite.
However, I'd be delighted to formally debate your *objective evidence*
supporting your claim above if:
1. You can actually find any
and
2. You can dredge up the guts to face me for once in your worthless life
of cowardice for Christ
and
3. You're still not 100% lacking in faith in your supposedly omnipotent
creator to help you.
But do feel free to go ahead and RUN yet again, thereby openly admitting
that your fictional god is useless. I'll be right here to see you off.
Budikka
Kelsey Bjarnason
Sep 30, 2012, 4:28:55 AM9/30/12
to
BroilJAB wrote:
> Evolutionism believers
WTF is "evolutionism" and what does it have to do with anything relevant to
alt.atheism?
> Evolutionism believers
WTF is "evolutionism" and what does it have to do with anything relevant to
alt.atheism?
Budikka666
Sep 30, 2012, 7:42:37 PM9/30/12
to
Kepe running you Chickenshit for Christt™, it's what you do best,
after all.
Budikka
Andrew
Oct 1, 2012, 3:16:48 AM10/1/12
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:k473ej$2up$7...@dont-email.me...
remain bacteria. This has nothing to do with macroevolution, except to
show the futility of such a fantasy.
Thanks again, Budikka!
> In short, you're a lying hypocrite.
Your love is incredible.
So warm.
Andrew
> Budikka writes:
>>"Andrew" wrote:
>
>> Reshuffling of existing information is not a mechanism that would result
>> in macroevolution. You should know that.
>
> It is indeed such a mechanism. The Richard Lenski project:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
> has shown how this begins, and your own genome is replete with examples
> of how new information came into being through gene duplication and
> reassignment and through mutation.
So, after all those years and many thousands of generations....bacteria
>>"Andrew" wrote:
>
>> Reshuffling of existing information is not a mechanism that would result
>> in macroevolution. You should know that.
>
> It is indeed such a mechanism. The Richard Lenski project:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
> has shown how this begins, and your own genome is replete with examples
> of how new information came into being through gene duplication and
> reassignment and through mutation.
remain bacteria. This has nothing to do with macroevolution, except to
show the futility of such a fantasy.
Thanks again, Budikka!
> In short, you're a lying hypocrite.
So warm.
Andrew
Andrew
Oct 1, 2012, 3:17:37 AM10/1/12
to
"Seth lePod" wrote in message news:97890d30-55d8-486c...@a17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
Damaged, duplicated or transferred information is not
the type of *new information* as would be required for
to be a mechanism that would result in macroevolution..
~except~ in the fantasies of Darwinists.
> Do you understand the difference between "new" and
> "reshuffled"?
See above.
> If so, and if you wish, we can continue the discussion
> at that point.
>
> (oh, and a helpful hint if I may: before we pick this back
> up again, you might well go do a bit of reading on the three
> mechanisms I mentioned. otherwise this will be fruitless)
>
> Seth
>
>>
>> Furthermore, explain the origin of the existing genetic
>> information apart from a creation by a super-intelligent
>> Creator.
>>
>> You cannot.
As I suspected you did not, because you could
not, and therefore will not, because you cannot.
> "Andrew" wrote:
the type of *new information* as would be required for
to be a mechanism that would result in macroevolution..
~except~ in the fantasies of Darwinists.
> Do you understand the difference between "new" and
> "reshuffled"?
> If so, and if you wish, we can continue the discussion
> at that point.
>
> (oh, and a helpful hint if I may: before we pick this back
> up again, you might well go do a bit of reading on the three
> mechanisms I mentioned. otherwise this will be fruitless)
>
> Seth
>
>>
>> Furthermore, explain the origin of the existing genetic
>> information apart from a creation by a super-intelligent
>> Creator.
>>
>> You cannot.
not, and therefore will not, because you cannot.
Devils Advocaat
Oct 1, 2012, 4:46:07 AM10/1/12
to
On 1 Oct, 08:15, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Seth lePod" wrote in messagenews:97890d30-55d8-486c...@a17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
In other words you have a different definition of the word "new" in
the context of "new information".
Would you care to share that definition with us?
> "Seth lePod" wrote in messagenews:97890d30-55d8-486c...@a17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
the context of "new information".
Would you care to share that definition with us?
Barry OGrady
Oct 1, 2012, 5:12:54 AM10/1/12
to
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 06:02:12 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:
Explain the origin of a super intelligent creator.
wrote:
Ralph
Oct 1, 2012, 12:26:35 PM10/1/12
to
On 10/1/2012 3:16 AM, Andrew wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:k473ej$2up$7...@dont-email.me...
>> Budikka writes:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> Reshuffling of existing information is not a mechanism that would result
>>> in macroevolution. You should know that.
>> It is indeed such a mechanism. The Richard Lenski project:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
>> has shown how this begins, and your own genome is replete with examples
>> of how new information came into being through gene duplication and
>> reassignment and through mutation.
> So, after all those years and many thousands of generations....bacteria
> remain bacteria. This has nothing to do with macroevolution, except to
> show the futility of such a fantasy.
>
> Thanks again, Budikka!
You poor simpleton, you are in effect saying if we evolved from primates
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:k473ej$2up$7...@dont-email.me...
>> Budikka writes:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> Reshuffling of existing information is not a mechanism that would result
>>> in macroevolution. You should know that.
>> It is indeed such a mechanism. The Richard Lenski project:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
>> has shown how this begins, and your own genome is replete with examples
>> of how new information came into being through gene duplication and
>> reassignment and through mutation.
> So, after all those years and many thousands of generations....bacteria
> remain bacteria. This has nothing to do with macroevolution, except to
> show the futility of such a fantasy.
>
> Thanks again, Budikka!
why are there still primates.
Your knowledge should be at least as strong as your religious delusions
to prevent stupidity such as that.
>
>> In short, you're a lying hypocrite.
> Your love is incredible.
>
> So warm.
>
>
> Andrew
Ralph
Oct 1, 2012, 12:32:15 PM10/1/12
to
question that you have been asked hundreds
of times----what mechanism prevents 'macro' evolution? We all eagerly
await your answer:-)))
>> Do you understand the difference between "new" and
>> "reshuffled"?
> See above.
>> If so, and if you wish, we can continue the discussion
>> at that point.
>>
>> (oh, and a helpful hint if I may: before we pick this back
>> up again, you might well go do a bit of reading on the three
>> mechanisms I mentioned. otherwise this will be fruitless)
>>
>> Seth
>>
>>> Furthermore, explain the origin of the existing genetic
>>> information apart from a creation by a super-intelligent
>>> Creator.
>>>
>>> You cannot.
> As I suspected you did not, because you could
> not, and therefore will not, because you cannot.
>
>
'super intelligent' Creator'.
I would be willing to wager that you don't even have a clue.
Syd M.
Oct 1, 2012, 12:44:58 PM10/1/12
to
On Oct 1, 3:15 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k473ej$2up$7...@dont-email.me...
Despite all your protest to the contrary, you are WRONG.
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k473ej$2up$7...@dont-email.me...
> > Budikka writes:
> >>"Andrew" wrote:
>
> >> Reshuffling of existing information is not a mechanism that would result
> >> in macroevolution. You should know that.
>
> > It is indeed such a mechanism. The Richard Lenski project:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
> > has shown how this begins, and your own genome is replete with examples
> > of how new information came into being through gene duplication and
> > reassignment and through mutation.
>
> So, after all those years and many thousands of generations....bacteria
> remain bacteria. This has nothing to do with macroevolution, except to
> show the futility of such a fantasy.
>
>
Nope.
> >>"Andrew" wrote:
>
> >> Reshuffling of existing information is not a mechanism that would result
> >> in macroevolution. You should know that.
>
> > It is indeed such a mechanism. The Richard Lenski project:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
> > has shown how this begins, and your own genome is replete with examples
> > of how new information came into being through gene duplication and
> > reassignment and through mutation.
>
> So, after all those years and many thousands of generations....bacteria
> remain bacteria. This has nothing to do with macroevolution, except to
> show the futility of such a fantasy.
>
>
Despite all your protest to the contrary, you are WRONG.
Syd M.
Oct 1, 2012, 12:45:38 PM10/1/12
to
On Oct 1, 3:15 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Seth lePod" wrote in messagenews:97890d30-55d8-486c...@a17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
Damn, you really are determined to remain stone ignorant, aren't you?
> "Seth lePod" wrote in messagenews:97890d30-55d8-486c...@a17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
Christopher A. Lee
Oct 1, 2012, 12:50:05 PM10/1/12
to
stupidity and personal lies about anybody with an education.
Uirgil
Oct 1, 2012, 7:42:43 PM10/1/12
to
In article <htednVdQ-66w3vTN...@earthlink.com>,
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
NOt that "Andrew" is holding up as an authority someone that even YEC
groups like "Answers in Genesis" rejects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind
Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American young Earth
creationist. Hovind has spoken on creation science and has aimed to
convince listeners to reject theories of evolution, geophysics, and
cosmology in favor of his interpretation of the Genesis creation
narrative from the Bible. Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific
evidence and some of his ideas have also been criticized by young Earth
creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis.
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
NOt that "Andrew" is holding up as an authority someone that even YEC
groups like "Answers in Genesis" rejects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind
Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American young Earth
creationist. Hovind has spoken on creation science and has aimed to
convince listeners to reject theories of evolution, geophysics, and
cosmology in favor of his interpretation of the Genesis creation
narrative from the Bible. Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific
evidence and some of his ideas have also been criticized by young Earth
creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Seth lePod
Oct 1, 2012, 9:42:43 PM10/1/12
to
On Oct 1, 12:15 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Seth lePod" wrote in messagenews:97890d30-55d8-486c...@a17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
Wow. It's certainly clear that you ignored my advice to
go find out a bit about these three phenomena before
replying. Imagine my surprise.
In any event, duplication FOLLOWED BY MUTATION of one
of the stuttered genes does in fact present new
information. Incorporation of genes from other
organisms does yield information new to the recipient.
Hell, simple mutation leads to new information, at the
cost of loss of old information (which can also be
beneficial: burrowing snakes hardly need legs; cave
organisms do not need eyes)
But now we are informed that none of these is "the type
of *new information*" required for "macroevolution"
(that perpetually undefined phrase unknown to actual
biologists)
So, put down those goalposts and kindly specify: what
"type" of "new information" -- I don't care where it
comes from; you can say God stuck it in for all of me --
describe, in biological terms, what kind of "new
information" would be required?
Being that this is now the critical definition of
this entire discusion, use all the space you need:
> >> Furthermore, explain the origin of the existing genetic
> >> information apart from a creation by a super-intelligent
> >> Creator.
> >>
> >> You cannot.
:
> As I suspected you did not, because you could
> not, and therefore will not, because you cannot.
As I have said to you, and that time and again and again
and again and again and again -- I am perfectly willing
to consider that existence of a "super-intelligent
Creator".
And then I have at that point asked you -- time and
again and again and again and again and again -- why I
should consider your flavor of god as a likely
candidate for the job. Why not another? Why not --
this I consider the most likely -- why not some Thing or
cohort of Things so advanced as to be literally beyond
our abilities either to perceive or to comprehend? Why
should I consider the local god of a tribe of Iron Age
nomads to be that "super-intelligent Creator"?
And as we both recall -- as probably do most others
reading this thread -- you have that point fled from
the question. Yes, tima and again and again and again
and again and again.
Seth
> "Seth lePod" wrote in messagenews:97890d30-55d8-486c...@a17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
go find out a bit about these three phenomena before
replying. Imagine my surprise.
In any event, duplication FOLLOWED BY MUTATION of one
of the stuttered genes does in fact present new
information. Incorporation of genes from other
organisms does yield information new to the recipient.
Hell, simple mutation leads to new information, at the
cost of loss of old information (which can also be
beneficial: burrowing snakes hardly need legs; cave
organisms do not need eyes)
But now we are informed that none of these is "the type
of *new information*" required for "macroevolution"
(that perpetually undefined phrase unknown to actual
biologists)
So, put down those goalposts and kindly specify: what
"type" of "new information" -- I don't care where it
comes from; you can say God stuck it in for all of me --
describe, in biological terms, what kind of "new
information" would be required?
Being that this is now the critical definition of
this entire discusion, use all the space you need:
> >> Furthermore, explain the origin of the existing genetic
> >> information apart from a creation by a super-intelligent
> >> Creator.
> >>
> >> You cannot.
:
> As I suspected you did not, because you could
> not, and therefore will not, because you cannot.
and again and again and again -- I am perfectly willing
to consider that existence of a "super-intelligent
Creator".
And then I have at that point asked you -- time and
again and again and again and again and again -- why I
should consider your flavor of god as a likely
candidate for the job. Why not another? Why not --
this I consider the most likely -- why not some Thing or
cohort of Things so advanced as to be literally beyond
our abilities either to perceive or to comprehend? Why
should I consider the local god of a tribe of Iron Age
nomads to be that "super-intelligent Creator"?
And as we both recall -- as probably do most others
reading this thread -- you have that point fled from
the question. Yes, tima and again and again and again
and again and again.
Seth
Seth lePod
Oct 1, 2012, 9:54:40 PM10/1/12
to
On Oct 1, 12:15 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k473ej$2up$7...@dont-email.me...
> > Budikka writes:
> >>"Andrew" wrote:
>
> >> Reshuffling of existing information is not a mechanism that would result
> >> in macroevolution. You should know that.
:
> > It is indeed such a mechanism. The Richard Lenski project:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
> > has shown how this begins, and your own genome is replete with examples
> > of how new information came into being through gene duplication and
> > reassignment and through mutation.
:
> So, after all those years and many thousands of generations....bacteria
> remain bacteria. This has nothing to do with macroevolution, except to
> show the futility of such a fantasy.
Because, as we all know, evolutionary theory says that
> >>"Andrew" wrote:
>
> >> Reshuffling of existing information is not a mechanism that would result
> >> in macroevolution. You should know that.
:
> > It is indeed such a mechanism. The Richard Lenski project:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
> > has shown how this begins, and your own genome is replete with examples
> > of how new information came into being through gene duplication and
> > reassignment and through mutation.
:
> So, after all those years and many thousands of generations....bacteria
> remain bacteria. This has nothing to do with macroevolution, except to
> show the futility of such a fantasy.
bacteria should not merely evolve into different
species if given thirty entire years, no, they should be able
to jump an entire kingdom in thirty years.
Right? Because this is what you just demanded.
:
> Thanks again, Budikka!
:
> > In short, you're a lying hypocrite.
:
> Your love is incredible.
Given your contention that evolution demands that three
:
> > In short, you're a lying hypocrite.
:
> Your love is incredible.
decades are sufficent for bacteria to evolve into
eukaryotes -- or were you thinking archaea? -- I'd say
that "lying" is a kinder explanation that
"astonishingly ignorant".
Seth
Budikka666
Oct 2, 2012, 12:15:05 AM10/2/12
to
On Oct 1, 2:15 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k473ej$2up$7...@dont-email.me...
for openly admitting that your LYING, hypocritical, vacuous, cowardly
creationist ass has been thoroughly thrashed again.
Budikka
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k473ej$2up$7...@dont-email.me...
> > Budikka writes:
> >>"Andrew" wrote:
>
> >> Reshuffling of existing information is not a mechanism that would result
> >> in macroevolution. You should know that.
>
> > It is indeed such a mechanism. The Richard Lenski project:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
> > has shown how this begins, and your own genome is replete with examples
> > of how new information came into being through gene duplication and
> > reassignment and through mutation.
>
> So, after all those years and many thousands of generations....bacteria
> remain bacteria.
So why do you then ignore the rest of what I wrote and RUN? Thanks
> >>"Andrew" wrote:
>
> >> Reshuffling of existing information is not a mechanism that would result
> >> in macroevolution. You should know that.
>
> > It is indeed such a mechanism. The Richard Lenski project:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
> > has shown how this begins, and your own genome is replete with examples
> > of how new information came into being through gene duplication and
> > reassignment and through mutation.
>
> So, after all those years and many thousands of generations....bacteria
> remain bacteria.
for openly admitting that your LYING, hypocritical, vacuous, cowardly
creationist ass has been thoroughly thrashed again.
Budikka
Kelsey Bjarnason
Oct 10, 2012, 11:40:46 PM10/10/12
to
[snips]
On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 18:42:43 -0700, Seth lePod wrote:
> On Oct 1, 12:15 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> Damaged, duplicated or transferred information is not the type of *new
>> information* as would be required for to be a mechanism that would
>> result in macroevolution..
>> ~except~ in the fantasies of Darwinists.
>
> Wow. It's certainly clear that you ignored my advice to go find out a
> bit about these three phenomena before replying. Imagine my surprise.
You're wrong, actually. Andrew knows all about the various means by
which new information can arise; he's had them all explained to him
endlessly in the past.
The problem is that Andrew can't seem to grasp the whole concept of
"information". To him, changing a functioning "design" (eg strand of
DNA) is going to result in a degradation of function, not a positive or
even neutral outcome. What works, what exists now, is "perfect", any
change must thus be deleterious, removing from that perfection, not
adding anything of value to it.
He may not use the word "perfection" in that context, but it's fairly
clear he believes that "God dunnit, God's perfect, so it's perfect the
way God dunnit."
On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 18:42:43 -0700, Seth lePod wrote:
> On Oct 1, 12:15 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> Damaged, duplicated or transferred information is not the type of *new
>> information* as would be required for to be a mechanism that would
>> result in macroevolution..
>> ~except~ in the fantasies of Darwinists.
>
> Wow. It's certainly clear that you ignored my advice to go find out a
> bit about these three phenomena before replying. Imagine my surprise.
which new information can arise; he's had them all explained to him
endlessly in the past.
The problem is that Andrew can't seem to grasp the whole concept of
"information". To him, changing a functioning "design" (eg strand of
DNA) is going to result in a degradation of function, not a positive or
even neutral outcome. What works, what exists now, is "perfect", any
change must thus be deleterious, removing from that perfection, not
adding anything of value to it.
He may not use the word "perfection" in that context, but it's fairly
clear he believes that "God dunnit, God's perfect, so it's perfect the
way God dunnit."
Kelsey Bjarnason
Oct 10, 2012, 11:43:52 PM10/10/12
to
[snips]
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:37:52 -0400, Ralph wrote:
> How do you explain the fossil record, Andrew, for the most part from the
> simple to the complex?
Ooh, ooh, pick me, pick me! Can I answer? Yes? Good! I give you...
hydrologic sorting!
Snicker, giggle, duck, run, hide...
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:37:52 -0400, Ralph wrote:
> How do you explain the fossil record, Andrew, for the most part from the
> simple to the complex?
Ooh, ooh, pick me, pick me! Can I answer? Yes? Good! I give you...
hydrologic sorting!
Snicker, giggle, duck, run, hide...
Devils Advocaat
Oct 11, 2012, 12:41:37 AM10/11/12
to
On Sep 27, 6:55 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27 Sep, 18:32, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Malcolm McMahon" wrote in messagenews:k41uf0$rfe$1...@dont-email.me...
> > > You continue to talk as if that majority of educated western people who
> > > believe in the TOE care a jot about the relatively minor individuals
> > > that are involved in evolving the theory.
>
> > > Once you've really grasped the TOE it's practically self-evident, you
> > > see evidence everywhere you look.
> limits.
>
> To demonstrate the truth of this claim, you'd need to present a
> mechanism that inhibits change beyond which no organism or population
> can progress.
>
> Can you do that?
Hey Andrew I'm still waiting for your answer!
> On 27 Sep, 18:32, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Malcolm McMahon" wrote in messagenews:k41uf0$rfe$1...@dont-email.me...
> > > believe in the TOE care a jot about the relatively minor individuals
> > > that are involved in evolving the theory.
>
> > > Once you've really grasped the TOE it's practically self-evident, you
> > > see evidence everywhere you look.
>
> > What you are seeing is variation and adaption within genetic limits
> > that our Creator has so programmed to be since the beginning when
> > He created it all - not the TOE.
>
> Andrew, you keep claiming your alleged deity programmed in genetic
> > What you are seeing is variation and adaption within genetic limits
> > that our Creator has so programmed to be since the beginning when
> > He created it all - not the TOE.
>
> limits.
>
> To demonstrate the truth of this claim, you'd need to present a
> mechanism that inhibits change beyond which no organism or population
> can progress.
>
> Can you do that?
Hey Andrew I'm still waiting for your answer!
0 new messages