Don´t remain tied, Darwin has lied

Occam holds evolution to be the way a god 'creates' .

Not any silly god described by religion..Those are anthropomorphic
and contradictory.
But the 'direction' behind the massive complexity and ballance/organisation
of reality.

No religion actually 'researches' creation..they just spend time trying to
cut the legs out from under any idea that our species was once root grubbing
animals.
So what if we were?
Who cares but the fragile ego of the religious?

Occam thinks that science and its life evolution theories
IS RESEARCH INTO HOW A "GOD" CREATES.

Occam

 

^occam likes to talk about himself in the 3rd person. lol




and i agree with you

 

Antibiotic resistant TB did not exist 50 years ago.
Now it does.

If it did not evolve.
Where did it come from?

Occam

 

Or at least one of the best terms to describe how God creates (in my opinion).

Last night I was sitting there, thinking about how ideas evolve and had the thought that thought is the next stage for evolution. I think thoughts change at a far higher rate than 'natural generation' allows (even faster than bacterial generation). Would thoughts be considered 'spiritual' (or metaphysical?) organisms with a far faster rate of evolution than anything before them?

You know how we have all that rudimentary stuff from our genealogical ancestors, so our thoughts are built upon a base of lizard brained ideas? Well maybe the thought of evolving from bacteria--> lizard--> mammal--> human is the one of the steps in the development (evolution) of a purely mental being (a being of pure thought), with ancestory descending into the primitive thoughts of our ancestors. I am not a monkey, and my thoughts are evolved past that point as well. Ahh.... God..

 

Occam, I presume that you are aware of the fact that these bacteria are not given new information by way of mutation.
These resistance genes already exist within the bacteria, the mutation only makes it work by transferring their resistance genes to one another.

"In his book Not by Chance, Spetner likens this situation to the disturbance of the key-lock relationship. Streptomycin, just like a key that perfectly fits in a lock, clutches on to the ribosome of a bacterium and inactivates it. Mutation, on the other hand, decomposes the ribosome, thus preventing streptomycin from holding on to the ribosome. Although this is interpreted as "bacteria developing immunity against streptomycin," this is not a benefit for the bacteria but rather a loss for it. Spetner writes:

This change in the surface of the microorganism's ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information. The main point is that Evolution… cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are. Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degrade specificity." [from Darwinism Refuted]

Spetner further writes:

ome microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell... [T]he organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have... succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics.306

Spetner then goes on to say that this is not "evidence for evolution":

The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner... is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution… The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species.

 

Kharakov

And neither is occam [a monkey]
He is a human being...

Technology it seems . will allow us to evolve [change] into what we wish.
Techniques such as gene therapy hint at what will come.. Future advances in biotech and nanotech [the new industrial revolution] will be the tools we
use to change ourselves physically....and also psychologically...
For to alter the brain...is to alter the effect of the brain...
That effect being contiguous human consciousnes.

Occam

 

The human body is a remarkable piece of work, it is such a brilliant design.

I've just started watching the BBC documentary Superhuman: The awesome power within. It is pretty interesting so far.

I expect our mental abilities to increase in future, if anything.

 

Cabdirazzaq

Well said and supported.

You put forward a plausible idea of what happens between the
'before and after' shots.

The TB AFTER is the same as the TB BEFORE. But a new
'physical structure'
is implemented from already existing genes.
It is not a mutation..But an 'inherent variable' of the TB form.

But Spetner CALLS it a mutation. But implies that such mutation is a degradation of the organism.

Occam looks at the big picture...TB was dying..and now it is back in force as a species.
IT survived...by adapting.

Spetner suggests that because it is a 'loss of specificity'
It is not actually evolution...but the beginning of a downhill slide.
That for evolutionary theory to work.
Species must 'gain' information only.

If this is so..then where is occams' tail.?

Occam

 

Ive just read all of this post and there are some statements which made me think hmmmm:

what is the difference between a man guessing without knowledge and one who is lying?

Um Darwin spent his life studying this, he had a lot more knowledge than you. Your 16 and still at school. The only knowledge you have has been taught to you. How do you know this is real? Darwin travelled all over the world to get samples and species. Ive never seen a duckbilledplatypus in the flesh so how can i truely believe it exists....technically i can't but i have faith that it does. You have only read books. Live and then try disputing his theory.

"Further more, no mutation has been recorded giving good effects, call me the day a monkey starts walking, discussing and involving in society issues or when a fish decides to have lungs and a new skellet system and when a lizard decides to have wings."

Evolution is whats kept things alive. The environment is always changing, organisms must change to survive. Creatures don't decide they want wings. But if you have squirrel that live up trees, when they fall occassionally when escaping predators, the ones who have a large surface area fall slower and are less likely to die, the ones who don't die, go on to reproduce and their offspring gain this larger surface area, this continues for thousands of years until you get a squirrel with "wings"

http://photos.dylangreene.com/thumbs/dylan/400/flying-squirrel[1].jpg

however you still have squirrels who don't have these "wings" that is becaue they live in areas with smaller trees or less predators, this means the squirrels qith or without large areas of skin survive and so the trait doesn't become focused and used.

And the whole sand thing where it doesn't come together??....sand stone that is formed naturally!

Basically i believe is stuff, not sure what, some outside force seems kinda logical, not gonna organise it into a religion cos that usually makes trouble, but to me evolution is a proof of something out there. If Allah or God or whatever you believe in, created evolution would you accept it then? If so then read genisis its a quick version of evolution.....not sure what the equivilents for other religions are but i think there are similar texts.

 

Juggla

"^occam likes to talk about himself in the 3rd person. lol"

Yes..the 1st, 2nd, AND 3rd persons..

They are all occam

Occam

Just a small comment in the continuing war against the tyrany of
'i'

 

woah!!!


I made it...yep..every post of this thread...don't 100 percent guarantee that I got every word but man...what a thread...well done guys!

the infighting got a bit much at times however I have to say that everyone seemed to be really making an attempt to explain what they wanted to say in between all of that and I mostly appreciated this....there are times when you guys have got bogged down in an "I said" "you said" never ending circle however despite my despair at about page twenty three that I would not live to see the end of this thread I kept slogging on and found va voom..it came back to the point!!!

thanks to Juggla for chucking that post in which dealt with the language used and stuff..most useful...
thanks to Cab for starting everyone off on such a great debate...always good to see people nutting out the arguments to support their positions!!

and truth be known I am wondering if the banned people are banned cause they were tending towards being abusive or if it had nothing whatsoever to do with this thread...sure I will find out more as I continue to wander the maze that is these forums!!

once again thanks guys!
:X

 

I assume you are reffering to your tailbone?
These so called vestigial organs which evolutionists always use as "evidence" cannot in anyway Occam stand as proof. Why?
Because they do have a function, just because some of them haven't been discovered it doesn't mean they are worthless.

You may recognize the name of German Anatomist R. Wiedersheim who published a list year 1895 with almost 100 vestigial organs which he thought were all useless, almost all of them have now had their functions discovered.

For example, the appendix which was supposed to be a "vestigial organ," was in fact a lymphoid organ that fought infections in the body. This fact was made clear in 1997:
Other bodily organs and tissues-the thymus, liver, spleen, appendix, bone marrow, and small collections of lymphatic tissue such as the tonsils in the throat and Peyer's patch in the small intestine-are also part of the lymphatic system. They too help the body fight infection.(The Merck Manual of Medical Information, Home edition, Merck & Co., Inc. The Merck Publishing Group, Rahway, New Jersey, 1997.)

S. R. Scadding, though being an evolutionist himself writes in the journal Evolutionary Theory:

Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution. (S. R. Scadding, "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?," Evolutionary Theory, vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173)

The famous biologist H. Enoch challenges evolutionists by writing:

Apes possess an appendix, whereas their less immediate relatives, the lower apes, do not; but it appears again among the still lower mammals such as the opossum. How can the evolutionists account for this?[H. Enoch, Creation and Evolution, New York, 1966, pp. 18-19]

The coccyx is useful sence it provides support for the area around the pelvis.

Darwins studies are not worth the reading, as B.Franklin(i think) said:
Either write something worth the reading or do something worth the writing and Darwin had failed doing any of these.

He has done alot of studies which I nor you have done but appearently the most recent and up to date studies refute him then why still believe in this damaged theory?

 

cabdirazzaq

Well we could go on like this for ever..Occam actually countered you 'quotes'
from others,,,then wiped it...hair splitting is for specialists..and occam is a generalist.
He is much more interested in another question...

If evolution OF LIFE is false.

Then what alternative do you offer?
Where do the CURRENT species on earth come from..?

Occam

 

if evolution is true, how do you explain the large gap between humanity and every other form of life, or the lack of evolutionary change in any species through out written history, or the lack of any difference in the oldest found skeleton? the mere ability to ponder evolution, to me points twords creationism.

 

Occam holds evolutionary theory as the most possible...

MAINLY BECAUSE THERE ARE NO OTHER THEORIES THAT COME CLOSE
TO FITTING OBSERVED REALITY.

CREATIONISM certainly does not.. [everything created in 10K bc exct]
It exists with a contradictory premise.
If EVERYTHING [not just life] was created ..ex nihilo,,
why was it created to look like it evolved.
Why do you see light from galaxies billions of years away if they did not
exist before 10k bc?
God trying to decieve us?
Then why did he give us the 'reason' to see the deception....

Occam suggests to you..That the observable universe looks like it evolved over a 14 billion year duration.................because it did.
[principle of parsimony]

Occam

 

Lets remember that there are other "species" living here on earth while believing in a Creator apart from christians, just because they have this idea of how old the earth is, it doesn´t have to correspond with my or other faiths teachings.

Occam, this whole universe is so perfectly fixed, everything from the gravation and magnetic force to our very own nails. They are so awesomely designed which leads us to the fact that they could not have arosen without a designer. How many systems in this world are not extremly advanced Occam? How many millions of species do we not find possesing all these puzzlingfunctions?

As an answer to your question I say:
Accepting the theory of evolution as the blind watchmaker and as realcaptial for creation may fit into a few things but in the long range it only causes an extrem stark and awkward astonishment while if we were to accept the belief of a Creator as the one who designed all these systems it would all fit in perfectly.

 

One thing that intrigues me about the theory of evolution is why is eating fish especially good for humans when as far as I know , no apes eat fish.The only explanation I can think of is apes and humans are both decended from fish in which case eating fish would be good for apes.

 

i would say yall are gettin g confused, by the whole seven day thing in the bible. i think the word that was translated to day could also be translated to any period of time, week, year, millenia, age, but in the time of the oral tradition, and with less educated people, the concept day was easier to understand than a perion of thousands of years(remember the earth was still flat at this time, the concept of zero had not bee created, etc.) the 10,000 years isnt when the world was created, but may have been when man was created, of course our archeology suggests that the earth wasnt created just days prior.

the reason men eat fish and not apes is that apes donot need to, yet, where as man has learned to conserve his energy(be lazy) and eat things like fish and cows, instead of foraging all day and wasting more calories than they eat.

 

Evolution could be evidence of the true divine plan- the laws that rule absolutely, with perfect justice, to regulate and define life.

In A.D. 2101
War was beginning....

Captain: What happen?
Operator: Somebody set up us the bomb.
Operator: We get signal.
Captain: What!
Operator: Main screen turn on.
Captain: It's You!!
Cats: How are you gentlemen!!
Cats: All your base are belong to us.
Cats: You are on the way to destruction.
Captain: What you say!!
Cats: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Cats: Ha Ha Ha Ha ….
Captain: Take off every "zig."
Captain: You know what you doing.
Captain: Move "zig".
Captain: For great justice.

You have been warned.

 

Cabdirazzaq

Well my friend , occam agrees with just about everything you have proposed.
Agrees totally that the massive ballace/complexity of observed reality
A fine tuned ballance of many OBJECTIVE laws like gravity and magnetic force as you say. A system of laws that allows increased complexity within
an overall structure of entropy.

Occam belives it probable that a designer set these laws...just as you believe.
The difference is...you dont think the laws are sophisticated enough to
result in human beings.
You doubt the abillity of the designer to set things in motion with a proper plan in place.
You suggest that 'god' is not smart enough to set up a complex system that will..THROUGH PROCESS OF OBJECTIVE LAWS,[most of which we do not know yet]
Result in human beings and the wonderfull biosphere we come from..

That 'god ' cannot create a self evolving system.

Heretic.

Occam