THE DARWINIST "ATHEISTS" TECHNIQUES OF CLAMOR AND DEMAGOGUER

[Tomn]

Well, thats not exactly why we like creation, although I can only speak for myself. And in reality, everything has not been the same since God first created it. In the Bible, there was a flood, Noah's Flood. Now the bible sais that the flood completely covered the earth, meaning that the highest mountains were covered. This means that mount everest was covered with water. now with a high rise in water comes the push on earth's atmosphere which almost caused it to collapse. i forget how exactly it changed the atmosphere, but a near collapse is enough to show you. this changed the air pressure that was on the earth. The change in air pressure caused a change in the way animals looked as well as their size.

This was shown in something called the Eden project. A desolate space of hillside was taken and covered in a dome to create an individualized biosphere. Gasses were placed inside to replicate the pressure of gasses pre-flood. The most stark change I remember was in the python. Normally, the pythons colors are dull, but when put in the biosphere, the colors became vibrant. So there was some change.

Why do we like creation? Its a long story involving religion, which I suppose you would not like to hear.

2)Yes, I understand. Thank you Biohazard for being patient.

Yes. I can see where you are coming from about evidence for God, although I strongly, but respectfully disagree.

This is perfectly fine to play by the rules.

[Cat]

from post: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Why do you think that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive???

Below is my “theory”.

- Once upon a time there was a being, let’s call him/her “God”. God was interested in genetic engineering and observing effects of evolution. His primary purpose of coming to Earth was to conduct a large scale experiment – create a race in his/her likeness but capable of surviving in the conditions present on this planet and observe evolution with his/her own eyes.
God did not mean to create a person capable of complex thinking. Original “people” were a lot more like animals until one of them (Adam or Eve?) accidently made it into “employee only” section and drank (ate?) potion that activated/introduced genes for brain development (the famous apple of knowledge). After the accident God dumped all of his subjects on Earth in fear that next time someone will drink the potion that will introduce genes of longevity into population of his experimental subjects. If that happens, experiment will be ruined. God’s lifespan was many times that of a person.
From time to time God or those of his/her race come to earth to pick up a few people, animals, plants and check progress of the experiment (UFOs/aliens). Sometimes he/she saved some of those subjects from being exterminated by others (see manna machine - http://www.thepansophical.com/node/117) .
Feel free to come up with the rest of the story!

[DanielSan]

Well, this discussion in a designated "science forum" is definitely going in a wrong, a non-scientific, direction. Although it may be pointless in view of some previous statements, i feel the urge to comment on some of these postings.

There is not one single piece of evidence for Darwinism.

First of all, “Darwinism” is a universal concept that explains evolution by gradual development. In the light of scientific evidence there`s no way of ignoring this FACT. And by evidence I mean physical evidence. Museums are stuffed with lineages of fossils (hominid, vertebrate- whatever you are interested in) that beautifully illustrate evolution. Just go there and look at it!

They attempt to portray the fraud of Darwinism as a highly complex scientific reality. They try to deceive people with complicated formulae and unintelligible terminology.

Imagine a layman looking at a construction plan of an aeroplane. The fact that the layman cannot understand it doesn’t mean the plane is not able to fly.
The term “…“science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained” (Wikipedia). Scientists have their own way of communicating, and scientific “jargon” often is awfully complex. The basic concepts of evolution, however, are everything but hard to comprehend! There`s plenty of literature, from strictly scientific to popular scientific, and everyone who is sufficiently interested in the topic can easily learn about it.

they imagine that they can invalidate the definitive proofs of Creation by making so-called jokes and using a mocking, improper tone.

I`m neither making jokes about anyone`s religious beliefs nor using an improper tone. Freedom of religion is a basic and untouchable human right (and so is apostasy!!), which I don`t question in any form. Scientists are not “invalidating” creation by making fun of anybody; instead they are using something really powerful: facts.
I obviously missed something, because creationists never produced a tiny shred of actual proof confirming their story.

They know that they will be faced with clear and incontrovertible scientific facts during the course of any debate. And they have no answers to them.

I accept the challenge!

[Tomn]

Daniel San:
You accept the challenge? Debate the facts above. They are enough to show evolution as a fraud.

If thats not enough, which it is, look at these threads I published. I understand that I argued them with others already. However, we may argue the same or different points Wherever you want to take the argument.

I have received answers on my rebuttal to evolution. However, I have received no valid explanation towards what I would say in response. I proposed some tough questions, and when I questioned their answers with flaws, no explanation or rebuttal of those flaws were given. I was simply told that I was a "blindman". I would appreciate that you could refute and explain the holes I find in your rebuttal to these threads or otherwise except that my holes prove to show that evolution is not true.

DanielSan;aptitude;biohazard;gavin;crucible;JackBean
I notice another thing: none of you are debating the facts. I would appreciate if you could either respond to these facts or admit that they show evolution as false.
The embryo appearing as a fish?
Firing creationists professors from universities?
The fake skull?
The fish fossil?
Actually, with the fish fossil, there is no fossil of that fish without fins or losing fins. Also, there has been no evidence of that fish developing lungs. Also, our brain is much larger than his. Also, our body structure and functions are very different. Finally, there is NO intermediate fossil between that fish and us humans.
The moth?
Actually, with the moths, I have said before that

Also, if darker wings is a mutation, a random mistake in DNA, then there would be evidence showing that at the time before the mutation, there were only white color moths, and then after, there were dark color moths. Has this been observed? Also, this must have been recent considering that industrial smog began being released into the air 250 years ago when England first began to use coal.

Also, I have said

You said that "the moths bearing a mutated black pigment allele were quickly eaten by birds". What Im asking you is this:
How do you know that the black pigment is a mutation? Has this been assumed, conjectured, or simply labeled as a mutation just to prove evolution? Or, has it been observed or proven to be a mutated allele?

The response I got from biohazard was

Unfortunately people of the 19th century did not have knowledge or tools to identify and isolate mutations, so of course we cannot tell the exact time of "birth" of that mutation. Similar mutation has been observed to happen in modern times as well, and the moths have been extensively studied and the location and type of mutation has been identified. See for example Van't Hof et al. (2011) in the journal Science.

I looked into this Van't Hof, and all he did was map the genome of the moth, find the gene that is responsible for coloring, and simply labeled it a mutation, but again without proof that it is a mutation.

False horse development?
If this is not how the horse developed, then where is evolution's explanation? The fact of the matter is that evolution cannot explain, with a viable possibility, how biodiversity came about. It simply has paintbrush labels "oh this is a mutation", but with no proof of mutation. Evolution's explanation of the past of development of species is simply not viable.

[canalon]

I looked into this Van't Hof, and all he did was map the genome of the moth, find the gene that is responsible for coloring, and simply labeled it a mutation, but again without proof that it is a mutation.

Looking at it right now. What I read is that he mapped the locus on the chromosome where the yet unknown gene causing melanism is found and demonstrated that multiple SNPs (Single nucleotide polymorphisms) are strongly conserved among the melanic moths. And a change in size is observed between the Chromosome 17 of the Wild type and the carbonaria variants.
Previous genetic studies appear to have demonstrated that the melanic character is behaving like a single character in a pure mendelian fashion, suggesting that only one gene (or group of very strongly linked genes) is involved.
The conclusion are that what causes the spread of the melanic phenotype was due to clonal expansion of a single carbonaria ancestor (if the events had happened multiple times, one would expect diversity within the SNPs in the studied region. And that whatever mutation caused the change is located in a small region of the chr 17.

But what I am not sure to understand is what "mutation" you need to see? You are aware that mutations is a large term that cover genetic changes and not only single nucleotide changes. A massive deletion, insertion or many other events are also mutations. And we might even soon learn the exact genetic change that happened there considering the lowering cost of sequencing these day. Although that would probably depends on the funding available.

[biohazard]

I looked into this Van't Hof, and all he did was map the genome of the moth, find the gene that is responsible for coloring, and simply labeled it a mutation, but again without proof that it is a mutation.

That is the same as you would require scientists to point you a supernova explosion that happens now. And because scientists can only show you supernova explosions that happened tens of thousands of years ago or more because of the time it takes from light to travel from the supernova to the Earth, you would say that supernovae do not happen, because we cannot see them happening - we can only see that they happened.

The same applies pretty much to mutations as well: they can usually be seen only after they have happened. Although scientists could show you a mutation happening at the very moment with proper experimental settings, but of course we cannot just capture a moth, wait till its germ cell undergoes a mutation to cause black pigment and the show everybody that now it has happened.

But even if something is difficult to show happening, we can use many means to show that it has happened. Just like with supernovae, detecting a mutation happening is just a bit more complex than detecting a flash of light. However, you could, for example, take one bacterial cell that carries one piece of genome. Put it on an agar plate and let it grow and sequence the genomes of this bacterium's "children" and you see a whole lot of mutations have happened.

By continuously sampling your bacteria you can even catch one in a middle of a cell division that is causing a mutation at the very moment. You would just have to catch a cell that is in the middle of a cell division and whose daughter strand differs from the original one - there is a mutation happening for you, voilá!

[biohazard]

Well, tried to edit my previous post a bit to make it more creationist-proof, but ran out of time. You should still get the point even from that original one.

[DanielSan]

Put it on an agar plate and let it grow and sequence the genomes of this bacterium's "children" and you see a whole lot of mutations have happened.

By continuously sampling your bacteria you can even catch one in a middle of a cell division that is causing a mutation at the very moment. You would just have to catch a cell that is in the middle of a cell division and whose daughter strand differs from the original one - there is a mutation happening for you, voilá!

Thats exactly what the group of Richard Lenski did. Starting with a single "wild-type" colony of E. coli, they maintained it in a liquid culture- in 12 parallels. On a daily basis they would put these cells into a fresh medium and take samples regularly to freeze and analyze them on a genomic level. This experiment now lasts for app. 20 years (more than 50,000 generations), and the outcome is that throughout the cultivation all strains accumulated a stunning genetic diversity (by means of mutations!), allowing them to grow better in the conditions they were put into.
One strain, for example, developed the ability to metabolize citrate: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full

See also:
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ResearchInterests.html
and in particular
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/PublicationSear ... ?group=aad

[Crucible]

Well, as to the transitional fish fossil deal >

Tomn has, at least, perhaps enough reason to complain, since it's slippery language ( "transitional", "intermediate" )that is presented, it can and does lead to erroneous understanding and then statements in news items, online fora and blogs, and journals.

Can we start by giving what "transitional" means, and what "intermediate form", means ?

[biohazard]

Yes, I am familiar with Lenski's work and I have used it previously as an example for some creationists. The problem is that no matter how well you try to explain things and how extraordinary laborous and advanced experiments some scientists do to show these things and provide the much-demanded facts and evidence, the doubters just keep ignoring all that work and keep repeating the same old mantras over and over again.

Apparently one can never overestimate the amount of self-deception and delusion of religious people. Even though they call for facts and proofs they have already decided that no matter what they see or hear, if it is against their books, they ignore it.

[Gavin]

Apparently one can never overestimate the amount of self-deception and delusion of religious people. Even though they call for facts and proofs they have already decided that no matter what they see or hear, if it is against their books, they ignore it.

That's why it's useless to try. I gave up long ago. Blind faith means not only belief without evidence but also blindness to evidence.

[Cat]

I see that both sides of this argument agree on ignoring my post…