New Book - The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator

[Stryder]

I thought his name was Jed.... But then again, WTF do I know. I'm friggin' tired . Of course, now I am hearing the Beverly Hillbillies theme song in my head now.... Thanks Spider...I'm going to sleep now. Geez, all I hear now is "Jed move away from there".... Then I have to think... My name isn't Jed, and where the hell am I going to move to?
Peace,
Gremmie.

Insomnia, irregular sleep patterns and not enough sleep can cause an increase in Serotonin within the brain (This can also occur through various recreational drugs), this can trigger localised auditory/visual hallucinations (namely of your own creation) and Mania/Psychosis.

So if you start hearing theme tunes because of what someone has posted, you really should consider getting to bed earlier or leaving the drug related recreational activities out for a couple of days to get back on track.

 

[Anita Meyer]

All shallow thoughts (bupkis ) along with the inability and ingenuity to think for yourselves!

Alphanumeric, you may go on to try and debate my posts, but there is one thing that I must reinforce here. I said it before and I’ll continually say it again and again… Science can never tell us the origin of anything! Plain and simple it CANNOT! But as I’ve also said before… TRUE SCIENCE WILL ALWAYS SUPPORT G-D’S WORD!

Everything that you debate with is nothing more than THEORY of hypothetical circumstances! Yes still only theory and speculation, and the observable facts of life still remain the same for the laws of biogenesis as the book of Genesis proclaims! Genesis 1:11 - And G-d said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Here is something else that you should give some serious thought to… Scientists have found that certain living cells come with a built-in self-destruct mechanism. For instance as a caterpillar turns into a butterfly, or a tadpole into a frog. When these types of things morph (metamorphosis) they no longer need their former apparatuses (tails, arms, legs or gills). This happens when a special morphing gene gives the order at the appropriate programmed time for the tail cells of a tadpole to begin to die, or the caterpillar to grow butterfly wings. What is actually happening here is that programmed within these specific living cells G-d had programmed a certain gene that signals the death of those cells at the appointed time of His choosing. Perhaps G-d created metamorphosis in some creature to help pollinate, provide food for predators, and help plants grow through many mechanisms.

However, the million dollar question remains, if this is not G-d’s doing, then why would evolution develop genes that order their own death, because such a gene would not aid survival? I’ll tell you what else is amazing about the metamorphosis of frogs and butterfly (including other things that morph like beetles)… and this has to do with continuing reproduction. IF ONE EVOLVED WHERE WAS THE OTHER TO MATE WITH?

Nobody on this green earth has sufficiently proved the theory of evolution. Evolutionists believe life just happened gradually over millions of years, so slowly in fact that WE CAN'T SEE IT. Contrary to this it must never be forgotten that NOBODY HAS EVER SEEN A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF THIS HAPPENING, it is all pure conjecture and supposition!

All the features in a living thing must be present and fully functioning from the start, OR THERE IS NO START. There are no parts of a cell that you can take away and still have a viable living cell. Bottom line - YOU SIMPLY CANNOT!

Oh but wait, we are talking about "abiogenesis", which is a total farce! Ha ha abiogenesis, which serve to protect us from the painful job of thinking. It still hasn’t answered its own doppelganger question of how a fully functioning single celled organism with the capacity to maintain and reproduce itself came into being from simple chemicals such as methane and ammonia, as evolutionists believe, although they cannot demonstrate (or prove) a single example, and this belief goes against the observable law of BIOGENESIS.

Alphanumerics, you talk so astutely… if you can solve this problem satisfactorily, then the Nobel prize awaits you and you will become a hero of atheism as the man who finally shut the creationists up over the origin of life. On the other hand, if you remain a convinced evolutionist, perhaps you will follow the example of Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins and his modern-day followers by avoiding the issue of how life began without a designer and maker, or saying that it isn't a problem and doesn't matter.

Now as to my proof for G-d as per my book demo here:

http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/files/Pictures_and_explanation.pdf

What I have proved beyond a doubt is that the Hebrew Letters (the ones that G-d gave Moses on Mount Sinai, and the ones that comprise our modern day Bible) have an “INTELEGENT DESIGN TO THEM” since I’ve clearly explained, demonstrated, and proven that they correspond to natures law of unit growth (which was clearly explained in my book demo).

Now if you think this isn’t something significant, than you have to come up with an explanation for why there is “ORDER” in them??? Albert Einstein had quoted one of the most notorious sayings in relation to the field of Quantum Mechanics when he said: G-d does not play dice with the universe… He was correct you know! Logically speaking, THERE CANNOT BE ACCIDENTS IN A UNIVERSE WHICH HAS AN “ORGANIZING INTELLIGENCE”.

That deduces to G-d, since we can now link His Word (the Hebrew letters) to creation!

 

[spidergoat]

Cell death, or apoptosis, does aid the genes to survive in the gene pool. As long as the organism survives and benefits from the cell death, which it does. The complete set of genes are present in every cell.

Explain the origin of God? No theist can do this! Isn't is strange that the concept doesn't even appear until 5,000 years ago, even though humans have existed for millions of years!

 

[Dywyddyr]

But as I’ve also said before… TRUE SCIENCE WILL ALWAYS SUPPORT G-D’S WORD!

It doesn't matter how many times you say it.
You're wrong.

Now as to my proof for G-d as per my book demo here:

Still telling the same lie Anita?
You've already admitted that you don't have proof.

Albert Einstein had quoted one of the most notorious sayings in relation to the field of Quantum Mechanics when he said: G-d does not play dice with the universe… He was correct you know! Logically speaking, THERE CANNOT BE ACCIDENTS IN A UNIVERSE WHICH HAS AN “ORGANIZING INTELLIGENCE”.

Except for the slight fact that that is NOT what Einstein was implying at all.

You're a dishonest, wilfully ignorant peddler of specious distortions and outright lies.

 

[Stryder]

...

It's known in Psychiatry that people can have what is referred to as "Psychotic Breaks" or "Episodes", these usually occur because a person becomes obsessed with a particular subject, possibly due to genuinely innocent intentions, perhaps through too research and perhaps the stresses of life and they can find themselves losing track with reality. They can get to the point where they merge reality and their own inner interpretation to generate a brand of pseudo-reality from whatever they have been researching.

Such breaks are obviously greatly enhanced by a persons inability to resist indoctrination, they might well be open to various absurd beliefs, perhaps read their horoscopes, or believe in spirits and likely not want to step on a paving stone crack or fear black cats crossing their paths etc.

It's always a concern with such persons because they can't be told that they are suffering a delusion, break or episode as the majority of the time they will find any attempt from an external party explaining this as being a blatant attack on themselves and their beliefs.

The eventual result is a very troubled person that could endanger themselves potentially or others, even if they weren't intending to do so. after all if their delusion is interwoven into someone else's delusion and they in turn were to injure themselves, that injury could well have been averted if only the initial person could have resolved that their output could be problemmatic.

A rather interesting fictional depiction of such a case would be the film "Pi" which seems aptly suited to Anita's type of reasoning. In it the Jewish protagonist attempts to work out a mathematical constant for the stockmarket involving "Pi", however he finds that his obsession lands himself in alot of trouble with people that want to misuse his mathematics, as well as the obsession climbing to heights that he can no longer mentally handle. It's worth a watch if you want to juggle numbers.

 

[Anita Meyer]

Spidergoat, you abated the question and just twisted the words around!

Cell death, or apoptosis, does aid the genes to survive in the gene pool.

Well of course it aids them to survive because their DNA information was programmed by G-d in such a way for not only it to benefit from, but for other forms of life (like I suggested) to help pollinate, provide food for predators, and help plants grow through many mechanisms.

As long as the organism survives and benefits from the cell death, which it does. The complete set of genes are present in every cell.

Cell death goes against the theory of evolution! Cell death is programmed by G-d at precisely the right time, otherwise what would be the purpose of it (metamorphosis)? How could a creature such as a caterpillar know that it was meant to help in the pollination process before it morphs into a butterfly? Now where talking outside the box… not evolution anymore, but purpose, the very reason for existence. All things were meant to work in harmony.

There are evidences in the plant world that defy evolution. One such plant is called the Stylidium orchid (a trigger plant) that somehow defies evolution by mimicking a certain species of female wasp. The aroma that the orchid puts out smells just like the female wasp so that the male wasp is attracted to it. When the male wasp lands on it, it closes on it quickly using its trigger mechanism and thus whacking the pollen onto it for pollination. This is the only way this orchid pollinates itself. The timing is critical… for two weeks, and only once a year when the orchid is ready to pollinate, the male wasp is out flying around looking for the female wasp, but the female wasp isn’t there yet, SHE DOESN’T MATURE UNTIL TWO WEEKS LATER. The question is, how could something like this evolve? Simple, IT CANT! It had to be created for that very purpose. Additionally, there is also the Lampsilis mussel (in the clam family). This mussel mimics a tiny little fish like a minnow. It puts its orifice tissue on top of its shell and it sits under the water jigging its orifice like a bait fish. In order for it to maintain its future existence as a species, it requires a large mouth bass to swim down and eat the orifice (bait fish). It rejects all other fish except for the bass. It somehow knows the difference and the split second a bass opens its mouth to take the bait, the Lampsilis muscle shoots all its eggs up into the mouth of the bass that than attach to the gills and drink its blood until they are fully grown and than drop off to repeat the cycle again. The question is, how could something like this evolve? And how does the L-muscle know the difference between fish?

Explain the origin of God? No theist can do this!

The Bible does have an answer to all these types of questions if only one would read and UNDERSTAND. In fact the Bible directs us to acknowledge just what G-d is. It tells us in so many words that we can only partially comprehend the notion of G-d’s existence. To do so, we must use human concepts to speak of G-d. Such concepts described in the Bible say that G-d is “without beginning or end“, “eternal“ and “infinite“ and from “old and everlasting“. The Bible tells us that G-d has always existed, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art G-d. Psalm 90:2 - Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art G-d. Psalm 93:2- Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting. Psalm 41:13- Praise be to the Lord, the G-d of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting. Amen and Amen. Quite simply, G-d has no beginning and no end. So the questions remains, where did G-d come from? The answer is, He didn’t. He always was. To us humans the notion of time is linear so we cannot comprehend what it would be like without a beginning or end, eternal or infinite. For us time continually flows forward. But G-d is BEYOND any (and all) time. He has no beginning or end. He simply has always been and this is because He is outside of time. And it is extremely hard for us to understand and fully grasp this with our human concepts simply because we are governed by “time as well as matter”. And even though “time and matter” is physical to us, G-d is not confined by either. It was G-d who had created both “time and matter”. So “time and matter” began when G-d created the universe. Before that, G-d was simply existing and time had no meaning (except conceptually), no relation to Him. Therefore, to ask where G-d came from is to ask a question that cannot really be applied to G-d in the first place. Simply put, this is because time has no meaning with G-d in relation to who He is.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

It's known in Psychiatry that people can have what is referred to as "Psychotic Breaks" or "Episodes", these usually occur because a person becomes obsessed with a particular subject, possibly due to genuinely innocent intentions, perhaps through too research and perhaps the stresses of life and they can find themselves losing track with reality. They can get to the point where they merge reality and their own inner interpretation to generate a brand of pseudo-reality from whatever they have been researching.

Such breaks are obviously greatly enhanced by a persons inability to resist indoctrination, they might well be open to various absurd beliefs, perhaps read their horoscopes, or believe in spirits and likely not want to step on a paving stone crack or fear black cats crossing their paths etc.

It's always a concern with such persons because they can't be told that they are suffering a delusion, break or episode as the majority of the time they will find any attempt from an external party explaining this as being a blatant attack on themselves and their beliefs.

The eventual result is a very troubled person that could endanger themselves potentially or others, even if they weren't intending to do so. after all if their delusion is interwoven into someone else's delusion and they in turn were to injure themselves, that injury could well have been averted if only the initial person could have resolved that their output could be problemmatic.

A rather interesting fictional depiction of such a case would be the film "Pi" which seems aptly suited to Anita's type of reasoning. In it the Jewish protagonist attempts to work out a mathematical constant for the stockmarket involving "Pi", however he finds that his obsession lands himself in alot of trouble with people that want to misuse his mathematics, as well as the obsession climbing to heights that he can no longer mentally handle. It's worth a watch if you want to juggle numbers.

occam's razor suggests a simpler explanation.

Anita is an atheist under deep cover setting out to make fundies look stupid - both by behaving like the very worst, most simple minded, and least educated of their breed - and by fleecing money from the ones gullible enough to buy her book.

 

[Cifo]

I did not plow through 37 pages of posts (forgive me) ...

Here is something else that you should give some serious thought to… Scientists have found that certain living cells come with a built-in self-destruct mechanism. For instance as a caterpillar turns into a butterfly, or a tadpole into a frog. When these types of things morph (metamorphosis) they no longer need their former apparatuses (tails, arms, legs or gills). This happens when a special morphing gene gives the order at the appropriate programmed time for the tail cells of a tadpole to begin to die, or the caterpillar to grow butterfly wings. What is actually happening here is that programmed within these specific living cells G-d had programmed a certain gene that signals the death of those cells at the appointed time of His choosing.

We don't have to go too far from ourselves to see so-called "metamorphosis". Human hands are originally generated with webbing between the fingers, which then dies off before birth ... evidence of evolution.

Scientists have found that ...

IDists may claim that evolution is a relatively recent science, but ID is much more recent, and IDists cherry-pick data found by scientists and perform relatively little scientific investigation themselves. Evidence of evolution is found in the giraffe's neck.

The theory of evolution has not been perfected, but neither has ID. The difference between evolution and ID is that evolution starts with evidence and words toward a conclusion, whereas ID starts with a conclusion and selectively finds supporting evidence. If both remain true to their word, they will, over time, become one.

The Church has historically dumbed down its followers and, ideologically, has discouraged the asking of questions, which it has viewed as a symptom of non-belief (if one believes, then one would not question). What the public has slowly learned over the centuries is that the supernatural is more "natural" than it is "super". When science makes advances, the Church stubbornly relinquishes its claims. Ask Galileo.

 

[spidergoat]

Cell death goes against the theory of evolution!

It doesn't, but I would love to hear from you how you think it goes against the Theory of Evolution.

How could a creature such as a caterpillar know that it was meant to help in the pollination process before it morphs into a butterfly?

Simple, it is not meant to help pollination. It only does so because it's ancestors received a benefit from doing so. Plants use animals to have sex (pollination), and it pays the animal for it's service with some food (nectar).

There are evidences in the plant world that defy evolution. One such plant is called the Stylidium orchid (a trigger plant) that somehow defies evolution by mimicking a certain species of female wasp. The aroma that the orchid puts out smells just like the female wasp so that the male wasp is attracted to it. When the male wasp lands on it, it closes on it quickly using its trigger mechanism and thus whacking the pollen onto it for pollination. This is the only way this orchid pollinates itself. The timing is critical… for two weeks, and only once a year when the orchid is ready to pollinate, the male wasp is out flying around looking for the female wasp, but the female wasp isn’t there yet, SHE DOESN’T MATURE UNTIL TWO WEEKS LATER. The question is, how could something like this evolve? Simple, IT CANT! It had to be created for that very purpose.

Why can't it? Mimicry is explained by the Theory of Evolution. You see, a flower that had only a slight resemblance to a female wasp (perhaps in adverse conditions like twilight or rain where the wasp doesn't see as well) would be more likely to get pollinated. Those orchids would become more common. No two orchids are exactly alike. These variations begin from mutations, but sex also assists in making a greater variety of gene combinations. In this situation, the more an orchid resembled the wasp, the greater it's success. Evolution can work when there is a gradation of success, otherwise it would be an unlikely leap of faith (not that genes think, this is just an analogy). The same thing can happen with smells. Note that the flower's imitation isn't perfect, because it doesn't have to be. There is a balance point between investing in greater imitation and the success that imitation will bring. Also, the amount of imitation is limited by the sensitivity of the wasp's own senses. We can see in many animals, that they will respond to symbols of things that would not fool a human, fishing lures, for example.

Additionally, there is also the Lampsilis mussel (in the clam family). This mussel mimics a tiny little fish like a minnow. It puts its orifice tissue on top of its shell and it sits under the water jigging its orifice like a bait fish. In order for it to maintain its future existence as a species, it requires a large mouth bass to swim down and eat the orifice (bait fish). It rejects all other fish except for the bass. It somehow knows the difference and the split second a bass opens its mouth to take the bait, the Lampsilis muscle shoots all its eggs up into the mouth of the bass that than attach to the gills and drink its blood until they are fully grown and than drop off to repeat the cycle again. The question is, how could something like this evolve? And how does the L-muscle know the difference between fish?

Gradually. The L-muscle doesn't have to know anything. It's ancestors used this method with success, and so it does. It's hardwired, we call that instinct. Here is an actual peer-reviewed scientific paper on the subject:

Evolution of active host-attraction strategies in the freshwater mussel tribe Lampsilini (Bivalvia: Unionidae)

At some point in it's distant past, fish would try to eat this mussel, and in the process it took a larvae into it's mouth, which found that the fish mouth was a good place to grow up. Mussels that happened to be more attractive to these fish survived better, and also happened to have longer structures that resembled lures. The better the lure, the better the survival of those genes that resulted in the lure structure. The distinction of wanting only a particular kind of fish to attack it could have evolved at the same time or later. It is interesting to note that some species that still have the gene for this lure no longer produce it. It evolved away, no doubt because they existed in conditions where it was no longer an asset.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I said it before and I’ll continually say it again and again… Science can never tell us the origin of anything! Plain and simple it CANNOT! But as I’ve also said before… TRUE SCIENCE WILL ALWAYS SUPPORT G-D’S WORD!

I retorted this previously. Simply because science doesn't have an answer doesn't make your unsupported claims any more valid. 3000 years ago we didn't know how lightening happened but it wasn't valid for Greeks to say "They are thrown by Zeus". The fact they didn't know how lightening happens didn't make their unsupported claims more valid. And even if science had never worked it out it didn't make Zeus any more real.

Your argument is "You don't know therefore my claims are more valid". No, the validity of a claim is not affected by what other people claim, it is affected by evidence. Can you provide evidence? Obviously not. Then your whining "Science doesn't have the answer" is simply an dishonest attempt to change the subject. Its standard creationist methodology.

Everything that you debate with is nothing more than THEORY of hypothetical circumstances! Yes still only theory and speculation, and the observable facts of life still remain the same for the laws of biogenesis as the book of Genesis proclaims! Genesis 1:11 - And G-d said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

You complain science is 'theory' and then you proclaim Genesis valid. Where's your evidence Genesis is valid? Not only does Genesis have no supporting evidence, its contradicted by evidence. You can't complain about science and then in the same sentence support Genesis. That's hypocritical.

Besides, you're making the standard creationist mistake of thinking 'theory' in science mean 'guess without evidence'. That's an 'hypothesis'. 'Theory' means a coherent model which has pasted experimental testing. Evolution, the fact biological systems change over time, is fact. The theory of evolution by natural selection is the model by which evolution is described. Gravity is a fact but the theory of general relativity is the model which describes gravity's behaviour inline with experimental tests.

You're putting your foot in your mouth with each post. Like I said, your 'A game' has failed to convince anyone and now you're falling back on standard creationist talking points. All of which are easily retorted. You're not even being ignorant in an original way!

Here is something else that you should give some serious thought to… Scientists have found that certain living cells come with a built-in self-destruct mechanism. For instance as a caterpillar turns into a butterfly, or a tadpole into a frog. When these types of things morph (metamorphosis) they no longer need their former apparatuses (tails, arms, legs or gills). This happens when a special morphing gene gives the order at the appropriate programmed time for the tail cells of a tadpole to begin to die, or the caterpillar to grow butterfly wings. What is actually happening here is that programmed within these specific living cells G-d had programmed a certain gene that signals the death of those cells at the appointed time of His choosing. Perhaps G-d created metamorphosis in some creature to help pollinate, provide food for predators, and help plants grow through many mechanisms.

Circular reasoning. You are simply asserting God did all of this. We know the naturalistic mechanism by which such systems can arise so its not something which is 'magic'. You need to do more than simply assert God did it. You need to provide evidence.

This is the issue with creationists, you live in a world centered around the bible where your local pastor simply asserts things so you think that's how arguments are done. Not so in science, evidence is needed.

Can you do anything more than assert things?

However, the million dollar question remains, if this is not G-d’s doing, then why would evolution develop genes that order their own death, because such a gene would not aid survival?

And you think it doesn't aid survival because....? You're not a biologist and you obviously don't know about the specifics of the biological systems in questions. Certain members of a population killing themselves might be beneficial. If 99% of the Earth's population of human s killed themselves the remaining 1% would likely be better off because we'd not be destroying the planet any more, we'd need to use less resources etc. Animals also compete for resources and it might be altruistic for certain members to sacrifice themselves for the good of the group.

Evolution is not about survival of the individual, its survival of the group.

IF ONE EVOLVED WHERE WAS THE OTHER TO MATE WITH?

You seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding of evolution. A mutation doesn't need both parents to have it in order for the offspring. I have blue eyes, which means I lack a particular gene for eye pigment. If I have a child with someone who has 2 brown eye genes then my off spring will have brown eyes, as its a dominant gene. I lack a gene but my offspring will not and the trait it represents will be manifest in an offspring.

This is high school biology. Do some reading.

Nobody on this green earth has sufficiently proved the theory of evolution. Evolutionists believe life just happened gradually over millions of years, so slowly in fact that WE CAN'T SEE IT. Contrary to this it must never be forgotten that NOBODY HAS EVER SEEN A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF THIS HAPPENING, it is all pure conjecture and supposition!

The speciation in fruit flies has been done in the lab. A population was put under pressure and a particular trait selected and after a few hundred iterations two populations, which could not interbreed, were the result. A new species, done in real time. Then there's the development of new traits like bacteria which can eat nylon, which is a man made substance which didn't exist 100 years ago.

The fundamentalist evangelical former head of the Human Genome Project says that the DNA evidence alone is enough to see evolution is a fact, even if you ignore the fossil record.

You've gone from arguing about vague interpretations of the bible to asserting things which are (so you think) statements of fact. The problem is that now you can be proven conclusively wrong. This is why you should stick to vagueries in the bible, your knowledge of the facts is terrible.

All the features in a living thing must be present and fully functioning from the start, OR THERE IS NO START. There are no parts of a cell that you can take away and still have a viable living cell. Bottom line - YOU SIMPLY CANNOT!

Irreducible complexity? You should look up the Kitzmiller vs Dover case. IC has never managed to meet any kind of scientific standard and it got stopped by the courts after ID proponents lied, just flat out lied, about it in an attempt to get it taught in school.

If you think you're right on this please provide peer reviewed articles from reputable journals on the subject. Don't simply assert things, provide evidence. Try to get into the habit of that, as its something every creationist seems to struggle with.

None of your arguments are new to me, you aren't coming out with 'silver bullets' which are going to convince people. The fact you're trotting out the standard ID line means you've done very little research (as all ID arguments have been retorted and/or fail to have any evidence) and you have no grasp of what a 'good argument' actually is.

Ha ha abiogenesis, which serve to protect us from the painful job of thinking.

So scientists doing peer reviewed work is to avoid 'the painful job of thinking' but you parroting the bible without any understanding of relevant isn't to avoid thinking?

You're projecting.

It still hasn’t answered its own doppelganger question of how a fully functioning single celled organism with the capacity to maintain and reproduce itself came into being from simple chemicals such as methane and ammonia, as evolutionists believe, although they cannot demonstrate (or prove) a single example, and this belief goes against the observable law of BIOGENESIS.

Strawman. No scientist working on abiogenesis says a fully formed cell came out of the gloop. You've commited another standard flawed argument. I know you're used to throwing these out when talking to your creationist friends and you all scoff at scientists but that isn't going to cut it here. Some of us actually paid attention in school and happen to have actually done some science learning since. As such whenever you misrepresent or lie about science its obvious.

Lie so often and on so basic a level only serves to make it seem like you know you've got nothing.

Alphanumerics, you talk so astutely… if you can solve this problem satisfactorily, then the Nobel prize awaits you and you will become a hero of atheism as the man who finally shut the creationists up over the origin of life.

No one will ever shut up creationists, you simply move onto the next strawman. Every single one of your arguments has already been retorted. See wesites like www.talkorigins.org. And yet you still trot them out.

And don't think I didn't notice that you skipped over my retort about Jefferson. Didn't you know he was a theist who thought Christianity was filled with hateful characters and a contemptible deity? You didn't check your facts, you trotted out standard creationist arguments and you got it laughed back in your face. You have claimed in this thread you've done a lot of research but you haven't. Not only have you not done any research on the topics relating to your book but you haven't done any in relation to your beliefs. You want to have faith? Fine. But don't for a second think its supported by rational scepticism or evidence. I have no problem with faith, as I cannot prove deities don't exist but there's no evidence for a deity so to claim there is is a lie. And your lies are not original, I haven't had to stop anywhere in this post to think about how to reply to you, I've heard them all before. I linked to a youtube clip of 'The Atheist Experience' in my last post. Have a watch of some of the other clips on YouTube. All of your 'arguments' are discussed (people call in with them) and retorted with reason, evidence and rationality. Three things you have none of.

Anyway, I have to go to work. Some of us need to do honest science to keep a roof over our head. I imagine I earn less than you but at least its honest.

 

[Anita Meyer]

Alphanumeric,

Pretty much all lame excuses and I’m quite sure those that are reading can clearly see this. In fact I know they can as I’ve received emails from individuals from this particular forum and also from others who have stumbled across this website from doing a Google search on me. It’s also clear to see that obviously this is a science forum and most of the regulars that post here have not taken to favorably to me. You know what they say, birds of a feather flock together, which is clearly evident on this forum.

The speciation in fruit flies has been done in the lab. A population was put under pressure and a particular trait selected and after a few hundred iterations two populations, which could not interbreed, were the result. A new species, done in real time. Then there's the development of new traits like bacteria which can eat nylon, which is a man made substance which didn't exist 100 years ago.

It was still by all means - a fruit fly, however what it had lost was INFORMATION - they were sterile! There was NO NEW INFORMATION added to the geno of the fruit flies, non whatsoever!

I know about all these experiments. To date there has been numerous genetic experiments done that have tried to induce/cause mutations to flies, insects, rats, mice and birds and other organisms in an effort to prove evolution. Yet none of these experiments have been successful in producing a single permanent “beneficial” morphological change in any organism. However, the evolutionists say that this is not true! They talk about such things as chromosomal crossover which they say can cause morphological changes in the produced offspring. They also say that another good example of evolution at work is the nylon eating bug which can live on the waste products of nylon. They say in order for this to occur it requires the evolution of new information either by random mutations or natural selection. But these types of things have already been debunked. This is because the nylon eating bug (bacterium) contains within in what’s called plasmids (DNA that can duplicate itself and often contain genes that can produce antibodies that are resistant to many types of things). These plasmids can become rapidly adaptive (by some designed mechanism still not clearly understood) making it capable of surviving in new situations as well as acclimatizing to new food sources and even toxins. But nothing has truly changed within its chromosomes, nor has it changed into a different type of bacterium. In other words, if this bacterium didn’t die from poisons it was already resistant, and if it died it had a decrease (or reduction) of information. Actually these reductions (mutations) are due to the curse since a copying error has occurred. I find it rather ironic that the evolutionists directly claim morphological or mutational change, because in my observation this actually shows signs of intelligent design!

This is the issue with creationists, you live in a world centered around the bible where your local pastor simply asserts things so you think that's how arguments are done. Not so in science, evidence is needed.

Well you said it yourself “in science, evidence is needed”. But guess what, the Evolution Theory does not pass this test. Even thought you keep retorting to say that the word “theory” actually means “a coherent model which has past experimental testing“. It does not, and never will! Biological systems may change slightly over time, only by the loss of information (and by slight changes, I only mean “variations“ - though there are different apples, an apple is still an apple), but they can never change one type of creature into another as the evolutionist propound.

This is all a false summation of the fossil record by evolutionists.

Additionally, the Theory of Evolution by natural selection is not by any means evolution happening either (and I know I’ve discussed this before in this thread) since natural selection is actually a loss of information. In fact it’s the “opposite” of evolution since living things are being segregated and then isolated moving to different parts of the earth. What’s actually happening here is that these creatures are loosing information in their DNA (as you split up these populations and some die). You see over a period of time natural selection results in loss of information, specialization (adaptation or condition in response to environmental conditions), eventually getting to the stage were they cant interbreed anymore.

It was also shown (by me in this thread) that the Galapagos birds were still the same bird with slight variations. Nothing had changed, it was still the same bird.

Oh and FYI, I’ll say it again… science CANNOT make a single functioning cell on its own! Nor can it even produce the right combinations of amino acids necessary for life (as I’ve revealed with the Miller experiment that was also talked about in this thread).

But don't for a second think its supported by rational scepticism or evidence.

Mr. Physics with a PhD. You spelled the word “skepticism” wrong, its not spelled with a C for the second letter, its spelled with a K. It shows your credibility. You do at least know how to use a spellchecker don’t you? Though the spelling really isn’t an issue for me, what is however is that once again you assume that “evolution” has been outright proven. And I will repeatedly remind you that no matter how pretty a picture you try and paint it, along with peer review - IT HAS NOT! And I can guarantee you with 100% assurance, it NEVER WILL!

And don't think I didn't notice that you skipped over my retort about Jefferson.

And for the record, I didn’t skip over it. I just thought your answer to it was really lame! That’s usually why I don’t bother in responding.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

accidental double post - feel free to delete this one mods

 

[Dywyddyr]

Pretty much all lame excuses and I’m quite sure those that are reading can clearly see this.

Actually what we all see (apart from, obviously, you) is that the lame excuses come only from you. Oh and the lies of course.

It’s also clear to see that obviously this is a science forum and most of the regulars that post here have not taken to favorably to me.

Because you post crap.

Well you said it yourself “in science, evidence is needed”. But guess what, the Evolution Theory does not pass this test. Even thought you keep retorting to say that the word “theory” actually means “a coherent model which has past experimental testing“. It does not, and never will!

Another lie.

Mr. Physics with a PhD. You spelled the word “skepticism” wrong, its not spelled with a C for the second letter, its spelled with a K.

Actually it IS spelt with a "c" for the second letter in English.

It shows your credibility. You do at least know how to use a spellchecker don’t you?

Good grief! YOU have the gall to criticise someone else's spelling? Your posts tend to contain spelling errors (and numerous grammatical errors).

 

[spidergoat]

My dear Anita,

OK let's do a thought experiment. You have the blueprints for a house. Instead of building one house, I tell you to build two. 1 bit of information changed: from a "1" to a "2". On the ground, two houses are built; twice the materials, twice the floorspace, twice everything, but the total information in the instructions has not doubled. Compared to the blueprints, which may contain 10mb of information, we have only added one bit. 1 megabyte = 8,388,608 bits. That means the percentage of change that caused such a radical effect was 0.000002%.



The same thing can happen with evolution. One tiny mutation can cause a large effect. The "information" added need only be miniscule.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Great post Anita - I can see why you have the fundies fooled into thinking you are one of them and buying your book - what a hoot!!

here's what I liked

It was still by all means - a fruit fly, however what it had lost was INFORMATION - they were sterile! There was NO NEW INFORMATION added to the geno of the fruit flies, non whatsoever!

this is a great bit - not only do you completely twist what alpha said ( the fruit flies werent sterile at all) AND ignore the bit about nylon eating bacteria (which - lets face it - kills your case stone dead), but you then jump straight into the age old "No New Information" canard.

I really love this one - its so vague that you can shift the definition as you please and make it fit just about anything.
You probably dont need telling this, but whatever you do, never ever, no matter how hard you are pressed, under any circumstances, define precisely what is meant by information - at least dont do it in an honest way.
If you do you'll be killed by a deluge of evidence that proves that there are simply loads of examples and you'll just look stupid (I appreciate that this is in fact what you are aiming for as an under cover atheist, I mean stupid in a bad way).

I know about all these experiments. To date there has been numerous genetic experiments done that have tried to induce/cause mutations to flies, insects, rats, mice and birds and other organisms in an effort to prove evolution. Yet none of these experiments have been successful in producing a single permanent “beneficial” morphological change in any organism. However, the evolutionists say that this is not true!

ok - this is pretty good but you run into a danger here.

I do like the way you pretend to know the science (without quoting or referencing any naturally), but you run close to the wind in coming very close to defining what you mean by new information, namely "beneficial morphological change"
be really careful of that because I can think of a couple of examples right off the top of my head - like Levi Fishelson's work on Lionfish for example - now while you are running in your usual circles of religious extremism you arent likely to come across too many marine biologists, I do recommend you stick to keeping your definitions as vague as possible, or change them frequently - just in case you inadvertently put you in a position where you have made a clear scientifically testable statement that has clear evidence to the contrary.

They talk about such things as chromosomal crossover which they say can cause morphological changes in the produced offspring. They also say that another good example of evolution at work is the nylon eating bug which can live on the waste products of nylon. They say in order for this to occur it requires the evolution of new information either by random mutations or natural selection. But these types of things have already been debunked. This is because the nylon eating bug (bacterium) contains within in what’s called plasmids (DNA that can duplicate itself and often contain genes that can produce antibodies that are resistant to many types of things). These plasmids can become rapidly adaptive (by some designed mechanism still not clearly understood) making it capable of surviving in new situations as well as acclimatizing to new food sources and even toxins. But nothing has truly changed within its chromosomes, nor has it changed into a different type of bacterium. In other words, if this bacterium didn’t die from poisons it was already resistant, and if it died it had a decrease (or reduction) of information. Actually these reductions (mutations) are due to the curse since a copying error has occurred. I find it rather ironic that the evolutionists directly claim morphological or mutational change, because in my observation this actually shows signs of intelligent design!

Now this bit is just marvelous mumbo jumbo - a surefire winner to get a few thousand book sales.
what I love about it (apart from the bit about bacteria having chromosomes - what a hoot!!) is that what you describe IS evolution and IS new "information" - yet you sell it as if it isn't.
Sure, your not going to fool anyone who isnt a raving fundamentalist, or has passed high school biology, but you'll give the occasional scientist a belly laugh and you'll prise a few bucks from more than a few religious loonies with that one.
Mission accomplished in a masterful way there - well done

the rest of the post is just a nicely rambling rehash of what came before really - with plenty of made up shit, vague opinion, and a healthy lack of any substance - and we all know that fundies are just suckers for that shit.

I do have a question though - are any of the proceeds going to any good humanist or scientific causes?

 

[Anita Meyer]

Now this bit is just marvelous mumbo jumbo - a surefire winner to get a few thousand book sales. what I love about it (apart from the bit about bacteria having chromosomes - what a hoot!!

synthesizer-patel, it's better to let everybody THINK you're a moron, than to open your mouth and prove it.

I know what I’m talking about here and its clear that YOU HAVE NO CLUE!

Bacteria have one circular chromosome (a single circular piece of genetic material), though some bacteria have one linear chromosome. Bacteria also have small plasmids which are small circular segments of accessory DNA.

You could fail a survey.

 

[Dywyddyr]

synthesizer-patel, it's better to let everybody THINK you're a moron, than to open your mouth and prove it.

Yet you persistently fail to take your own advice.

 

[Anita Meyer]

I did not plow through 37 pages of posts (forgive me) ...

Hello Cifo, you are forgiven! I know this thread is getting rather long, but yes these subjects were already discussed. I will reiterate them for you.

We don't have to go too far from ourselves to see so-called "metamorphosis". Human hands are originally generated with webbing between the fingers, which then dies off before birth ... evidence of evolution.

The webbing between the fingers is also similar to the fetus having gills. This has been debated by evolutions for quite sometime already. However, if it really were a throwback to the fish stage, then there would be blood vessels to absorb oxygen from water as the mechanism for a gill does. But the answer to this is that even though it may look similar in design we do not have the DNA instructions for forming gills.

IDists may claim that evolution is a relatively recent science, but ID is much more recent, and IDists cherry-pick data found by scientists and perform relatively little scientific investigation themselves. Evidence of evolution is found in the giraffe's neck.

Concerning the Giraffe… Firstly, there has not been any fossils found of Giraffes with shorter necks. Secondly this regulating blood valve could not have evolved by a series of natural selections or even survival of the fittest?

Here was my previous post about it:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2466927&postcount=28

The theory of evolution has not been perfected, but neither has ID. The difference between evolution and ID is that evolution starts with evidence and words toward a conclusion, whereas ID starts with a conclusion and selectively finds supporting evidence. If both remain true to their word, they will, over time, become one.

Well you've got a theory there, but I don’t readily believe that evolution and ID will become one. I believe evolutionists will eventually find out the truth when they continually have strikeout after strikeout.

The Church has historically dumbed down its followers and, ideologically, has discouraged the asking of questions, which it has viewed as a symptom of non-belief (if one believes, then one would not question). What the public has slowly learned over the centuries is that the supernatural is more "natural" than it is "super". When science makes advances, the Church stubbornly relinquishes its claims. Ask Galileo.

I don’t agree totally with the Churches teachings either, they have been skewed and unfortunately leave out the Jewish aspect and understanding of it.

Have you had the chance to review my book demo?

http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/files/Pictures_and_explanation.pdf

 

[Crunchy Cat]

synthesizer-patel, it's better to let everybody THINK you're a moron, than to open your mouth and prove it.

I know what I’m talking about here and its clear that YOU HAVE NO CLUE!

Bacteria have one circular chromosome (a single circular piece of genetic material), though some bacteria have one linear chromosome. Bacteria also have small plasmids which are small circular segments of accessory DNA.

You could fail a survey.

This is the sound of Anita's ego in its death throws. :fart:

 

[spidergoat]

I found this article interesting. Creationists define kinds of life, not by the scientific definition of species, but by their term "baramins", which are the only "kinds" of life created during the creation event. (They do acknowledge that living things adapt).

I used a statistical technique called classic multidimensional scaling, which creation scientists use to quantify morphological gaps between species. I wanted to determine whether morphological gaps separated Archaeopteryx - the earliest known bird - from the various non-avian coelurosaurs, the group of predatory dinosaurs ranging from tiny Microraptor to giant T. rex. I showed that within this group there is too much similarity to indicate separate baramins. Contrary to the previous creationist view that these animals were separately created, their own pet technique shows that these animals shared a common ancestor...​

Dinosaur man: playing creationists at their own game