• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Annoying creationists

Status
Not open for further replies.
delphi_ote said:
No. You have the dilemma. You assume evolution is false. How do you then decide between your hypothesis, "Goddidit" and my hypothesis that the universe is one consciousness dreaming itself?
Click to expand...
Your dream hypothesis at the moment still leaves modern evolutionary theory on one hand and "goddidit" (I prefer "intent") as an alternate answer.

Currently I'm happy enough with modern theory coupled with a least some element of "intent". You are equally free to have faith the "intent" component does not exist.

I will also note that "intent" in my worldview may even predate the big bang, and definitely would be operative with that event. It is obvious that science has not identified this component, nor under a worldview of 'materialism/100% atheism' could it exist.
 
I'm not a scientist or mathematician, so I wonder if someone could help me better understand this debate.

Wasn't Dr. Schneider's EV program originally intended to demonstrate that information gain can be obtained via a model of random mutation and selection?

And, doesn't EV show information gain?

I realize that the present argument seems to have advanced (dare I say, "evolved") into one of whether or not EV can show information gain within the time allotted for natural evolution to have actually occured. But that seems to be a much more sophisticated goal -- one which deserves separate experiment and peer review publication of results.

Thanks in advance.
 
hammegk said:
Currently I'm happy enough with modern theory coupled with a least some element of "intent".
Click to expand...
Then that's a different discussion for a different thread. As long as you're not positing an alternate hypothesis for material phenomena (i.e. "Evolution is mathematically impossible, therefore God created the world.") , we should pretty much agree here.
 
kjkent1 said:
I realize that the present argument seems to have advanced (dare I say, "evolved") into one of whether or not EV can show information gain within the time allotted for natural evolution to have actually occured. But that seems to be a much more sophisticated goal -- one which deserves separate experiment and peer review publication of results.
Click to expand...
Dr. A did a very good job of addressing that problem, just in case you missed it.
 
I should point out that the bit in italics is a quotation (hence the italics) from some geneticists.
 
hammegk said:
Until such should occur, feel free to have faith it will not.
Click to expand...
Faith has no appeal to me: I prefer the certain knowledge that this hasn't occurred.

But do let me know the moment there is a shred of a scrap of a scintilla of evidence for this "intent" of which you speak.

I am also interested in any evidence for winged monkeys, 'cos I want one.
 
Last edited:
Dr Adequate said:
Faith has no appeal to me: I prefer the certain knowledge that this hasn't occurred.

But do let me know the moment there is a shred of a scrap of a scintilla of evidence for this "intent" of which you speak.
Click to expand...
Should such occur, I may not be the bearer of that message.

And I have faith that you prefer not to examine the portions of your worldview that are faith-based.

I am also interested in any evidence for winged monkeys, 'cos I want one.
Click to expand...
Given the current state of genetic engineering, you may get your wish.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Faith has no appeal to me: I prefer the certain knowledge that this hasn't occurred.
Click to expand...
I've often staked my reputation on it not occurring, and I take my reputation seriously. The further and deeper we look into the Universe the same we see no need to postulate an intent.

I am also interested in any evidence for winged monkeys, 'cos I want one.
Click to expand...
Be careful what you wish for. Seagulls are one thing, but winged monkeys have a) decent hand-eye co-ordination b) a wicked sense of humour and c) no qualms about getting their hands dirty.
 
Kleinman said:
Apparently the authors of that article are not aware of the effects of trisomies on humans.
Click to expand...
Say what?

Dr. A said:
We are the descendants of primates without any lethal point mutations.
Click to expand...
By cracky, you are right, sir!

Paul has been forced to retract his statement that ev models reality and you whine that I am somehow moving the goal posts.
Click to expand...
You have nothing left but lies.

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
kjkent1 said:
Can you give me a url (or a citation) to the source of the quote?
Click to expand...
It appears as a post here. I'd thought it was a paper. (I had the quote but not the source.)

I realize that christianforums is not part of the peer reviewed literature, but the author is a geneticist.
 
Last edited:
Kjkent1 said:
Wasn't Dr. Schneider's EV program originally intended to demonstrate that information gain can be obtained via a model of random mutation and selection?

And, doesn't EV show information gain?
Click to expand...
Yes and yes.

~~ Paul
 
CapelDodger said:
Be careful what you wish for. Seagulls are one thing, but winged monkeys have a) decent hand-eye co-ordination b) a wicked sense of humour and c) no qualms about getting their hands dirty.
Click to expand...
The perfect henchmen! ... er, primates of hench ... plus I can pay 'em peanuts.
 
Dr Adequate said:
The perfect henchmen! ... er, primates of hench ... plus I can pay 'em peanuts.
Click to expand...
Let's be honest. The real reason we support biological sciences and evolutionary theory is that deep down we all want to live to see the day when our dream of unleashing an army of evil genetically engineered hench monkeys from our secret evolutionist bunker onto fundamentalist Christians is finally realized.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom