New To Forum
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-05-2015, 06:04 PM
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 05:44 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 04:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You're on. I will. (In a bit).
1. It's not "random mutatuion". As usual, someone so ignorant of math and Probability and Genetics uses words like that as it looks improbable. One a process is begun, the next step is not really any longer (really) "random", (which you would know had you ever actually studied math, Genetics or Probability Theory), or watch the videos.
2. Your "fossil finds'' is false, which I will list later.
3. So you're on a first name basis with Dawkins ? You still seem to be unable to discuss ANYONE other than him. Why is that ?

You cannot refute even ONE of Dr Szostack's points here :



Listened to most of it. Leaves more questions than answering them. A lot of sophisticated speculating. He even admits himself many times. Nothing to refute.

Try me. Leaves what questions ? Discuss one. (You can't). Exactly. No specifics. Just weak generalizations. No real science background at all. Are you a little liar for Jebus ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 06:06 PM (This post was last modified: 18-05-2015 06:11 PM by objectivetheist.)
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 05:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 05:49 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  It doesn't answer the question which is that building of an animal is not proven to have been done by this process. Pure imagination.

It's "pure imagination" when one is as ignorant of Chemistry and Physics as you are. As I said, you can refute NOT ONE of the possible processes demonstrated in the video. You don't even understand any of them. You are SO ignorant all you can do is make lame weak generalizations instead of focusing on specific problems. As was said about, you personal "argument (fallacy) from incredulity" is worthless.

I'm sorry but anyone who will watch that video will know that he is unsure about many things himself. He postulates so many things but there are no hard facts. Just theoretical models of how and when the modern cell may have developed.

Anyone with basic science will know its mainly filling gaps. I'm not filling the gap with god but say: A- the evoltution model, as a whole, not valid, parts makes no sense and B- the whole theory, not valid parts, has very little evidence.

Yes scientific papers and appeal to authority can be cited, but evolution cannot explain how whole organisms were formed. I'm not saying the alternative is religion. Just saying evolution is incomplete.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 06:10 PM
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 06:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 05:44 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  Listened to most of it. Leaves more questions than answering them. A lot of sophisticated speculating. He even admits himself many times. Nothing to refute.

Try me. Leaves what questions ? Discuss one. (You can't). Exactly. No specifics. Just weak generalizations. No real science background at all. Are you a little liar for Jebus ?

At 11 minutes onwards he poses an hypothesis of the RNA structure. The whole thing is mere speculation. Not exactly a great scientific theory.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 06:10 PM (This post was last modified: 18-05-2015 06:15 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 06:06 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 05:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's "pure imagination" when one is as ignorant of Chemistry and Physics as you are. As I said, you can refute NOT ONE of the possible processes demonstrated in the video. You don't even understand any of them. You are SO ignorant all you can do is make lame weak generalizations instead of focusing on specific problems. As was said about, you personal "argument (fallacy) from incredulity" is worthless.

I'm sorry but anyone who will watch that video will know that he is unsure about many things himself. He postulates so many tgings but there are no hard facts. Just theoretical models of how and when the modern cell may have developed.

Anyone with basic science will know its mainly filling gaps. I'm not filling the gap with god but say: A- the evoltution model as a whole not valid parts makes no sense and B- the whole theory not valid parts has very little evidence.

Yes scientific papers and appeal to authority can be cited, but evolution cannot explain how whole organisms were formed. I'm not saying the alternative is religion. Just saying evolution is incomplete.

Just as I thought. No specifics. The man is a Nobel winner in his field. You can't discuss ANY specific process he proposes, or refute any one. You know NO Chemistry. Or Physics, or Math or Probability or Theology or Philosophy or Genetics or Biology. Yet you expect people to take your nonsense seriously. His uncertainty is NOT the point. The point is he proposes possible pathways which REFUTE your "imagination" claim,... and you can do NOTHING to even BEGIN to even discuss any of them. The are not "theories". What EXACTLY, and I mean EXACTLY, is WRONG with the RNA proposal ? What level was the last Chemistry class you took, or Biochemistry ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
18-05-2015, 06:16 PM
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 06:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 06:06 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  I'm sorry but anyone who will watch that video will know that he is unsure about many things himself. He postulates so many tgings but there are no hard facts. Just theoretical models of how and when the modern cell may have developed.

Anyone with basic science will know its mainly filling gaps. I'm not filling the gap with god but say: A- the evoltution model as a whole not valid parts makes no sense and B- the whole theory not valid parts has very little evidence.

Yes scientific papers and appeal to authority can be cited, but evolution cannot explain how whole organisms were formed. I'm not saying the alternative is religion. Just saying evolution is incomplete.

Just as I thought. No specifics. The man is a Nobel winner in his field. You can't discuss ANY specific process he proposes, or refute any one. You know NO Chemistry. Or Physics, or Math or Probability or Theology or Philosophy or Genetics or Biology. Yet you expect people to take you nonsense seriously.

The guy is a Nobel winner! Wow wee for you. (appeal to authority fallacy on your part). You have proven my point of blind allegiance to the scientism clergy.

What do I care about Nobel? The guy who invented the dynamite and they give peace prizes in his name.

If you follow the language of the individual you will see open admittance to pure speculation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 06:19 PM
RE: New To Forum
Berlinski is right here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CV5UESb0txA
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 06:19 PM
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 06:16 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 06:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Just as I thought. No specifics. The man is a Nobel winner in his field. You can't discuss ANY specific process he proposes, or refute any one. You know NO Chemistry. Or Physics, or Math or Probability or Theology or Philosophy or Genetics or Biology. Yet you expect people to take you nonsense seriously.

The guy is a Nobel winner! Wow wee for you. (appeal to authority fallacy on your part). You have proven my point of blind allegiance to the scientism clergy.

What do I care about Nobel? The guy who invented the dynamite and they give peace prizes in his name.

If you follow the language of the individual you will see open admittance to pure speculation.

Thanks for proving you are an ignorant troll and not capable of even discussing one specific idea, and can only use the fallacy from personal incredulity. You have not a shred of education, yet you expect to be taken seriously. LMFAO.
How many Nobels do you have ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
18-05-2015, 06:27 PM
RE: New To Forum
So there were two claims made that are completely false.

1. Organisms arose fully formed in the Cambraian Explosion. (This a typical horseshit claim by creationists).

Whatever answer there may be about the origins of phenomena wee see, the gods and the miraculous are he very least probable. They are at the END of he line of ALL possible explanations. So people who attempt to claim that look at probability in complex designs demonstrates the gods, are intellectually dishonest and by the VERY SAME standard, the miraculous is the VERY LEAST probable explanation. They are totally inconsistent.

Objective theist failed to name even one organism that he thinks had no predecessor in the Cambrian Explosion, therefore until he provides a (LONG) list, technically no reply to his unsupported claim is necessary. However its easy to destroy that bullshit. Of course he's just parroting nonsense he read on creationist sites.

He can refute NOT ONE specific point in any of these videos.








Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
18-05-2015, 06:28 PM
RE: New To Forum
What you have presented is not a fact but a hypothesis. Speculation of a theiretical scientific model. What I am looking for is facts not possibilities.

I asked you to shiw how mutation can be responsible for whole creatures? Evolution is inadequate to show such a thing. The scope of mutation has not been demonstrated as being all encompassing of all organisms. It is limited and your youtube videos do not show otherwise.

This is apart from the serious problem of the Cambrian Explosion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 06:32 PM
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 06:28 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  What you have presented is not a fact but a hypothesis. Speculation of a theiretical scientific model. What I am looking for is facts not possibilities.

I asked you to shiw how mutation can be responsible for whole creatures? Evolution is inadequate to show such a thing. The scope of mutation has not been demonstrated as being all encompassing of all organisms. It is limited and your youtube videos do not show otherwise.

This is apart from the serious problem of the Cambrian Explosion.

Read those two books I recommended you, they explain it quite well....or take an evolutionary science class...they also can explain it you quite well, and most likely, those two books will be the required texts.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: