₦airaland Forum

Damest09:
@KAG

What is Kubla Khan?

Poem by Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Hold on, I'll get it for you.

Kubla Khan
OR, A VISION IN A DREAM. A FRAGMENT.


In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure-dome decree :
Where Alph, the sacred river, ran
Through caverns measureless to man
Down to a sunless sea.
So twice five miles of fertile ground
With walls and towers were girdled round :
And there were gardens bright with sinuous rills,
Where blossomed many an incense-bearing tree ;
And here were forests ancient as the hills,
Enfolding sunny spots of greenery.

But oh ! that deep romantic chasm which slanted
Down the green hill athwart a cedarn cover !
A savage place ! as holy and enchanted
As e'er beneath a waning moon was haunted
By woman wailing for her demon-lover !
And from this chasm, with ceaseless turmoil seething,
As if this earth in fast thick pants were breathing,
A mighty fountain momently was forced :
Amid whose swift half-intermitted burst
Huge fragments vaulted like rebounding hail,
Or chaffy grain beneath the thresher's flail :
And 'mid these dancing rocks at once and ever
It flung up momently the sacred river.
Five miles meandering with a mazy motion
Through wood and dale the sacred river ran,
Then reached the caverns measureless to man,
And sank in tumult to a lifeless ocean :
And 'mid this tumult Kubla heard from far
Ancestral voices prophesying war !
The shadow of the dome of pleasure
Floated midway on the waves ;
Where was heard the mingled measure
From the fountain and the caves.
It was a miracle of rare device,
A sunny pleasure-dome with caves of ice !
A damsel with a dulcimer
In a vision once I saw :
It was an Abyssinian maid,
And on her dulcimer she played,
Singing of Mount Abora.
Could I revive within me
Her symphony and song,
To such a deep delight 'twould win me,
That with music loud and long,
I would build that dome in air,
That sunny dome ! those caves of ice !
And all who heard should see them there,
And all should cry, Beware ! Beware !
His flashing eyes, his floating hair !
Weave a circle round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed,
And drunk the milk of Paradise.

Damest09:
@KAG

If you can read the bible, read the whole of Revelation and if you can't sit down to read it, read chapter 20 and 21.

Chapter 20 talks more about the rapture and 21 talks more about what will happen in heaven after the rapture.

Only Jesus is the way.

I've read it, Kubla Khan was better, less enigmatic, and had far less room for mis-interpretations and re-interpretations.

Damest09:
@KAG

For those that are alive before the rapture, they have the chance of going to heaven but the sufferring will be too much for most people and those that died before the time will not have the chance. This means when Jesus died on the cross, he said it is finish and that statement set human kind free from the boundage of enemy and sin, the suffering after the rapture will be for individual to suffer for his/her sin to be save because it shows they rejected the suffering of Jesus which the lord suffered for their sake.

So Jesus' "gift" came with frills (not strings you understand) attached, I knew it

After rapture, the devil will be released from the pit of hell and he will torment the world for 3 and half years after which comes the judgment for everyone. Anyone that survives the suffering without the mark '666' will reign with the lord.

Sounds like good times, and all that are in the Bible?

You could watch the perilous time by Mount Zion Faith Ministry, it's an old film but i believe it set people in the right direction. You can get it if u are in Nigeria or you can watch the passion of Christ of the Bible.

Send it to me.

To be quite honest, it reads like the result of a bad hallucegenic experience (John and is Revelations), coupled with a weird interpretation. Just my opinion though.

Damest09:
@KAG

Stop teasing

I wouldn't…okay I would *hangs head in shame*, but some of the questions were kinda serious.

Damest09:
@KAG

Who are you

I am that I am?

and by the way, i said it before, the sign is after the first rapture.

Yes, and when is that? Also, how many raptyres will there be, and when will the 2nd+ be.

I'm sure you will enjoy a full millennium in hell if there is no door in you earth to allow Jesus Christ to come in.

I could have surgery, but my doctor may think I'm nuts.

Damest09:
@KAG

'666' is an end time sign given to those people who remained in this world after the first rapture. If someone takes it, he/she will enjoy 3 and half years on earth with the devil and that means he already have a first class ticket to hell and anybody that do not take the sign will end up suffering on earth without dying but will be welcome home by our lord and this means the person is save. It an individual choice to believe there is God or not.

Sound like fun, so when should we expect to see the "666" sign. Also, would that be six hundred and sixty six, or six, six, six; and how can, or indeed, why should numbers influence a person's eligibility for paradise.

Jesus stand at the door (your heart) if anyman should open the door he will come in and dwell in the person.

Thankfully, there are no doors on my heart, and with all the pumping of blood and what not, I'm afraid it may be a tight squeeze for Jesus.

Jesus saves

Not as much as Geico apparently

and God bless us all.

Indeed.

Damest09:
John 3v 16

For God so LOVED the WORLD, that he gave his ONLY begotten SON, that WHOSOEVER believe in him should not PERISH, but have EVALASTING LIFE.

v17

For God sent not his son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Which of course begs the question of why an Omni- God, would need to sacrifice his "son", to save the world from well … himself.

Do you believe there is life after death for you. Maybe you should take it in this perspective; will this world ever end? if your answer is YES. have you thought about what will happen to you after death or when the world is over? if your answer is NO you might want to think again because everything that have a beginning must surely have an end.

No, yes, and yes

and lastly, think about this sign '666' have you ever heard of it? think again because it's real.

something to do with the deceased emperor Nero?

Haha, I love it, and it tends to be an adequate response to the "Pascal wager" christians (who surprisingly - or maybe not so surprisig after all - are the only ones who seem to use it).

simmy:
@kag and nferyn
I have arleady defined information, I don't think its necesarry to define macro and microevolution as it is common knowledge to any knowledgable person. I will however ,define later specciation in this thread

I can actually see why Nferyn has asked you for your definition of micro- and macro- evolution, because to be frank you seem to have, at best, a flawed understanding of those terms.

I would really love it if you could give me 'SPECIFIC' examples of speciation instead of just refering me to sites.
Why? Because it is easy to claim anything on any website, if you could give me SPECIFIC examples I am more than willing to show you why each example CANNOT be qualified as speciation. The only animal directly referred to by kag is the african elephant and I shall show you why he's wrong.

I gave another, which wasn’t an animal, from a peer-reviewed source,

But speaking generally speciation is a term invented by evoluitonists in order to justify Darwin's claims;however, every example of speciation published can be shown to be simple (or dramatic ) variation within genetically compatible organisms. At best these can be said to be examples of a sub-specie or just VARIATON in action! Speciation has been defeated time and time again by the simple fact that these so-called isolated genus can interbreed and produce fertile offsprings. To a casual observer these examples of speciation might appear valid but it takes a close look from an intelligent unbiased observer to notice how evolutionists twist facts and definitions to suit themselves.
For instance it is possible to claim speciation through the interbreeding that goes on with dogs, wolves,dingoes,coyotes etc, but the simple truth is that they are all just varietes withinin the same group (canis).

Nobody disputes that domestic dogs, wolves et, are the same species, in fact we acknowledge that fact.

But first of all what is speciation?
Speciation, according to the Stedman’s Medical Dictionary (2004) is:
The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.
Let's get back to Kag's beloved african elephants, speciation experts for whatever reason refer to the dwarf and tall forms as seperate species!!!!!! Thats simply ridiculous!! Typical of evolutionists!!
Evidence shows (abundant information on the african elephant exists on the net) that these two sub-species or varietes) can and do interbreed producing fertile offsprings.

Keep the definition of speciation in mind; What was discovered was, the two species had “[a] large genetic distance, multiple genetically fixed nucleotide site differences, morphological and habitat distinctions, and extremely limited hybridization of gene flow between [them]” (from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/293/5534/1473). In fact they are as distinct as lions and tigers, which I’m sure you’ll agree, are different species. Adding Asian elephants into the mix thickens the plot; they I’m sure you know, are a different species.

Every attempt to prove speciation and thus, evolution that I have come across is based on careless definitions, on badly classified organisms, and on false or naive presentations of the complex relationships between organisms.

Actually, it is the complex relationships between organisms that make a definitive and absolute definition of speciation difficult.

It is of course impossible to singlehandedly debunk every claim of speciation as evoluitonists will find new species anywhere and everywhere. Some claims are easily debunked like the african elephant while some require a little more knowledge.

Not true, and not quite.

If a SPECIFIC example is offered to me, I will be too glad to show exactly how wrong these carefully crafted claims are

You can start with the peonies example I gave, if you so desire.


I should add at this juncture, that observed speciation, is just the tip of the iceberg, there are more independent evidences for the occurrence of evolution, and shared ancestry. Some I’ve mentioned before, like endogenous retroviral insertions (ERVs), transitionals, etc.

By the way, if anybody is interested, here’s a good resource called, “What is a Species, and What is Not?” by Ernst Mayr: http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/mayrspecies.htm

darkmanero: KAG and nferyn.

This will go on forever.

Forever is relative.

Are you guys learning anything new from this dicussion?

If so, then carry on! But I'll wager that you are, rather trying your best to GIVE information.

unfortunately it is clear to me that the majority here are not ready to recieve this info. Afterall its naija. Land of pastor chris and the Synagogue.

Nigerians never chop belleful. The only thing they believe the mind shopuld be used for is making money. pondering the meaning of life is something they do NOT want to do. They'd rather someone else did it. And the guy who makes them feel better about themselves is the one they will listen to.

If I started a 'church' tomorrow and preached that we are not just creations or sons of God, but Gods ourselves, as we are made in the Image of God, each with out own 'WORLD' to preside over waiting for us beyond the grave, I'd have a bazillion followers. Compare that to the 7 people who would still be standing around if I mentioned the word 'ape'.

To be honest, I do learn things in discussions like this one, and I'm always of the opinion that nothing is really wasted, especially as someone else may very well learn from the discussion (well except if it's adiscussion about the "brilliance of H*vind, or even a debate involving him. Then, braincells are just simply fried).

Give it up people. You are wasting logical arguments on people who are defending baseless premises. Such arguments are doomed to failure

Don'tbe so pessimistic.

Simmy: @nferyn
I've come across these (and many more) claims of speciation
Yer, but do this 'so-called' speciations = macroevolution
At first glance it might, but think again!

Speciation is macro-evolution.

For true macroevolution to occur these species must GAIN new information in their geneic sequence that now makes interbreeding impossible e.g a rodent modifying its limbs to a wing is macroevolution; this same rodent shortening it's limbs is still microevolution.

What?

ALL observed 'so-called' speciation involve a loss of information,

For example?

What do u know about my faith by the way?
Gene duplication?Huh??
Evolutionists go about bandying such stuff as evidence for evolution while it is still contentious! Repetition does not increase information!and even though some traits can be acquired by mutation,gene amplification blablabla this example will show you how misleading such evidence can be
A bacterium through mutation develops immunity to a particular antibiotic, but it does so because it looses its ability to ingest the antibiotic meant to kill it. Now if that isnt a loss of information, tell me what it is. Grin

It depends on how it becomes immune to the antibiotics, and in many cases it isn't due to the loss of information (as defined by you). A good example would be vancomycin resistant bacteria.

simmy: @kag
first your habit of quoting evrysingle line of my thrd makes it hrd to reply u, but i'll try
I'm adressing evry single reply u give when quoting me

My apologies, force of habit; although to be fair it was a rather long post containing quite a lot.

Quote 1
The 2+2=22 stuff was referring to your (i.e evolutionists) line of reasoning. It doesnt make sense does it? Then why do u state nobody can claim ure wrong UNTIL he can propose a better tteory. Because a better theory does not xist does not make u right!

First of all, it would seem the two are not analogous, but even if we were to accept your example as a valid analogy, you’d still be wrong. The theory of evolution, like other scientific theories, is not just based on an assertation like 2+2=22, aha I’m right until you prove me wrong. It’s based on evidence. However, because science tries not to be dogmatic, it dictates that it’s theories should be both peer reviewed, and falsifiable. So rather than being a case of “aha, I’m right until you can prove me wrong”, it’s more of, “the evidence says this, our research show that, our observations show this, and our predictions are this, therefore the parsimonious conclusion would be….”, followed by a, “and this is how the theory can be falsified”.

Quote 3
None whatsoever, but u can only claim it actually happens, uve got no proof. Fossil records don't support macroevoluiton.

But the fossil record does support macro-evolution. In fact they were – still are – a strong evidence for evolution, and genetics have only confirmed that aspect.

Quote 4
Ure the one missing the point. No one says a cat ACTUALLY changes into a dog.But evolutionists say dogs evolved from simple unicellular organisms till they became complex multicellular organisms until they became dogs. i.e they changed from one specie into ANOTHER! thts the important thing and its just as preposterous as saying a rodent changed over time into a bat.

Except, YOU were the one that made it seem like a dog changing into a cat was what evolution was.

Quote 5
Yhear sure, if u can provide it, whic h i doubt

Speciation using hybidization: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/061288698v1#B1

Quote 6
Yes it is!
Kag says "no it isnt"
Simmy says "yes it is"
blablablayadayadayda

Quote7
I love the word suggest, not prove, many other (many more than u think) have their own way of explaining these records. If you get your facts right u'll be forced to agree (because im sure you wont want to) that there is REALLY no fossil records which beyond reasonable doubt support macroevolution (but of course evolutionists don't want u to know this so they pretend otherwise)

Quote 8
Google it, my guy, my bad, i thought it was common knowledge

No, it really isn’t; practically all biologists, taxonomists, and paleontologists agree on what the fossil record shows, that is, speciation happened and the fossils clearly show that.

Quote 9
I'm trying to make this thread as simple as possible so that it can be followed by just about ANYBODY, what part of the word information don't u understand? Anyhow, i' will define information later in this thread

Oh, I know what information as used by most biologists is, it’s just I’ve seen far too many anti-evolution proponent toss the word “information” around, with the aim of using it as a shifting argument against evolution.

Quote 10
I disagree with u. Just imagine a bird with a half formed wing! Or a lion with blunt teeth, or a human with a half formed brain (just kidding there)

A bird with a half formed wing? You mean like this fella: https://i3.tinypic.com/xkps3m.jpg

Quote 11
Ok
Quote 12
The important thing is thatit is FUNCTIONAL! you're the one assuming it is incomplete in any way.

I was merely pointing out that animals could, and do have half formed organs. Another example that could be given of an organism with a rather rudimentary recently evolved trait, is the bacteria with the ability to degrade nylon oligomer.

Quote 13
Huh yourself, I was speaking english wasn't I? gradual changes as claimed by macroevoluitonists bring about dysfunctionality which is detrimental to the specie evolving, the only way out for evoluitonists is to assume that evolution occurs in leaps (not gradual).

Demonstrably wrong.

Quote 14
What is it about the african elephant, except there is something i'm missimg thats an example of microevolution
About the dog thingy, the point here is that the gene pool is thinned out by selection, natural/artificial and sure ive got evidence

The African elephant is an example of speciation (macro-evolution), there are two African elephant species. The dog example, like I pointed out is AFAIK a result of artificial selection, if you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

Quote 15& 16
Information as used in this thread means codes which contain instruction on how to synthesize the aminoacid sequence in proteins which finally helps in determining the phenotype (or physical appearance ) of the organism. Note that specific bases on their own are not NECESSARILY information because a base might or might not be useful to the dna sequence depending on its position.Incorrect copying of this information most of the time results in what is called nonsense codons which in a general sense results in a lossof information.Anyways, it is a well known fact that an overwhelming majority of mutations have no effect because the body has a way of coping with such (Dna reapair) Mutations only have a noticable effect on an organism when they are placed under unnatural conditions (e.g overexposure to radiation) and even then, its effcts are either deletirious or neutral. Ver,very,very, rarely does it add to functionality

Quote
Mutations which add new information has NEVER been observed in nature. It is quite the contrary! 9.9999999999(raised to atrillion trillion) out of ten times mutations are an incorrect copying of the information or a loss of information. The chances that life evolved through mutation is sooooo close to impossible that it is to all purposes and intent IMPOSSIBLE

Quote
One of the most serious flaws withevoluiton is that natural selection CAN REMOVE Dna information but does not ADD

Thank you for your definition of information .Well, examples of mutations that have added new information (using your criteria), include:

Polyploidy in some animals, and many plants; gene duplication (as already pointed out by Nferyn), the relatively new Bicoid gene in Drosophilas (fruit flies), etc. there are other examples, but those should do for now.

Quote 17
Well,yes i have
Quote 18
If uve read my thread carefully u'll realise why its such a dumb idea

I’ve read your posts carefully, and all it’s shown, is that you have no idea what scientific theories are about, and very little knowledge on what the theory of evolution is about.

Quote 19
Yes it is
[Quote 20- the end
So the creationist is going to lecture the evolutionist on evolution?Hmmm,my guy, go and ask your teachers o![ Theres a lot they can't explain with evolution.

Like what? I’m sure there’s a lot that can’t be explained by the ToE, but I’d like to know yours.

This particualr thread was just to enlighten you on the many HOLES that can be picked in your theory.
I'll post a thread on i.d later. Personally, i wont even claim that id makes more sense (scientific sense that is ) than evoluiton but my point is STOP pushing evoultion around as a fact because it ISNT

Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains and explores that phenomena. I’d be most interested in your ID thread, and in you pointing out the holes.

My initial response got lost with my computer getting restarted, and I got caught up with other things (including a minor "discussion" on another forum), so I'll respond when I wake up (provided I can sleep), I'm too tired to think science right now.

nferyn:
It doesn't. The Earth's ecosystem is not a thermally isolated system. Neither on the input, nor on the output side.

Hmm, I think I see your point.

Fully agree. These processes do happen because the earth is not a thermally isolated system.
Yes, but we have not observed a phenomenon yet that contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. And even if that were the case, the first thing to do would be to check the experimental setup again and see if all variables are accounted for.

I know, I know, but I was hoping to get across the fact nothing in science is set in stone, and how new data, WITH EVIDENCE, can change things.

xkape:
@KAG
why the "damn , you". totally unnecessary.
at least it is good u admit u can't use a snowflake to explain entropy

The damn you was necessary, because you were being - and are still being - a disingenious arse. Once again, you stated "random translations of elements in a system modified by an even more mindless environmental pressure cannot lead to a decrease in entropy". I showed you you were wrong with the example of the snowflake. Geesh.

simmy:
Hi nferyn and kag
. Evolutionists claim that intelligent design cannot be considered a theory but turn around and tell us that evoluiton cannot be proven to be right until its proven to be wrong(as applies to all theories) i.e 2+2=22 You can't tell me i'm wrong until u come up with a better number!! (Nferyn,feel free to tell me that my analogy does not apply in this case)

No you have it wrong, yes the theory of evolution can’t be proven, because science doesn’t do proofs. No theory is proven, however, a theory has to have empirical evidence behind it, have research behind it, and more importantly be falsifiable. ID has none of those, therefore it isn't a theory. i don't know what you are doing with the the 2+2 thing, but whatever.

Evoluiton can be viewed it in 2 ways, if u consider evolution to mean a change in the gene pool of a population over a period of time, then i agree with u that evoluiton is a fact!

That's a step in the right direction.

But evoluitonists go a step further and insist that 'all species' which exist today descended from a common ancestor, i.e they all evolved in different directions from some simple organism over a long period of time (I'm trying to keep my language as simple as possible).Then,they tend to lump macroevolution with microevoluiton while ignoring the fact that theres a whole load of difference between them.

What are the differences? What magic barrier that stops micro- from becoming macro-?

They claim maccro and micro are the same thing but insisting that a dog over years has grown bigger and smarter is a far cry from stating that this same dog has changed to a cat!

Ugh, if you think that's what the ToE is about, it's no wonder you oppose it. Nobody with a basic knowledge on the ToE would say a dog became a cat - they share acommon ancestor after all. What people fail to understand, is that evolution doesn't mean an offspring would be something totally different from it's parent. To quote Aron Nelson, "Evolution never suggests that one thing ever turned into something else. Every new species or genus, (etc.) that ever evolved was just a modified version of whatever its ancestors were." (from http://home.comcast.net/~aronra/Taxonomy.html).

I am yet to meet an evolutionist who has a reasonable explanation to exactly how small minor changes become dramatic and obvious. Variation even in extreme cases NEVER brings about nothing more than a variant of the SAME species. i.e a great dane and a lapdog might not look anything alike but they are still both dogs! Biochemically they are practically identical! It can be argued that variation can occur indefinitely until it produces a variation that is so at variant with the original species as to be considered a different specie but ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE!!! has been observed to support such bold claims.

I'd say it's either you haven't met many "evolusionists", or no response was reasonable for you, for whatever reasons.you cread Aron's if you desire. By the way, would you like evidence of observed speciation?

The tendency to by evoluiitonists to lump micro and macroevoluiton together is a clever ploy!T

No it isn't!

There are simply no examples in nature which even remotely indicate a change of species through evoluiton. Of course it is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a layman to be aware of such facts and so evoluiton as a fact is fed to an ignorant public.

what about the fossil record, you know fossils like the dinosaur to bird transitionals, or what about things like endogenous retroviral insertions (ERVs), they suggest that speciation happened. What about the African elephant (see http://www.sbs.utexas.edu/levin/bio311d/articles/science_ecology.pdf).

Even fossils dated to pre-historic times (such as ants)have been observed to be exactly identical with mordern organisms.

Do you have a source for that? Not doubting, just asking.

One of the most serious flaws withevoluiton is that natural selection CAN REMOVE Dna information but does not ADD.

Maybe you should start with a definition of information, then we can move on to addressing your claim.

Another problem is the fact that when a trait is neccesary for the survival of a specie it HAS to be fully functional.

Not necessarily. Also, sometimes the trait may be dormant in one environment, and become useful in a different niche. Also, sometimes the feature can be rudimentary and still function.

i.e a dogs extremely sensitive nose could not have evolved 'gradually' because dogs in the wild are TOTALLY dependent on their keen sense of smell. A dog with a half formed nose (in terms of sensitivity) would have found it hard to ctach its prey and so would have gone extinct faster than the time required for it to evolve the fully sensitive nose.

I would suggest that the keen sense of smell in dogs developed before they became dogs, and that has evolved to what it is now. I could always find out more for on the evolution of smell in dogs for you, actually I'll do that and post my findings.

Simply put, the idea of a half formed organ of any kind in any animal is simply illogical. Gradual evoluiton only produces dysfunctionality between species!!!

You mean like the half formed heart of fishes? Mammals have a four chambered heart consisting of two ventricles and two atriums; while "A fish's heart on the other hand, is made up of a closed system consisting of two main chambers, one atrium and one ventricle. Fish seem to be doing fine though, with their literaly half formed organ.

The only way out is to assume that their is a sort of leap in changes observed which favours creationists, except it is argued that ALL cells have encoded in them the ability to change into any organism (something similar to human stem cells), but again their is NO evidence to support this.

Huh?

The fact that species don't change (or evolve) is indirectly proven by the genetic code. In simple terms, even though there is an unlimited amount of variation which can result from rearranging the genetic code,there is a LIMITED amount of TRAIT variatons. NO NEW GENETIC MATERIAL CAN BE ADDED. Nature is simply shuffling the same old stuff around over and over and over again. The only phenomenon which favours evoluiton in nature is mutation. Without mutation, no new addition can penetrate the boundaries of the genetic code. A contradiction to evoluiton that is unknown to most laymen is that exxagerrated variation makes species prone to diseases, in ohter words the species is prone to genetically induced diseases.An obvious example is dogs which have been overbred. Everyone knows that the mongrel is hardier than the exotic pedigree. Evoluitonists ignore the fact that natural selection ACTUALLY thins out the gene pool in the very long run.

First, species do speciate, see examples like the 'African elephant. Second, the dog example is a result of artificial selection by man as opposed to natural selection. Basically, due to being bred and selected specifically by man, dogs have changed drastically. Finally, any evidence that natural selection thins out the gene pool?

For evoluiton (macro) to be possible NEW information has to be added to the gene pool . I'm still waiting for someone,ANYONE to suggest to me how this happens.MUTATION?
I laugh !!

Before you go on a laughing fit, could you define information.

Mutations which add new information has NEVER been observed in nature. It is quite the contrary! 9.9999999999(raised to atrillion trillion) out of ten times mutations are an incorrect copying of the information or a loss of information. The chances that life evolved through mutation is sooooo close to impossible that it is to all purposes and intent IMPOSSIBLE!!!

Define information, also, surely you are not suggesting incorrect copying of "information" = loss of information, are you? Now I really need to see your definition of information.

There is NO evidence of macroevolution. Fossil records show a zero change.

Really? Have you honestly looked at the information on the fossil record? I sincerely doubt that.

Microevolution DOES occur but in strict terms that is not evolution.Interdependency of species also makes evoluiton qite a dumb idea. Nature is filled with species that are totally dependent on each other. That renders evoluiton as an impossibility in an indirect sort of way.

Why? Don't just say it makes it a dumb idea etc, tell us why.

I maintain that the concept of evoluiton is a very bright idea and one can get carried away when one views it in isolation of other fcts but when the whole picture is viewed it becomes obvious that evolution is rather an improbable theory.

No it isn't.

Intelligent design on the other hand makes no pretext. It recognises the amazing complexity that exists in life and says "if there exists such a complex design, it is only logical to assume that their is a designer".

]

So it is an argument from, I don't know how that happened, therefore Go - I mean Intelligent Designer(Wink, wink).

It does not ATTEMPT to explain how the design came to be or state who the designer is.

Then of what use is it?

LAST WORD: Even evolutionists confess that they can't explain the exact mechanism of evolution, so how are they different from creationists? Please shed off this cloak of intellectual superiority and admit that you are as much at a loss as to how life came to be as anyone else.

Huh? You mean the mechanism of natural selection and mutations? Also we are talking origin of species here, not origin of life. In time the origin of life question will be answered satisfactorily.

As a conclusion, I was going to ask you to actually present some scientific evidence for ID, but since it looks like you've basically made it seem (at least to me) ID is useless scientifically, I'll simply ask for a definition of "information", and an answer to the other questions asked.

donnie:
I believe in the possibility of evolution for a time in the world that then existed (before Adam).

But since Adam, over six thousand years, there has been no evolution.

That's not true.

There are facts: fossils of homo-erectus (ape-men), dinnisoars, cities etc. which go a long way to prove the existence of life on earth millions of years ago ( whereas man has been on earth according to the bible, since Adam, for about six thousand years).

Except man has demontrably been around a lot longer than 6000 years, and nowhere in the Bible does a date appear.

The bible does not deny or contradict the evolution theory.

But present day man and earth did not come as a result of evolution.

no, present day man came as a result of evolution.

nferyn:
xkape,

I really wonder why you keep coming up with the second law of thermodynamics. That law does not apply to the earth's ecosystem, as it is not a closed system and even less to our genetic material, as it is a subsystem of subsystems of subsystems of , on our planet all of which are anything but closed.

I diasgree, the law is aplicable to the Earth's ecosystem, and to some extent can be applied to the genome, but it doesn't actually support the creationists argument.

One interesting thing about thermodynamics and creationists, is that many creationists don't realise some of their arguments rule out possibility of reproduction, germination etc, ever happening. That in itself should give an indication that the argument has gone awry.

Also, somebody once raised what I thought was a valid point a long while back. His point was something along the lines of, "if we observe something that contradicts the second law of thermodynamics - and indeed any law - it stands to reason that like the Newtonian gravity law, the law doesn't apply to that circumstance."

xkape:
@KAG
Why do evolutionists use arguments like the snowflake to cover unexplainable gaps in their theory?

Damn you, what gaps*? It was an adequate response to this rubbish that you spouted as fact: "random translations of elements in a system modified by an even more mindless environmental pressure cannot lead to a decrease in entropy"

First of all, a snowflake dovetails exactly with entropy. the very formation of an ice crystal involes a loss of energy which leads to a reduction in temperature which leads to a decrease in entropy. Thermo 101!

Exactly! Formation of snowflakes causes a decrease in entropy in the snowflake, which is a refutation to what you stated, "random translations of elements in a system modified by an even more mindless environmental pressure cannot lead to a decrease in entropy".

This cannot be used to explain entropy in genetic material because temperature and pressure do not play a significant role in mutation and genetic transformation
Other examples of molecular complexing occur in nature: the various forms of carbon (graphite, diamond etc), sulphur, metamorphic rocks and so on. U will agree that all these are brought about by extreme physical conditions of temperature and pressure. So they cannot be compared to what goes on inside a cell

I wasn't using snowflakes to explain entropy in the genome, I was using snowflakes as an example outside of evolution, as a rebuttal to "random translations of elements in a system modified by an even more mindless environmental pressure cannot lead to a decrease in entropy".

Was that all?

welborn:
Thank you for your comments, KAG.

No problem

I would never have been able to say a word on the historicity of Christ if I had not read any of those materials quoted above. The problem is, we've been told earlier that there was just nothing to indicate that Jesus ever existed; and the same sources also claimed that none of the Roman officials existed - not even Pilate! And what is staggering is that the same scholars came back to tell us that John the Baptist actually existed as a historical figure, even though they previously denied that he did.

[/quote]Any one who claims Pilate never existed is, in my opinion, not a scholar.

[quote]It was such kinds of claims that drove me to obtain the copies of the materials and read for myself whether or not these claims had substance. Please believe me, KAG - when you have read them, you will see how these scholars are misleading the public; and so many people who don't take the time to check the claims will fall for them. That is why I have appealed time and again that people should go read these sources for themselves and see what is really going on!
Thank you once again for your comments.

In my experience though, most of the scholars aren't misleading people, at least not intentionally.

jagunlabi:
True that.Just because jesus was not mentioned may not mean that he never existed,but almost as disturbing is the fact that he and his movement may not have been as significant at that time as he was made to be in the canonical gospels.
We should bear in mind that there were many messiah candidates,and people with the "christ" epithet.
There is no way the gospel Jesus could've been ignored by historians with all those miracles he did!Walking on water and miraculously feeding thousands are events that are not simply possible to be ignored by any historians,if those things actually happened.

It is for that reason I leave room for several possibilities like, rather Yeshua ben Yosef ever existing, "Jesus" as a whole, could have been built around the amalgation of several people, which may have included the likes of John the Baptist, Simon the Magi, Yeshua ben Pandira, and Yeshua ben Stada.

4 Play:
While common sence dictates that nothing can come out of nothing hence there must have been a higher being,i.e God,that is the source of life.

Actually, that's an assumption on your part. The existences of the Earth's organisms, the Earth, and the Universe, are not necessarily dependent on a higher being. I do agree with the rest of your post though.

welborn:
@jagunlabi,


If you can be a gentleman and face up with the facts in front of you, go and read these historical sources -

¤ - Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD) - read his literary works

¤ - Thallus, who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD

¤ - Ignatius, letter to the Magnesians (110-115 AD)

¤ - Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD), in his letter to Minucius Fundanus, the Asian proconsul

¤ - Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD

I would remove Thallus and Pliny from the list, never heard of Hadrian, and never read Ignatius, so i can't comment on them. Tacitus is slighly debatable, but in my opinion, it holds.

You may call all these 'myths', and that would be forgiveable as long as you're only trumpeting the same propadanda that your researchers are selling to you. I have read those materials for myself, and I urge you to read them for yourself as well - be bold and take up my challenges! One more thing your scholars have not been able to answer: if these outside sources are myths, would it be right to say that Pontus Pilate was also a myth, or that Caesar and the Romans were myths? All I ask is that you lay down your noise and go read these historical documents and prove to yourself who has been selling lies to the public - me or your researchers!!

I can understand where the "Jesus was a myth" crowd are coming from, because with all due respect, there is more evidence for Pilate existing, and even more for the Caesars, than for Jesus'. That is not to say though, that a Yeshua ben Yosef never existed.

helping hand.

Because they killed his Messiah, yarrr! . I keed, I keed.

nirron1:
KAG,so u prefer to lie for honour and then disobey your GOD.

Who matters most,your honour or your God.

My honour? I meant honourable in the sense of deserving respect. Sometimes a lie is necessary to save an innocent life, that in itself is honourable as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather be damned, than tell the truth to damn an innocent. Hope that helps.

xkape:
@KAG
sorry for my silence, i was away

Not a problem.

u asked how evolution flies inthe face of other scientific fields?
lets keep it simple
thermodynamics- the tendency of systems is for entropy to increase with time.

That is a simple and succinct description of the second law of thermodynamics, however, a few additions, the total entropy of any[b] isolated thermodynamic system[/b] if unhindered, tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value (partly from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics). Also, although the law mostly applies to macroscopic systems, it can to some extent be applied to microscopic systems (which is what the genome is).

i believe u will not argue that a genome can be considered as a thermodynamic system?

Yes

more importantly it is not a closed system.

Yes.

genetic material is constantly under "attack" by elements in the environment eg radiation, free radicals in the body and all sorts of factors that lead to degradation or an increase in entropy. this process is essential for mutation which u say is the basis for evolutionary change

Not necessarily. Mutations also can, and do occur, from mistakes during cell copying of its DNA for cell division. Also, mutations due to environmental factors, do not necessarily lead to degradation, in fact if that were the case, the mutation of the many troublesome bacteria in medicine, would not be a problem. That in itself shows that entropy does not necessarily increase.

ike in said before the natural tendency of systems is toward an increase in chaos and so for a species to maintain its integrity (because the very essense of an organism lies in an exact ordered arangement of nucleic acid base pairs) over time, mechanisms have to be in place that will go against this trend. these error checking mechanisms are well documented. if in doubt pick up any book on molecular biology

Although the DNA repair system manages to repair most of the copying errors, and damages, it is important to note that it doesn’t and can't always repair all of the mutations, in practically every species in existence (it is important to know, that a species with perfect DNA repair systems is far more likely to become extinct, if their environmental niche starts to change.

the mutations we percieve in life forms are an interaction between entropy and the degree of freedom allowed within the genetic framework. ( i believe we do not have to go into a discussion about the relationship between number of elements in a system and the degrees of freedom or permutations possible). this relationship is fixed. so mathematically we can predict the maximum amount of deviation a mutant can have from its parent gene. any mutation outside this must mean than the total entropy of the system has increased due to external pressure to such an extent that internal cohesive forces cannot cope with. this will always lead to increased disorder

We may actually need to go into discussion about the “relationship between number of elements in a system and the degrees of freedom or permutations possible”, because I’d like to see something on the mathematical ability to predict the maximum amount of deviation a mutant can have from its parent gene”.

Evolution is based on the premise that random genetic variation modified by environmental forces leads to speciation.

Evolution is based on the premise that beneficial and/or neutral random genetic variation in a population, and selected for by environmental factors, can lead to speciation.

this is plausible only within an entropy basement (a minimum level of entropy). random translations of elements in a system modified by an even more mindless environmental pressure cannot lead to a decrease in entropy. yet what we see across species is progressively decreasing levels of entropy (or increase in orderliness) in the genetic structure.

That’s demonstrably untrue, if one has ever heard of a snow flake. Furthermore, I should add, that an increase in “complexity” doesn’t necessarily mean or need a decrease in entropy; mindlessness doesn’t necessarily mean undirected, and the filter of selection helps to reduce bad mutations.

let me elucidate. the simplest forms of viruses have a few strands of RNA or DNA in their nucleus. As life appears on earth with time, we have increase in the order structure and complexity of nuclear material in living things. this cannot be accounted for by random variation. in fact the very energy of the sun infusing into the earth everyday should ensure the breakdown of nuclear material because infusion of energy into a closed system increases entropy.

Well, not if you take only random mutations into account, but coupled with the process(es) of natural selection, and other selections. . .

By the way, which closed system?

Thus the difference in number of elements, and entropy between a bacterial DNA and a human one cannot be explained away by randomness and environment. in fact randomness and environmrnt should lead to a de-evolution of life forms

I really don’t see why. Humans didn’t evolve from bacteria; bacteria have been evolving for as long as humans, in that they are as evolved as humans. Also, I’d have thought the entropy in bacteria would same as in humans. Could you explain why that wouldn’t be the case?

another paradox is science has shown that there is more variation within lower level life forms than higher level ones. there are probably a million more species of bacteria than mammals. also there are lots more species of fish than reptiles. if the supposition of evolution was true, the organisms with more genes to play with should speciate more than those with less. in thermodynamic terms, more genetic material = more degrees of freedom.

let us use the analogy of a tree. a stem may have 5 boughs, a bough should have at least five branches, a branch should have many more leaves. but this is not what we observe. as time goes by, across-species variation reduces. Is evolution winding down?

What a load of cobblers. There are more species of bacteria because of their mode and rates of reproduction (to put it simply). Also, fishes are lower level life forms in comparism to reptiles? Speciation does not necessarily happen because of the amount of genes a species have, if that were the case. Finally, plants have more genes than humans and have more speciation than humans, bacteria have fewer genes than humans, yet have more speciation too.

Reason for edit: Correct grammar

dakmanzero:
lol

KAG there is no need to shout.

Lol, I know. Although sometimes if it's large enough, people will notice.

gidig:
In my early days at the university, I used to believe in evolution-not that I was so convinced that it was the solution to my questions about existence but is was an answer anyway.All of science and the progress we have made in life hold on to the submissions of Darwin.I had lecturers who who were evolutionist and they still believed in their traditional African gods.

No, all of science and the progress we've made in life, DO NOT hold on to the submissions of Darwin. Your lecturers believed in their Gods because evolution does not preclude a religious belief.

Why can't you repeat the processes of evolution then?

We can.

Another school has emerged that conceeds thatn God should be given some credit-thetrefore,He caused evolution.Confusion!

That school of thought has been in existence for probably longer than the ToE. Theistic evolusioniists know that evolution =\= atheism.

Recent researches have proven that there must be an intelligent designer behind the intricate designs that comprises the universe.This things are not just happenng of their own.

If you are referring to Intelligent Design, I'ld be most interested in seeing the researches. Actually, it would help if you could give us an idea of the researches.

All this 'evolution is it' is only a fear that there might just be God and if there is a God and we -the evolutionists-are wrong, the consequences are greatb indeed.It is thatr fear that informs the not so verifiable plunge into evolutionism.A person who is not living the life that God expects is in fear of thejustice of that God-the being who design even the smallest organism so intricately and with theoir define purposes.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of this kind of Wisdom!

. Once again, for the upteenth time, evolution =\= atheism. Wait, this might help:
https://i3.tinypic.com/wtiqog.gif

If you want to discuss atheism and the unbelief in your God, then start a new thread, I'll participate.

Nwoke:
What if the God you choose is not the correct one? if you choose jesus and you meet Allah you will burn in hell. If you choose Allah and you meet jehovah the same thing. And what if God turns out to be someone who loves evildoers and atheists but hates religious people and sends them to hell? What if he's a tyrant?

https://i3.tinypic.com/wsn4mo.jpg

The complete cartoon: http://ononion.livejournal.com/1576.html

Babybee:
life or no life after death,i believe it is better to live your life as if there is God and die to find out there isn't than live your life as it there isn't and die to know there is.Uhm, that's going to be a bit disheartening. I bet you don't want to say HAD I KNOWN!!!

That Pascal was one hell of a rogue, and has a lot to answer for (almost makes one wish there was an afterlife).

People lie for many reasons, sometimes it is honorable and justified, other times it is dishonrable and despicable.

How would I feel if i was lied to? Depends on the scenario in question

kimba:
@KAGYou know where you were born?

Yes

where?

None of your business.

who told you?

My parents, relatives, family doctor, my birth certificate, and family friends.

in what capacity of influence and knowledge were you at the time you were born to prove to yourself that whatever details you see on your birth-certificate were true?

Except you have evidence of elaborate birth certificate forgeries, for rubbish and giggles,, I don't see the purpose of that question.

You also know the doctor? you didnt recognize who the doctor was when you were born, did you?

Didn't need to. By the way, I also knew one of the nurses that claimed to have been there too, and I really can't think of any reason why both off them would lie. Can you?

have you tried verifying the records of your birth, what degree of truthfulness do the documents have, there are a hundred other people who have features similar to your mother, so youre not the only one.

Erm, there are people forging birth documents, that are important to my health? Okay.

genetic traits? you sure?

Yes. I also mentioned a specific one.

To conclude, and put everything together. I know where was born, and have been told by differnet people, and that includes the doctor that gave birth to me, I've seen documents pertaining to my birth, have genetic traits that I share with my mother, and there are other things wich is no ones business.

So, sure there's a chance that I wasn't conceived by a woman, and suddenly dropped from the sky, complete with traits and genes similar to my mother's. Everybody I've come into contact with, has been a brilliant actor/actress involved in this big conspiracy to make me believe the woman I call mother, didn't actually give birth to me; but I think you'll agree, the facts of my birth as I know them, and have shown, should indeed show beyond reasonable doubt, that my mother is who she. That is by far the most parsimonious explanation. Also, like I pointed out, if Wasn't sure, and needed to be sure, I could always go for the DNA test option.

Now stop tap dancing, and answer what was asked of you.

I asked if you believe in good/evil and you say i should define it. I was asking for a Yes/No answer

A working definition would help me give an adequate reply, because my concept and definition of Good and/or evil, may defer significantly from yours. Also, the fact you seem to be trying to tie the question to the evolution and creation debate, makes a definition even more essential.

So, "define Good and Evil, and explain how you think they tie into an evolution/creation debate."

kimba:

ONE
@KAG
You picked my post apart yet, you refused to answer my question. here again:
"tell me, what theory/practical experiment have you proved, since the day you were born to convince you that your mother IS your mother, or if you never knew her, what theory/practical experiment have you proved, since the day you were born to convince you that your father IS your father tell me, ok, and If you can give me a concrete answer, ill tell you why i know that the Bible is from God.

I give you a clue:
My Bible says:
Ps 10:4 - The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts."

One, the post I responded to, did not have that question. Two, the question was adderessed to somebody else, and it didn't seem germane to what was being discussed. Finally, though the question in itself is a red herring, I'll bite.

Before I answer your question, I'll point out again, that science does not doe proofs, so no matter what experiment I do, I technically can't "prove" my mother gave birth to me.

Answer: I know where I was born, know the doctor that gave birth to me, know details of my birth, and have seen records of my birth. Also, I have several features that I inherited from my mother, and more importantly, I also inherited several genetic traits (right word?) from her, which includes an unusual haemoglobin variant.

If those things I've listed, and many others (which belong no where on a message board full of anonymous starngers) weren't good enough, I could always do a DNA test, to show beyond 98/99%, that she gave bith to me.

Your turn.

TWO another thing:
A callous, heartless religion is that which defines it's God as a cold and unmerciful deity, quick to anger and even quicker to condemn it's people to an eternity in fire."
- Sherman Milliken


Oh really, now, you know what, God has been looking for you, but you're the one playing hide and seek.

Ignoring the illogical concept of hiding from an Omni-God, I'm not hiding from any deity, if God suddenly pops into existence, she knows where to find me.

THREE remember that i said, in our chat:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-11284.64.htmlOn the other hand, remember you havent told me what you have benefitted from your Aethist belief, neither have you answered my question about what would say to encourage people to come over to the Aethist side of the fence.

Now you're just being obtuse, read the thread in question again.

FOUR
Do you believe in the existence of good and evil, even in evolution or creation? Yes or No.

Define Good and Evil, and explain how you think they tie into an evolution/creation debate.