Debunking a mofo on intelligent design.

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
ryu
Poster
Posts: 172
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2016 5:50 am

Debunking a mofo on intelligent design.

Postby ryu » Sat Jul 02, 2016 9:18 pm

Here is proof of evolution
. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.

2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.

Please watch this video for an excellent demonstration of fossils transitioning from simple life to complex vertebrates.

3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.

4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered “chordates” because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.

In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.

5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.


Here is a rebuttal

What that shows is that all life was created using the same method. It does not necessarily mean that man evolved from other beings any more than cars evolved from bicycles because welding is involved in both.

2.How can you accurately tell the age of rocks? Also it is only in some areas that fossils can actually be made. There are also lots of different ways that they can be made. Recent volcanic eruptions have been known to leave behind rock formations that look exactly the same as the ones that are supposed to be millions of years old. Most dating methods rely on conditions being exactly the same as now, all the way back to the beginning, and there is plenty of evidence to show that conditions were not always the same as now on earth, within human memory too.

3. See number 1.

4. Life follows basic patterns, in the same way that bicycles, cars, trams, buses etc. are all based on the wheel. The wheel is not their common ancestor though.

5. Adaptation is common to all life, but it is not evolution into different types. Bacteria will adapt, but it will not evolve into something completely different.

1. There would be no real reason for a designer like a god to reuse a design...Hell it just raises more questions
2. Dating rocks is an exact science easily looked up. Your assumption that we expect things to be the same then as now is a bit of a Strawman.
3. See 1.
4. See here: viewtopic.php?f=33&t=25534
5. http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/The_chanc ... re_too_low

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7007
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Debunking a mofo on intelligent design.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jul 02, 2016 9:25 pm

I'd like to hear from a real mofo! Youtube is full of them. but I'm biased. When you've heard 349 specious arguments regarding design....searching out or even being patient with No 350 is.........unreasonable.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2118
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Debunking a mofo on intelligent design.

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Jul 03, 2016 11:47 am

Adaptation the way Creationists (which is the same as all ID proponents) use it is so ill-defined that you can always use it instead of evolution.

Sometimes it works to show how badly "designed" some species are. Or to point out that according to ID, whales are aquatically adapted cows.

Dating rocks only requires that radioactive decay rates are the same now as they were a million/billion years ago.
"As private parts to the gods are we! They play with us for their sport. "
- Lord Melchett, Blackadder II

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 17664
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Debunking a mofo on intelligent design.

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Jul 03, 2016 12:01 pm

talkorgins.org
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

LogicalSceptic
New Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 7:20 pm

Re: Debunking a mofo on intelligent design.

Postby LogicalSceptic » Fri Dec 09, 2016 8:35 pm

Hi ryu,
Firstly, I'm not arguing for ID but there are a couple of items I'd question.

Item 2. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.


I'd agree with the first part. The simplest tend to be found in the oldest rocks. However there is no gradual transformation from one form of life to another in the fossil record. The Cambrian period is proof of this. Ready formed complex phyla with compound eyes are found with no pre-cursors in the pre-cambrian.
It has been argued that no fossils had been found in the pre-cambrian that were ancestors because were too soft bodied to be fossilised.
However, since this theory was put forward, soft bodied fossils have been found in the pre-cambrian such as sponges.
There is nothing that resembles any of the complex phyla found in the Cambrian.
It's also been argued by mathematicians that given the millions of fossils found now, they would expect to have found some in the pre-Cambrian that looked like ancestors of the Cambrian phyla.
It is believed that these complex phyla appeared over a 5-6 million year period which has led some evolutionary scientists to come up with alternative theories to the Darwinian slow and gradual evolution. I think punctuated equilibrium was one, which has since been discarded.

4. Gill slits.

This is a common misunderstanding. The human embryo does not have gill slits. They are simply folds of skin.

Regards
LS
Last edited by LogicalSceptic on Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 17664
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Debunking a mofo on intelligent design.

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Dec 09, 2016 11:54 pm

Seriously, the {!#%@} Pre-Cambrian "Explosion"? Have you no Google-fu at all? ?
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
gorgeous
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3230
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Debunking a mofo on intelligent design.

Postby gorgeous » Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:11 am

Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
gorgeous
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3230
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Debunking a mofo on intelligent design.

Postby gorgeous » Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:34 am

and fractal endless design https://youtu.be/foxD6ZQlnlU
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
gorgeous
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3230
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Debunking a mofo on intelligent design.

Postby gorgeous » Sat Dec 10, 2016 8:19 pm

come on science fans.....tell me the videos^^^ are not accurate or real because they weren't in a science journal...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
gorgeous
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3230
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Debunking a mofo on intelligent design.

Postby gorgeous » Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:42 pm

wellll?
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23808
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Debunking a mofo on intelligent design.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:49 pm

gorgeous wrote:wellll?
Well what?

A Mandelbrot is simply a mathematical calculation. It is no more exciting that "1" divided by "3" which is 0.33333333333333333 (infinite). Didn't you know? :lol:

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 14934
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Debunking a mofo on intelligent design.

Postby scrmbldggs » Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:58 pm

georgie wrote:wellll?




:hmm:







georgie wrote:...is real...



Image

User avatar
gorgeous
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3230
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Debunking a mofo on intelligent design.

Postby gorgeous » Sun Dec 11, 2016 12:10 am

it means intelligent design does exist.....and God is the designer...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23808
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Debunking a mofo on intelligent design.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Dec 11, 2016 12:16 am

gorgeous wrote:it means intelligent design does exist.....and God is the designer...


How does any mathematical formula prove intelligent design exists? You forgot to explain that bit. :lol:

You also forgot (on purpose) that 90% of your DNA doesn't do anything as it is a legacy from evolution. Why would a designer include all that "junk DNA"? Please explain.... :lol:

User avatar
gorgeous
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3230
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Debunking a mofo on intelligent design.

Postby gorgeous » Sun Dec 11, 2016 12:17 am

just to confuse you....
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23808
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Debunking a mofo on intelligent design.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Dec 11, 2016 12:20 am

gorgeous wrote:just to confuse you....
Why did your "God" go to such an effort to confuse you? Doesn't he like you? Please explain why your God confused you so much....... in your own words.... :lol:

LogicalSceptic
New Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 7:20 pm

Re: Debunking a mofo on intelligent design.

Postby LogicalSceptic » Sun Dec 11, 2016 7:05 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
gorgeous wrote:it means intelligent design does exist.....and God is the designer...


How does any mathematical formula prove intelligent design exists? You forgot to explain that bit. :lol:

You also forgot (on purpose) that 90% of your DNA doesn't do anything as it is a legacy from evolution. Why would a designer include all that "junk DNA"? Please explain.... :lol:


Regarding junk DNA being 90%. This is out of date information.
In 2012 three leading science journals (Nature, Genome Research and Genome Biology) published a series of groundbreaking papers reporting on the results of a massive study of the human genome called the ENCODE project.
ENCODE stands for Encyclopedia of DNA Elements.
The conclusion was that at LEAST 80% of the genome performs significant biological functions, making redundant the view that the human genome is mostly junk DNA.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23808
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Debunking a mofo on intelligent design.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Dec 11, 2016 10:30 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:You also forgot (on purpose) that 90% of your DNA doesn't do anything as it is a legacy from evolution. Why would a designer include all that "junk DNA"? Please explain.... :lol:
LogicalSceptic wrote:Regarding junk DNA being 90%. This is out of date information.

OK that's a fair call. :D

I was trying to keep it simple for Gorgeous. (Gorgeous spams the forum about her religion: that an channeled alien, called Seth, somehow made aliens and Lizard people mate to create the Illuminati which secretly runs all governments.)

If you go to the "Stoned Ape" thread you can see a very long discussion on evolution and epigenetics. Epigentics is where alternative gene sets for a characteristic are passed over due to some external environmental factor. Additionally "back up" repeated gene sets for a characteristic get turned "back on again" if the "first cab off the rank" gene set goes through a bad mutation. There is quite a lot going on in that 90% of "Junk genes"
:D

If an intelligent designer made a human with no "junk DNA" it is doubtful humans could continue to evolve at any pace to match our changing environment, if at all. Therefore, there obviously is no "intelligent designer" but just our evolved evolutionary legacy, in our DNA.

LogicalSceptic
New Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 7:20 pm

Re: Debunking a mofo on intelligent design.

Postby LogicalSceptic » Mon Dec 12, 2016 8:39 am

If you go to the "Stoned Ape" thread you can see a very long discussion on evolution and epigenetics. Epigentics is where alternative gene sets for a characteristic are passed over due to some external environmental factor.


I've read a little bit about epigenetics and it seems quite logical that environmental factors would play a part. Afterall the human organism is affected by environmental factors.

Additionally "back up" repeated gene sets for a characteristic get turned "back on again" if the "first cab off the rank" gene set goes through a bad mutation.


Didn't know about this. Thanks for the information. :)

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 17664
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Debunking a mofo on intelligent design.

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Dec 12, 2016 11:30 am

The basics: (I've owned several copies of each, they are handy to give to friends who are unclear on the issue.)

Image

Image
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23808
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Debunking a mofo on intelligent design.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Dec 12, 2016 10:39 pm

LogicalSceptic wrote:I've read a little bit about epigenetics and it seems quite logical that environmental factors would play a part. After all the human organism is affected by environmental factors.


There was big debate here concerning epigentics. One person claimed epigentics could change the evolutionary path of a species. However the RNA sequences that trigger different alternative gene sets, and those alternative gene sets themselves, both have to have already evolved for the process to work. So, in essence, epigentics is just another process that arose through normal evolution.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26856
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Golden Spiral Trump
Location: Transcona

Re: Debunking a mofo on intelligent design.

Postby Gord » Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:24 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:The basics: (I've owned several copies of each, they are handy to give to friends who are unclear on the issue.)

Image

Image

I had a copy of each of those once, but my sister burnt them to get her fireplace going. She told me she thought they were old phone books. :befuddled:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 17664
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Debunking a mofo on intelligent design.

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:23 am

You let a five year old play with fire?
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26856
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Golden Spiral Trump
Location: Transcona

Re: Debunking a mofo on intelligent design.

Postby Gord » Tue Dec 13, 2016 5:43 pm

Yes, but that's a separate issue.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9821
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Debunking a mofo on intelligent design.

Postby OlegTheBatty » Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:21 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:You let a five year old play with fire?


How else will she learn?
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26856
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Golden Spiral Trump
Location: Transcona

Re: Debunking a mofo on intelligent design.

Postby Gord » Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:27 am

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:You let a five year old play with fire?

How else will she learn...

...to play with fire?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE


Return to “Origins”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest