Comments
121 - 140 of 842 Comments Last updated 9 hrs ago
Thinking

Hounslow, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#127
Mar 8, 2013
 
Your two responses to my one post is what the French call l'esprit de l'escalier.
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Cuntard? oh, what you called your mother instead of Mom.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Pahu wrote:
Speech
Speech is uniquely human (a). Humans have both a “prewired” brain capable of learning and conveying abstract ideas, and the physical anatomy (mouth, throat, tongue, larynx, etc.) to produce a wide range of sounds. Only a few animals can approximate some human sounds.
Because the human larynx is low in the neck, a long air column lies above the vocal cords. This helps make vowel sounds. Apes cannot make clear vowel sounds, because they lack this long air column. The back of the human tongue, extending deep into the neck, modulates the airflow to produce consonant sounds. Apes have flat, horizontal tongues, incapable of making consonant sounds (b).
Even if an ape could evolve all the physical equipment for speech, that equipment would be useless without a “prewired” brain for learning language skills, especially grammar and vocabulary.
a. Mark P. Cosgrove, The Amazing Body Human (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), pp. 106–109.
“If we are honest, we will face the facts and admit that we can find no evolutionary development to explain our unique speech center [in the human brain].” Ibid., p. 164.
b. Jeffrey T. Laitman,“The Anatomy of Human Speech,” Natural History, Vol. 93, August 1984, pp. 20–26.
“Chimpanzees communicate with each other by making vocal sounds just as most mammals do, but they don’t have the capacity for true language, either verbally or by using signs and symbols.... Therefore, the speech sound production ability of a chimpanzee vocal tract is extremely limited, because it lacks the ability to produce the segmental contrast of consonants and vowels in a series.... I conclude that all of the foregoing basic structural and functional deficiencies of the chimpanzee vocal tract, which interfere or limit the production of speech sounds, also pertain to all of the other nonhuman primates.” Edmund S. Crelin, The Human Vocal Tract (New York: Vantage Press, 1987), p. 83.
[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
I don't understand your argument. Parlez-vous dauphin?

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Codes, Programs, and Information 1

In our experience, codes are produced only by intelligence, not by natural processes or chance. A code is a set of rules for converting information from one useful form to another. Examples include Morse code and Braille. Code makers must simultaneously understand at least two ways of representing information and then establish the rules for converting from one to the other and back again.

The genetic material that controls the physical processes of life is coded information. Also coded are complex (a) and completely different functions: the transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems, without which the genetic material would be useless, and life would cease (b). It seems obvious that the genetic code and the accompanying transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems were produced simultaneously in each living organism by an extremely high intelligence (c).

a. In 2010, another level of complexity was discovered in the genetic code. On a strand of DNA, a sequence of three adjacent nucleotides form a unit in the genetic code called a codon. Prior to 2010, some codons were thought to have the same function as others. That turns out to not be the case.

“... synonymous codon changes can so profoundly change the role of a protein [that it] adds a new level of complexity to how we interpret the genetic code.” Ivana Weygand-Durasevic and Michael Ibba,“New Roles for Codon Usage,” Science, Vol. 329, 17 September 2010, p. 1474. Also see Fangliang Zhang et al.,“Differential Arginylation of Actin Isoforms Is Regulated by Coding Sequence-Dependent Degradation,” Science, Vol. 329, 17 September 2010, p. 1734–1537.

b.“Genomes [all the DNA of a species] are remarkable in that they encode most of the functions necessary for their interpretation and propagation.” Anne-Claude Gavin et al.,“Proteome Survey Reveals Modularity of the Yeast Cell Machinery,” Nature, Vol. 440, 30 March 2006, p. 631.

The genetic code is remarkably insensitive to translation errors. If the code were produced by random processes, as evolutionists believe, life would have needed about a million different starts before a code could have been stumbled on that was as resilient as the code used by all life today.[See Stephen J. Freeland and Laurence D. Hurst,“Evolution Encoded,” Scientific American, Vol. 290, April 2004, pp. 84–91.]

“This analysis gives us a reason to believe that the A–T and G–C choice forms the best pairs that are the most different from each other, so that their ubiquitous use in living things represents an efficient and successful choice rather than an accident of evolution.”[emphasis added] Larry Liebovitch, as quoted by David Bradley,“The Genome Chose Its Alphabet with Care,” Science, Vol. 297, 13 September 2002, p. 1790.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
Thinking

Hounslow, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

1

More bollocks.
Pahu wrote:
Codes, Programs, and Information 1
In our experience, codes are produced only by intelligence, not by natural processes or chance. A code is a set of rules for converting information from one useful form to another. Examples include Morse code and Braille. Code makers must simultaneously understand at least two ways of representing information and then establish the rules for converting from one to the other and back again.
The genetic material that controls the physical processes of life is coded information. Also coded are complex (a) and completely different functions: the transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems, without which the genetic material would be useless, and life would cease (b). It seems obvious that the genetic code and the accompanying transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems were produced simultaneously in each living organism by an extremely high intelligence (c).
a. In 2010, another level of complexity was discovered in the genetic code. On a strand of DNA, a sequence of three adjacent nucleotides form a unit in the genetic code called a codon. Prior to 2010, some codons were thought to have the same function as others. That turns out to not be the case.
“... synonymous codon changes can so profoundly change the role of a protein [that it] adds a new level of complexity to how we interpret the genetic code.” Ivana Weygand-Durasevic and Michael Ibba,“New Roles for Codon Usage,” Science, Vol. 329, 17 September 2010, p. 1474. Also see Fangliang Zhang et al.,“Differential Arginylation of Actin Isoforms Is Regulated by Coding Sequence-Dependent Degradation,” Science, Vol. 329, 17 September 2010, p. 1734–1537.
b.“Genomes [all the DNA of a species] are remarkable in that they encode most of the functions necessary for their interpretation and propagation.” Anne-Claude Gavin et al.,“Proteome Survey Reveals Modularity of the Yeast Cell Machinery,” Nature, Vol. 440, 30 March 2006, p. 631.
The genetic code is remarkably insensitive to translation errors. If the code were produced by random processes, as evolutionists believe, life would have needed about a million different starts before a code could have been stumbled on that was as resilient as the code used by all life today.[See Stephen J. Freeland and Laurence D. Hurst,“Evolution Encoded,” Scientific American, Vol. 290, April 2004, pp. 84–91.]
“This analysis gives us a reason to believe that the A–T and G–C choice forms the best pairs that are the most different from each other, so that their ubiquitous use in living things represents an efficient and successful choice rather than an accident of evolution.”[emphasis added] Larry Liebovitch, as quoted by David Bradley,“The Genome Chose Its Alphabet with Care,” Science, Vol. 297, 13 September 2002, p. 1790.
[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pahu wrote:
Codes, Programs, and Information 1
In our experience, codes are produced only by intelligence, not by natural processes or chance. A code is a set of rules for converting information from one useful form to another. Examples include Morse code and Braille. Code makers must simultaneously understand at least two ways of representing information and then establish the rules for converting from one to the other and back again.
The genetic material that controls the physical processes of life is coded information. Also coded are complex (a) and completely different functions: the transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems, without which the genetic material would be useless, and life would cease (b). It seems obvious that the genetic code and the accompanying transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems were produced simultaneously in each living organism by an extremely high intelligence (c).
a. In 2010, another level of complexity was discovered in the genetic code. On a strand of DNA, a sequence of three adjacent nucleotides form a unit in the genetic code called a codon. Prior to 2010, some codons were thought to have the same function as others. That turns out to not be the case.
“... synonymous codon changes can so profoundly change the role of a protein [that it] adds a new level of complexity to how we interpret the genetic code.” Ivana Weygand-Durasevic and Michael Ibba,“New Roles for Codon Usage,” Science, Vol. 329, 17 September 2010, p. 1474. Also see Fangliang Zhang et al.,“Differential Arginylation of Actin Isoforms Is Regulated by Coding Sequence-Dependent Degradation,” Science, Vol. 329, 17 September 2010, p. 1734–1537.
b.“Genomes [all the DNA of a species] are remarkable in that they encode most of the functions necessary for their interpretation and propagation.” Anne-Claude Gavin et al.,“Proteome Survey Reveals Modularity of the Yeast Cell Machinery,” Nature, Vol. 440, 30 March 2006, p. 631.
The genetic code is remarkably insensitive to translation errors. If the code were produced by random processes, as evolutionists believe, life would have needed about a million different starts before a code could have been stumbled on that was as resilient as the code used by all life today.[See Stephen J. Freeland and Laurence D. Hurst,“Evolution Encoded,” Scientific American, Vol. 290, April 2004, pp. 84–91.]
“This analysis gives us a reason to believe that the A–T and G–C choice forms the best pairs that are the most different from each other, so that their ubiquitous use in living things represents an efficient and successful choice rather than an accident of evolution.”[emphasis added] Larry Liebovitch, as quoted by David Bradley,“The Genome Chose Its Alphabet with Care,” Science, Vol. 297, 13 September 2002, p. 1790.
[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
Walt Brown sounds like a genius.

But not for the crap he wrote.

He taught a parrot to squawk and post on the Internet.

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Codes, Programs, and Information 2

No natural process has ever been observed to produce a program. A program is a planned sequence of steps to accomplish some goal. Computer programs are common examples. Because programs require foresight, they are not produced by chance or natural processes. A complex program is stored in the genetic information in every form of life. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs (d).

d.“No matter how many ‘bits’ of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it ‘information’ if it doesn’t at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In computer science, we call it a ‘program.’ Another name for computer software is an ‘algorithm.’ No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organisms with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms’ genomes programmed?” Abel and Trevors, p. 8.

“No known hypothetical mechanism has even been suggested for the generation of nucleic acid algorithms.” Jack T. Trevors and David L. Abel,“Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life,” Cell Biology International, Vol. 28, 2004, p. 730.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#133
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Pahu wrote:
Codes, Programs, and Information 2
No natural process has ever been observed to produce a program. A program is a planned sequence of steps to accomplish some goal. Computer programs are common examples. Because programs require foresight, they are not produced by chance or natural processes. A complex program is stored in the genetic information in every form of life. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs (d).
In the same paragraph you claim that no natural processes produce programs exist AND that genetics are programs.

Therefore, since genes are part of a natural process, then natural processes DO create "programs".
“No known hypothetical mechanism has even been suggested for the generation of nucleic acid algorithms.”
False. Trial and error.

All that needs to happen is that one strand of nucleic acids becomes capable of generating either a direct copy or a negative copy of itself.

That's just structure. Structure exists in the chemical world even without life. Look at crystals.

Once you have something replicated, then you have trials in which errors creep in. If an error is better at replicating, it stays.

Given the amount of trials and the time frame involve, this MORE THAN ADEQUATELY accounts for all versions of life on the planet.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134
Mar 22, 2013
 
Pahu wrote:
Codes, Programs, and Information 2
No natural process has ever been observed to produce a program. A program is a planned sequence of steps to accomplish some goal. Computer programs are common examples. Because programs require foresight, they are not produced by chance or natural processes. A complex program is stored in the genetic information in every form of life. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs (d).
d.“No matter how many ‘bits’ of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it ‘information’ if it doesn’t at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In computer science, we call it a ‘program.’ Another name for computer software is an ‘algorithm.’ No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organisms with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms’ genomes programmed?” Abel and Trevors, p. 8.
“No known hypothetical mechanism has even been suggested for the generation of nucleic acid algorithms.” Jack T. Trevors and David L. Abel,“Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life,” Cell Biology International, Vol. 28, 2004, p. 730.
[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
Obviously Walt Brown hasn't tried to troubleshoot spaghetti programming from code monkeys...

Or maybe he has and is making a comparison with genomes that God is script kiddie who doesn't really understand what it's doing...

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#135
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Codes, Programs, and Information 3

Life contains matter, energy, and information (e).

e. How can we measure information? A computer file might contain information for printing a story, reproducing a picture at a given resolution, or producing a widget to specified tolerances. Information can usually be compressed to some degree, just as the English language could be compressed by eliminating every “u” that directly follows a “q”. If compression could be accomplished to the maximum extent possible (eliminating all redundancies and unnecessary information), the number of bits (0s or 1s) would be a measure of the information needed to produce the story, picture, or widget.

Each living system can be described by its age and the information stored in its DNA. Each basic unit of DNA, called a nucleotide, can be one of four types. Therefore, each nucleotide represents two (log24 = 2) bits of information. Conceptual systems, such as ideas, a filing system, or a system for betting on race horses, can be explained in books. Several bits of information can define each symbol in these books. The number of bits of information, after compression, needed to duplicate and achieve the purpose of a system will be defined as its information content. That number is also a measure of the system’s complexity.

Objects and organisms are not information. Each is a complex combination of matter and energy that the proper equipment—and information—could theoretically produce. Matter and energy alone cannot produce complex objects, living organisms, or information.

While we may not know the precise amount of information in different organisms, we do know those numbers are enormous and quite different. Simply changing (mutating) a few bits to begin the gigantic leap toward evolving a new organ or organism would likely kill the host.

“Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day.” Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics; or, Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, 2nd edition (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1948), p. 132.

Werner Gitt (Professor of Information Systems) describes man as the most complex information processing system on earth. Gitt estimated that about 3 × 1024 bits of information are processed daily in an average human body. That is thousands of times more than all the information in all the world’s libraries.[See Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 2nd edition (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV, 2000), p. 88.]

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#136
Mar 28, 2013
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
In the same paragraph you claim that no natural processes produce programs exist AND that genetics are programs.
Therefore, since genes are part of a natural process, then natural processes DO create "programs".
<quoted text>
False. Trial and error.
All that needs to happen is that one strand of nucleic acids becomes capable of generating either a direct copy or a negative copy of itself.
That's just structure. Structure exists in the chemical world even without life. Look at crystals.
Once you have something replicated, then you have trials in which errors creep in. If an error is better at replicating, it stays.
Given the amount of trials and the time frame involve, this MORE THAN ADEQUATELY accounts for all versions of life on the planet.
Pahu:
George Stravropoulos speaking of suggestions that crystal formation overcomes the thermodynamic barriers to the origin of life:

‘He makes it appear as though crystals and highly ordered organic molecules belong in the same class, when in fact they do not. When a crystal is broken up, the smaller crystals are physically and chemically identical to the original. This is never observed with (organic) molecules; when the original molecule is split up, lesser molecules appear, and part of the original information is lost. To ignore such fundamental differences in an effort to arrive at some general overview or law is to create a false overview, a pseudolaw.’

American Scientist 65:675, Nov.–Dec. 1977.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Pahu wrote:
<quoted text>
Pahu:
George Stravropoulos speaking of suggestions that crystal formation overcomes the thermodynamic barriers to the origin of life:
‘He makes it appear as though crystals and highly ordered organic molecules belong in the same class, when in fact they do not. When a crystal is broken up, the smaller crystals are physically and chemically identical to the original. This is never observed with (organic) molecules; when the original molecule is split up, lesser molecules appear, and part of the original information is lost. To ignore such fundamental differences in an effort to arrive at some general overview or law is to create a false overview, a pseudolaw.’
American Scientist 65:675, Nov.–Dec. 1977.
False analogy

You are comparing crystals which contain MULTIPLE molecules to single biological molecules.

If you break up the MOLECULES which form a crystal, they are no longer a crystal.

If you just look at a smaller collection of molecules from a larger slime mold, it's still a slime mold.

This took me 10 seconds to destroy this argument. Perhaps you should look for smarter sources.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#138
Mar 28, 2013
 
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Self evident to say the least.
Except that apart from the fundie bastardization of the concept, your "scientific alternative" still breaks your own rules. Man, you must love receiving slapdowns, bo.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139
Mar 28, 2013
 
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Were you on the debate team in school?
We know YOU weren't. Or where you making lame "puddle-goo" jokes back then too?

(snicker)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#140
Mar 28, 2013
 
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't bother ,you could not possibly formulate a coherent response.
WARNING! BOOMING IRONY METER IMMINENT!!!

(dear topix software - feck off with your demands I not parody fundie all-caps mode. kthxbai)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#141
Mar 28, 2013
 
Pahu wrote:
<quoted text>
Pahu
Yes, Pahu. Your premise was deconstructed on page 2 of this thread at the very latest. Yet still you persist in this dishonest copy-pasting of BS that you do not even understand but accept for the simple reason it jives with your baseless religious beliefs.

So can you tell us why is it you fundies are always so dishonest?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142
Mar 28, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that apart from the fundie bastardization of the concept, your "scientific alternative" still breaks your own rules. Man, you must love receiving slapdowns, bo.
You speak from experience. Agnostics never fear telling anyone that they simply 'don't know' stuff that they couldn't be bothered to research, such as the correct use of the burden of proof, the meaning of unfalsifiability.

Anyway, I'll let you feel smart for 30 seconds while you ironically talk down to that thiest about slapdowns....

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#143
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
WARNING! BOOMING IRONY METER IMMINENT!!!
(dear topix software - feck off with your demands I not parody fundie all-caps mode. kthxbai)
Stop sticking the irony meter up your ass for petes sake. You pervert.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You speak from experience. Agnostics never fear telling anyone that they simply 'don't know' stuff that they couldn't be bothered to research, such as the correct use of the burden of proof, the meaning of unfalsifiability.
Anyway, I'll let you feel smart for 30 seconds while you ironically talk down to that thiest about slapdowns....
I've been waiting for you to slap me down for 18 months. Ain't happened yet.(shrug)

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been waiting for you to slap me down for 18 months.
That's the amnesia you're suffering from the last slap down just yesterday.

Don't sit on your irony meter too hard now!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You speak from experience. Agnostics never fear telling anyone that they simply 'don't know' stuff that they couldn't be bothered to research, such as the correct use of the burden of proof, the meaning of unfalsifiability.
Anyway, I'll let you feel smart for 30 seconds while you ironically talk down to that thiest about slapdowns....
Let me refresh your memory oh stupid one...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

14 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 7 min Buck Crick 224,583
Our world came from nothing? 46 min Patrick 256
Atheists on the march in America (Aug '09) 47 min CunningLinguist 70,963
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 1 hr CunningLinguist 28
Introducing The Universal Religion 7 hr Patrick 737
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 7 hr Patrick 397
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 7 hr fadu singh 21,406
•••
•••