The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Phantom423

Yet, another lie. He never said:

It only says that at this particular point in time - which was 16 years ago, chance and self-organization theories were not scientifically valid.

You just make it up as you go.

He said, it's not SCIENTIFICALLY VALID! He never said at this time. He said it can't be known by the Scientific Method so it needs to be an axiom in Biology. Yockey said:

However, information theory shows that the origin of life is unknowable by scientific methods and must be accepted as an axiom of biology. (An axiom is an elementary fact that cannot be proved or derived from any other facts and therefore must be taken as a starting point.)

It's unknowable if you disregard intelligent design.

Like I said, you shouldn't lie because you can't accept what he said. First you blindly copy and paste and now you're twisting words.

Yockley ought to sue you as well - you're misinterpreting the context of the letter for your own gain. What he said was very explicit: he rejected Thaxton's use of his statement for his book, he rejected the idea of an intelligent designer and Creationist crap. You can twist it any way you want to convince yourself. I'm afraid no one else is convinced however.

Why did you lie? Yockey never said:

It only says that at this particular point in time - which was 16 years ago, chance and self-organization theories were not scientifically valid.

This is what you wished he had said.

It clearly shows that I can quote atheist sources and sources from Creationist and those who support intelligent design and present an articulate argument. You on the other hand will never quote someone that doesn't blindly agree with you.

You will just copy and paste blindly with no context, commentary or links to the source material.

You need a lesson in reading comprehension. Yockley didn't say that - I was not quoting him. Those were MY words.

They were flat out lies about what Yockey said. Total dishonesty but I expect nothing less.

Jeez, are you dyslexic? Read it again.

originally posted by: kibric
a reply to: Phantom423

is there no common ground between you and neo?

Of course not because any point of view contrary to their beliefs they blindly ignore them.

If you notice, I quote intelligent design sources and atheist sources. You will never see them quoting intelligent design sources because they blindly believe one thing and any intelligent argument against their belief is met with the same blind indignation of a Jehovah's Witness knocking at the door.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: flyingfish
ID is simple..
Just clutch you bible and repeat after me.
My god, created in the image of an advanced ape magically designed this banana.
In light of these here absolute facts, bend over and believe everything I say.

Ta-da! Creationism!.. Creation science!.. Uhm.. ermmm.. Intelligent design!!

A blatant and willful misunderstanding of the axioms of intelligent design.

This is why we can't debate with you and the others, you have no grasp regarding our side of the argument - you don't even know what you're arguing against.

I went through the evolutionary school assembly line and ate it up for a while, until logical deduction overtook my thinking. If you want to listen to the other side of the argument, I'm more than willing to tell you. But I'm done wasting the pearls, it gets tiring.

there are no axioms of intelligent design. thats why theres 40,000 different ways to read the same book. and thats not mentioning the pantheons of civilizations long buried, and the "permanent, proper, pious" traditions they observed in their time.

a reply to: neoholographic

without common ground to work with how can progress happen. your opponent is not really your opponent you both seek truth

a reply to: TzarChasm

Not really. Yockley's letter was written 16 years ago. He may have come to different conclusions over the years - at least I hope he has. He was also rip-roaring mad that Thaxton used him for misleading purposes.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: kibric
a reply to: Phantom423

is there no common ground between you and neo?

Of course not because any point of view contrary to their beliefs they blindly ignore them.

If you notice, I quote intelligent design sources and atheist sources. You will never see them quoting intelligent design sources because they blindly believe one thing and any intelligent argument against their belief is met with the same blind indignation of a Jehovah's Witness knocking at the door.

And if you notice, NONE of your citations agrees with you. How does that work?

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: flyingfish
ID is simple..
Just clutch you bible and repeat after me.
My god, created in the image of an advanced ape magically designed this banana.
In light of these here absolute facts, bend over and believe everything I say.

Ta-da! Creationism!.. Creation science!.. Uhm.. ermmm.. Intelligent design!!

A blatant and willful misunderstanding of the axioms of intelligent design.

This is why we can't debate with you and the others, you have no grasp regarding our side of the argument - you don't even know what you're arguing against.

I went through the evolutionary school assembly line and ate it up for a while, until logical deduction overtook my thinking. If you want to listen to the other side of the argument, I'm more than willing to tell you. But I'm done wasting the pearls, it gets tiring.

Great points.

They never refute the evidence. They never present a coherent argument. They just blindly copy and paste. Barcs couldn't even answer simple questions about a TATA or CAAT box and then ran to a Geneticist to get the answers and he still has no answers.

The point is, they have a belief in this and when that belief is challenged they respond by saying Creationist 3 times and clicking their heels.

do you mind sticking to the topic please? members are not up for discussion. is this yockey letter all you have? or is there more?

get on with it, then.

dp

originally posted by: neoholographic
It clearly shows that I can quote atheist sources and sources from Creationist and those who support intelligent design and present an articulate argument.

Nope, it shows that you are full of more crap than the NYC sewer system. There is no science that supports ID. NONE. You quote people when it's convenient for you but his claims also directly counter yours. It's too funny that you still insist that atheism has ANYTHING to do with evolution.

If you notice, I quote intelligent design sources and atheist sources.

Yeah we noticed. The main issue is that you don't quote any SCIENCE sources in a discussion about SCIENCE, only religious ones. I wouldn't ask an auto mechanic for help with my computer problems. They are called scientists for a reason. If I have a question about science I don't ask an atheist, I ask a SCIENTIST, which is something you flat out refuse to do. That's certainly not my problem.

originally posted by: kibric
a reply to: neoholographic

without common ground to work with how can progress happen. your opponent is not really your opponent you both seek truth

I disagree that we both seek the truth. One seeks to support their belief. In this sense, it's no different than arguing with a Jehovah's Witness or Muslim about their religious beliefs. They believe it.

People use evolution to support their belief of atheism. So you will never see these guys mentioning intelligent design sources. It's not about seeking the truth but trying to validate their belief.

I quote sources from atheist who are against intelligent design. I do this because reading both sources is the only way to seek the truth.

why do you folks keep encouraging him?

a reply to: cooperton

This is why we can't debate with you and the others, you have no grasp regarding our side of the argument - you don't even know what you're arguing against.

*cough* Bullsh#t*cough*

Axioms of intelligent design is a oxymoron, you clowns have had how many pages to post evidence?
Ultimately there is zero evidence for your creator, regardless of whether there is or not a creator, the world can still be explained without one. So you're seeing a problem where there isn't one, your just trying to stuff you god anywhere it may seem to fit a gap in knowledge.

As others have pointed out earlier, science is the study of how the universe works.
Regardless of how the universe came into being, whether by purely natural means or by supernatural means or by natural means directed by the supernatural, since the universe has come into existence it has worked the way that it does, which is what science studies. The findings and endeavors of science would be exactly the same whether the universe had been supernaturally created or not.

a reply to: TzarChasm

this might be relevant if you read it through but im no genius take of it what you will interesting though

www.jwmt.org...

originally posted by: TzarChasm
why do you folks keep encouraging him?

You're right - let it die a natural death already.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
why do you folks keep encouraging him?

I just have trouble resisting when work is slow and I need something to pass the time. It's funny watching the OP dig himself deeper with every passing post. You are absolutely right, though, this thread has run it's course.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Some of us are not posting to keep him entertained. Some of us are making sure the truth is posted.

a reply to: dragonridr

First off, you said:

Science doesn't tell us how life was started we have a couple of theories but at least for now nothing has been ruled out.

I totally disagree. The atheist Hubert Yockey stated that chance and self organization have been ruled out when it comes to the origin of life. He said Science can't answer the question because you have a encoding/decoding system that can't occur by chance or out of some prebiotic goo.

[b'When Dr. Thaxton asked for me to supply him with a blurb for the book’s cover, I gave him one that was limited to the point on which we agree: chance and self-organization theories of the origin of life are not scientifically valid.

He also said this:

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

cosmicfingerprints.com...

Again, Yockey is an atheist but he can't deny the truth. Materialism can't explain the origin of a system that encodes information then makes the machinery to decode this information so Yockey says this is an axiom in biology and that agrees with Dr. Sanford.

Here's another point where you're wrong.

Using this we can determine when chimpanzees anf humans had thr same ancestor since 99.9 percent of their DNA is the same. The answer came out to 6 million years if interested.

Here's an article from National Geographic:

Ancient Human-Chimp Link Pushed Back Millions of Years

Humanity's genetic split from an ape-like ancestor came about 13 million years ago, far earlier than the long-supposed era of a common ancestor of early humans and apes, suggests a first study of chimp gene mutations.

Along with shining a new genetic light on human origins, the findings published on Thursday in the journal Science point to the role that evolution plays in fostering mutations, some linked to inherited diseases, in our genes.

On the surface, this and other recent studies contradict the general consensus suggested by the fossil record: that the last common ancestor of the two species, a flat-footed ape, lived some seven million years ago.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

So the fossil record and the study of genetic mutations don't add up. But they don't have to because evolution is a shell game. You can say anything and that's a good enough explanation. It continues:

But both observations could still be true, said paleoanthropologist John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who was not involved in the new study. The ape-like common ancestor species might have endured until 7 to 10 million years ago, long after the genetic split between chimps and humans, he said.

That would largely explain the difference seen between gene-based and fossil-based estimates of the date the species diverged.

Man, I'm glad he cleared that up. It explains nothing. There has to be science to support an explanation of this not "it might have endured." But again, evolution is a shell game and any explanation will do.

Also, you said 99% of our DNA is the same. Again, not so fast.

'Junk DNA' defines differences between humans and chimps

DNA sequences for human and chimpanzees are nearly identical, despite vast phenotypical differences between the two species. Researchers have determined that the insertion and deletion of large pieces of DNA near genes are highly variable between humans and chimpanzees and may account for these major differences.

"These genetic gaps have primarily been caused by the activity of retroviral-like transposable element sequences," said McDonald. "Transposable elements were once considered 'junk DNA' with little or no function. Now it appears that they may be one of the major reasons why we are so different from chimpanzees."

"Our findings are generally consistent with the notion that the morphological and behavioral differences between humans and chimpanzees are predominately due to differences in the regulation of genes rather than to differences in the sequence of the genes themselves," said McDonald.

www.sciencedaily.com...

So saying humans and chimpanzees share 99% of the same sequence is meaningless. This is because our differences come back to gene regulation in areas that Darwinist called junk. This is why I have been talking about the gene regulatory network and the encoding/decoding system that Yockey talks about.

So you don't need a mythical common ancestor 6 million or was it 13 million years ago. Maybe it will be something different next year. Check out this video starting at the 7:14 mark.



Again, evolution without intelligent agency is a fantasy!

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

Some of us are not posting to keep him entertained. Some of us are making sure the truth is posted.

again. its a conspiracy forum. you may as well post a youtube video for all the real world difference it makes. like that one up there. clearly, youtube is changing the world for the better.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Ok Tzar, stop with the attitude. You don't have to read what we post, or understand why some of us do. I've explained before, posting the truth, is actually part of my spiritual practices. Just because I am not a creationist nut, does not mean I am not following an imperative.

So how about this, to each their own?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: TzarChasm
why do you folks keep encouraging him?

I just have trouble resisting when work is slow and I need something to pass the time. It's funny watching the OP dig himself deeper with every passing post. You are absolutely right, though, this thread has run it's course.

Sadly for you, you couldn't even answer simple questions about a TATA or a CAAT box. You lost this debate about 10 pages ago or maybe your Geneticist friend answered you and they were stuck like you without an answer.