Viruses Disprove Intelligent Design.

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
MCD's picture
We used to live in paradise?

We used to live in paradise? Interesting assertion. Please provide proof that this wild claim / assertion is true. Ready? Go

Alembé's picture
@DC,

@DC,
When and where was this "utopian paradise" before sin and disease? Please share your hard evidence.

Nyarlathotep's picture
valiya s sajjad - The fact is

valiya s sajjad - The fact is, the only way we infer design is by making an analysis of specified complexity

Wikipedia - List of topics (in life sciences) characterized as pseudoscience:

  • Baraminology
  • Creation biology
  • Intelligent design
  • Irreducible complexity
  • Specified complexity
John 6IX Breezy's picture
I've never heard of Specified

I've never heard of Specified Complexity in my life, nor do I care to know what it is. But I do know that to label things is not to tame them. That's been a dangerous obstacle in science. People think that just because something has a name, that it means we understand it, or even know what we're talking about.

Label something as pseudoscience and you've shut the door to communication. Label somebody as ignorant or brainwashed, and you've shut the door to conversation.

Don't label things. Explain them.

Nyarlathotep's picture
For what it is worth, I've

For what it is worth, I've explained several times why it is non-sense; and linked peer reviewed papers explaining why it is non-sense.

Greensnake's picture
Nyarlathotep:

Nyarlathotep:

Another excellent source from our "resident research librarian!" I hope that valiya will follow up on this material so as to understand why it is garbage.

The Pragmatic's picture
That would be the day...

That would be the day...

Nyarlathotep's picture
For the newer forum members,

For the newer forum members, I thought I'd post this "blast from the past":

valiya s sajjad - ...there is no known example in the living world of any mutation that causes an increase in information by even a single nucleotide.

valiya s sajjad - Because we know very well that even in harmful mutations - ones that destroy the organism - there is an increase in information...

John 6IX Breezy's picture
Post the full paragraph. I

Post the full paragraph. I want to see the context.

Nyarlathotep's picture
I included hyperlinks to the

John 6IX Breezy - Post the full paragraph. I want to see the context.

I already included hyperlinks to the posts in question; just so I wouldn't have to deal with someone asking about the context. Sigh.

John 6IX Breezy's picture
How am I supposed to know you

How am I supposed to know you can click on it lol.

Regardless, it seems that for years, you've had a problem understanding context:

"That was part of a very long post in which I was trying to establish that a mutation can never give rise to a new trait. Therefore, that was a superlative statement, which should only be taken in that sense. If I am critiquing an author's style of writing, and I said something like "His books are not worth a penny," you shouldn't take it literally and bring evidence that his books are in fact priced higher than a penny. If you undersand that, then there is no contradiction between A and B." -valiya s sajjad.

I'll give you a better example. If someone says one day, "Trees are orange in the autumn," and the next day they say "Trees are green in the summer." You'll focus exclusively on "what" words they used, and completely ignore "why" they used them.

In your mind the person said: "Trees are ORANGE..." and "Trees are GREEN..." So they've contradicted themselves.

Nyarlathotep's picture
John 6IX Breezy - How am I

John 6IX Breezy - How am I supposed to know you can click on it lol.

I thought it was a safe assumption that a person who posts messages on the internet would be familiar with hyper-links. My bad.


When asked what it would take to convince him that the theory of evolution is correct he said:

valiya s sajjad - If you want to prove evolution, do you know what you have to show me? Not similarities between species. Not that through mutation some organisms get an advantage in survival...What you have to show me is that a mutation causes increase in genetic information. This is an[sic] extremely important. So far, there is no known example in the living world of any mutation that causes an increase in information by even a single nucleotide.

He then went on to double down on his "superlative":

valiya s sajjad - If it had happened so frequently in the past for us to be so evolved, why is it that today we don’t find a single example of a mutation that causes increase in genetic information.

He then tripled down on it:

valiya s sajjad - There is no example of new information evolving through mutation.

quadrupled down:

valiya s sajjad - As long as you can’t show that mutation adds genetic information, all these explanations are mere fairytales[sic].

doubled down again, telling us that adding 6000 bits of information is a loss of information:

valiya s sajjad - What we see here is a loss of information, no addition of information.

He was very specific with what he wanted, repeatedly stating that it wasn't possible. Notice that when his self described "extremely important" statements blew up in his face; they retroactively became "superlative statement[s]".


Sidenote: send me that list of your text books cuz it might take a while!

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.