KellyJay and his dinosaurs

Originally posted by KellyJay
Since God is creating the universe and keeping it
together by the power of His Word, why is it harder to accept He did
it a short time ago over billions of years ago?

Because of the evidence. There is such a large amount of highly consistent evidence pointing towards an old earth. There are only two reasonable explanations:
1. The earth is old.
2. God deliberately planted the evidence (and went to extreme lengths in doing so) and clearly wants us to believe that the earth is old.

Since those changes are random, and once you start altering
a system by changing it, knowing that if you change it in some places
you get weaker or dead ends the chances are just too great! It is no
different than taking a simple children’s book, randomly changing
letters, but at all times having a good story getting better and more
complex over time, without every reaching a point in the child’s story
where your changes didn't turn the story into pure gibberish.
Kelly
I simply don't buy that anymore. Many people, many times have tried very hard to explain it to you and you consistently show that it is not a case of you not understanding it, but rather a case of you willingly not wanting to accept it. Whenever we have discussed it you have either come up with strawmen, obvious falsehoods or merely relied on your claim of incredulity without justification. As far as I can tell you have made no actual attempt to understand it but rather reject it outright without considering the issues.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Because of the evidence. There is such a large amount of highly consistent evidence pointing towards an old earth. There are only two reasonable explanations:
1. The earth is old.
2. God deliberately planted the evidence (and went to extreme lengths in doing so) and clearly wants us to believe that the earth is old.

[b]Since those changes are random, actual attempt to understand it but rather reject it outright without considering the issues.

you are right. like a particularly dim child, this one (KJ) insists on looking only through the wrong end of the telescope because the purpose to which this one is wedded is merely to put belief before thought.

The latter requires ability and effort, the former can be spat back as given.

why spend any more time on this one?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Because of the evidence. There is such a large amount of highly consistent evidence pointing towards an old earth. There are only two reasonable explanations:
1. The earth is old.
2. God deliberately planted the evidence (and went to extreme lengths in doing so) and clearly wants us to believe that the earth is old.

[b]Since those changes are random, actual attempt to understand it but rather reject it outright without considering the issues.

[/b]3. that it is what you want it to be so it is! It doesn't have to be,
but you want it to.

You stating your position over and over isn't proving anything outside
of you know how to repeat yourself. The example I gave is not
invalid just ignored so far by you. The book example I just gave fits
the process well, either you have a viable life or you do not, either
you have a book that can be read that has meaning or you do not.
Going through changes in a random fashion with nothing directing
and the only stinking filter you have that supposedly helps you, kills
off mistakes does not FORCE a better story to be written the only
thing it will do is dead end the book once the changes hit a certain
point.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
3. that it is what you want it to be so it is! It doesn't have to be,
but you want it to.

You stating your position over and over isn't proving anything outside
of you know how to repeat yourself. The example I gave is not
invalid just ignored so far by you. The book example I just gave fits
the process well, either you have a viable life or you ...[text shortened]... the only
thing it will do is dead end the book once the changes hit a certain
point.
Kelly[/b]

Think of natural selection as the designer if you must. So, going back to your book...if the letters that did not work towards making an intelligible story were eliminated (just like a rat-like creature born with no teeth would be eliminated) then the story will eventually be written.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Think of natural selection as the designer if you must. So, going back to your book...if the letters that did not work towards making an intelligible story were eliminated (just like a rat-like creature born with no teeth would be eliminated) then the story will eventually be written.

Natural selection doesn't design, it is an after the fact filter in the
process! You have the book, something in the book changes due
to a random mutation, and the worse the effect on the books story
or if it turns the current words into some meaningless mess of text
the more likely natural selection will remove the book from the
gene pool. The notion that it helps evolution build into the book
good words that go along with the story line is preposterous.

Think of the precision required to add or take away letters and
have story enhanced over time if you were to attempt to do it with
intent, knowing that if you screwed it up you automatically could
die off! To suggest the book would obviously get written with a good
story line and the only thing that is going to help it along is
something that kills off mistakes, requires huge amounts of faith in
my opinion.

Since natural selection is an after the mutation filter, this means if
for some fluke, mutations occurred that may possibly add a word to
the text if the next mutation happened on page 4, the 5th line, and
the 15th space requires an “E” to make a word that adds to the story,
natural selection doesn’t get to request anything to make that letter
appear, or to appear on the proper page, on the proper line, or the
proper placement on the line, it only gets to kill off that which
doesn’t work; in addition, to that since the mutations are still random
the next generation of mutations may take away from that which
was previously added that was making getting the “E” a good thing
so getting an “E” now would be a mute point next generation even
it it landed in the proper place.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Natural selection doesn't design, it is an after the fact filter in the
process! You have the book, something in the book changes due
to a random mutation, and the worse the effect on the books story
or if it turns the current words into some meaningless mess of text
the more likely natural selection will remove the book from the
gene pool. The notion ...[text shortened]... an “E” now would be a mute point next generation even
it it landed in the proper place.
Kelly

….Natural selection doesn't design,
.…

So natural selection didn’t design drug-resistant metabolism in drag-resistant bacteria? 😛

And natural selection didn’t design DDT-resistant metabolism in DDT-resistant mosquitoes? 😛

-the evidence proves otherwise. Thus the evidence clearly proves that evolution can and does design things.

….Since natural selection is an after the mutation filter, this means if
for some fluke, mutations occurred that may possibly add a word to
the text if the next mutation happened on page 4, the 5th line, and
the 15th space requires an “E” to make a word that adds to the story,
natural selection doesn’t get to request anything to make that letter
appear, or to appear on the proper page, on the proper line, or the
proper placement on the line,
..…

Who said it did 😛 Nobody said nor implied this and you know it. Nobody said nor implied that it is natural selection that causes mutations rather than random changes to the DNA code being the cause of mutations -so what is your point?
Eventually, given enough mutations, a beneficial mutation is virtually inevitable! -what would be stopping the occasional beneficial mutation?

….in addition, to that since the mutations are still random
the NEXT generation of mutations may take away from that which
was previously added
.… (my emphasis)

What -inevitably the VERY NEXT GENERATION? 😛 this is total claptrap and you know it.
If natural selection selected for a beneficial mutation then why would it fail to continue to select for that beneficial mutation generation after generation? And why would it fail to select against a mutation that deletes that beneficial mutation generation after generation?
Example where both of these things must have happened: natural selection selecting DDT-resistant metabolism in mosquitoes -are you saying that natural selection would stop selecting for DDT-resistant metabolism in mosquitoes that are continually exposed to DDT? 😛 this is OBVIOUSLY not what has happened so what you say here has obviously been proven to be not true.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
KellyJay has promised to show evidence of that dinosaurs lived side by side with humans. He is too stubborn to admit that this is pure fantasies that KellyJay believe in.

Is it okay to be untruthful when you are christian?
Are there more christians who share KellyJays belifs, or is he unique? If so, why isn't there any other christians who defend him ...[text shortened]... art of science, therefore I want to discuss this religious matter her in the Spiritual Forum.

This is almost as funny as the "women should thank men for existing" thread in Debates. Wow! How can someone be so absolutely ignorant as to not worry about fossil records, dozens of scientists, continental drift, and the fact that human embryos were never found in the stomach of a T-Rex female!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….Natural selection doesn't design,
.…

So natural selection didn’t design drug-resistant metabolism in drag-resistant bacteria? 😛

And natural selection didn’t design DDT-resistant metabolism in DDT-resistant mosquitoes? 😛

-the evidence proves otherwise.

….it is an after the fact filter in the process!
..…

What on e ...[text shortened]... he fact“ filter? That makes no sense.
Can you make it clear to us what you are talking about?[/b]

Correct, natural selection does not design anything.
You can if you want to produce your evidence to prove it otherwise
I have given you my argument. Explain how natural selection actually
does design anything, it filters out bad or weak mutations, but that
isn't design that is a filter.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Correct, natural selection does not design anything.
You can if you want to produce your evidence to prove it otherwise
I have given you my argument. Explain how natural selection actually
does design anything, it filters out bad or weak mutations, but that
isn't design that is a filter.
Kelly

….Correct, natural selection does not design anything.
.…

I have just debunked that and you no it!

Reminder of my previous quote:

“…
So natural selection didn’t design drug-resistant metabolism in drag-resistant bacteria? 😛

And natural selection didn’t design DDT-resistant metabolism in DDT-resistant mosquitoes? 😛

-the evidence proves otherwise. Thus the evidence clearly proves that evolution can and does design things.
…“

Do you deny the evidence? 😛

….You can if you want to produce your evidence to prove it otherwise
..…

So you admit that ‘my’ evidence has proved it otherwise and thus proved you wrong?

….Explain how natural selection actually
does design anything,
.…

By working in combination with random mutations. You already know this so stop pretending you don’t.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution/evolution5.htm

“…Mutations fuel the process of evolution by providing new genes in the gene pool of a species.
Then, natural selection takes over….”

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….Correct, natural selection does not design anything.
.…

I have just debunked that and you no it!

Reminder of my previous quote:

“…
So natural selection didn’t design drug-resistant metabolism in drag-resistant bacteria? 😛

And natural selection didn’t design DDT-resistant metabolism in DDT-resistant mosquitoes? 😛

-the e ...[text shortened]... on by providing new genes in the gene pool of a species.
Then, natural selection takes over….”[/b]

Please, you are really telling me that for you, all it takes is you
giving me a couple of questions about did natural selection design
DDT-resistant is enough to prove your point?

I gave you an argument not a statement of belief, you refute my
argument by telling me what you believe and now I'm suppose to
accept your point was proven!?

You can poison a group of anything and those that are resistant live
and those that are not die! Then those that are resistant live on and
all the come after will have the resistances required, that does not
mean something new was designed, it means something that was
there was passed down or filtered down.
Kelly

Originally posted by scherzo
This is almost as funny as the "women should thank men for existing" thread in Debates. Wow! How can someone be so absolutely ignorant as to not worry about fossil records, dozens of scientists, continental drift, and the fact that human embryos were never found in the stomach of a T-Rex female!

This posting I don't understand. I have nothing to do with the thread of yours in Debates.

Why worry about fossils and datings of these fossils? They are there, proving that dinosaurs diedout 65 millions of years ago, and humanoids didn't didn't come into existance before 5 million of years ago.
Why would you worry about continental drift, you don't believe in continental drift, do you?
Why worry about a dozens of scientists, what have they done?
Why worry about embryos of human embryos in stomach of a T-Rex, when there are no such findings?

What do you want to say with your posting? Nothing as usual?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
This posting I don't understand. I have nothing to do with the thread of yours in Debates.

Why worry about fossils and datings of these fossils? They are there, proving that dinosaurs diedout 65 millions of years ago, and humanoids didn't didn't come into existance before 5 million of years ago.
Why would you worry about continental drift, you don't b ...[text shortened]... there are no such findings?

What do you want to say with your posting? Nothing as usual?

I was saying the points you pointed out. And I was saying it was ridiculous to believe the opposite, which has absolutely no evidence to prove it.

Originally posted by scherzo
I was saying the points you pointed out. And I was saying it was ridiculous to believe the opposite, which has absolutely no evidence to prove it.

Why bringing up embryos of human embryos in stomach of a T-Rex? That's taken from some science fiction story about time travels and stuff, is it?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Please, you are really telling me that for you, all it takes is you
giving me a couple of questions about did natural selection design
DDT-resistant is enough to prove your point?

I gave you an argument not a statement of belief, you refute my
argument by telling me what you believe and now I'm suppose to
accept your point was proven!?

You can poi ...[text shortened]... g new was designed, it means something that was
there was passed down or filtered down.
Kelly

….all it takes is you
giving me a couple of questions about DID natural selection design
DDT-resistant is enough to prove your point?
..… (my emphasis)

What you mean by “DID” in the above?
Are you saying that natural selection did NOT design DDT-resistant mosquitoes? 😛
if yes then if it wasn’t natural selection then what did design DDT-resistant mosquitoes?
if no then this clearly debunks you assertion that “…natural selection does not design anything…”.
Do you deny the evidence? -a very simple “yes” or “no” is required here.

….Then those that are resistant live on and
all the come after will have the resistances required, that
does not mean something new was designed, it means something that was
there was passed down or filtered down.
..…

Mmmmm -so the mutations that make mosquitoes DDT resistant already existed BEFORE DDT was even invented let alone applied? 😛 if that was true, then DDT resistant mosquitoes would have been evident almost as soon as DDT was applied against them and yet it took a few decades before a mutation for DDT resistance became evident. OBVIOUSLY a mutation for DDT resistance must have occurred some years AFTER DDT was applied against them and only THEN natural selection selected for this mutation. Therefore this proves (by example) that evolution CAN and sometimes DOES change the design (design of metabolism in this case) of a living thing.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….all it takes is you
giving me a couple of questions about DID natural selection design
DDT-resistant is enough to prove your point?
..… (my emphasis)

What you mean by “DID” in the above?
Are you saying that natural selection did NOT design DDT-resistant mosquitoes? 😛
if yes then if it wasn’t natural selection then what did desi ...[text shortened]... CAN and sometimes DOES change the design (design of metabolism in this case) of a living thing.[/b]

Let me say this AGAIN, natural selection does not design anything
it acts as a filter. It kills off that which cannot make it, supposedly
leaving behind that which is improving or able to live. It does not
direct mutaitons to take place at certain times under certian conditions
to do specific things.

I've been very clear on this point, more than once.

You really have to be told that mosquitoes may not get killed off by
things we attempt to kill them with? It wasn't created yet, does not
for a second mean they were already going to live through it, because
it wasn't going to kill them. It may have had success with some but not
all, those that lived grew in numbers, again a filter not a director.
Kelly