The Case Against Playing in the Evolution Court.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: TzarChasm
The problem here as I see it, is not that the theory of evolution isn't compelling enough. It is that a system of beliefs based on prophecies and medical miracles and other supernatural events can't muster the mind boggling substance that is retold through centuries of incredible literature but simply can't be reproduced in the modern age. It would be so easy to just do a simple performance as a gesture of good will and proof of concept, and there is no risk or cost at all. It would convert millions in a single day. But for some reason, it has not happened. We take that silence as an omen, a fact of reality the same way seeing a dead body is a fact. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Surely an earth stopping display of divine authority and unrivaled philanthropic force is exactly what this species needs to persuade us. So what's keeping your god from showing his or her hand and winning the whole debate with literally zero effort? That's my big question.

Still waiting on an actual answer to my big question. Since this is a creationist debate and all.

and still no intelligent response to the idea I submitted as an alternative to this ridiculous carousel of fallacies and ad hominem tactics. i am glad to see I'm not the only one talking about creationist research as a debate tool, should such materials ever see the light of day.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: edmc^2

I did no such thing! I think Dr Venter's research is great!... based on 15 years of evolutionary research... it adds to the already substantial evidence that evolution works. Creationists also pointed to cell "machinery" plus DNA as being inseparable in the past (one of their examples of irreducible complexity)... this research blows that out of the water!

Your point in the OP is invalid because creationists don't produce any research themselves. By not producing any original, testable hypotheses, and only referring to evolution research, creationists put themselves squarely in the evolution court.

You choose to play in the scientific arena (evolution court) by doing nothing but referring to evolutionary research.

You can step outside that court at any time by providing some verifiable creationist research (one of those 200 citations you mentioned?... guess not?) to discuss.

So yes, your OP is invalid.

Cheers

not my words but worth a repost. OP, feel free to present your own evidence for consideration. this is not an "evolution court", all data is worth examining within the scope of scientific methodology and testable/reproducible information.

Sure, this is not an evolution court, but the op is a reminder when one (creation proponent) is playing in the evolution court. One must remember the list of how the game is played. Creation proponents get to play in the evolution court with their hands tied to their backs - just to make it fair.

As for evidence for consideration - I'll create a separate thread for it so as not to make the thread go longer.

ciao!

a reply to: TzarChasm

Now, before I can proceed, can you at least confirm what I said ( a while back)?

Did Dr. Venter and his team of brilliant scientist’s created life from pre-existing life (i.e. mycoplasma genitalium)?

Just a simple yes or no will do.

a reply to: Akragon

Yes, evolution is trying to indoctrinate itself all over the planet. They're free thinkers.

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: TzarChasm

Now, before I can proceed, can you at least confirm what I said ( a while back)?

Did Dr. Venter and his team of brilliant scientist’s created life from pre-existing life (i.e. mycoplasma genitalium)?

Just a simple yes or no will do.

The answer is NO and NO and NO again. Why don't you do your own research and find out how it was done?

www.ted.com...

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: TzarChasm

Now, before I can proceed, can you at least confirm what I said ( a while back)?

Did Dr. Venter and his team of brilliant scientist’s created life from pre-existing life (i.e. mycoplasma genitalium)?

Just a simple yes or no will do.

The answer is NO and NO and NO again. Why don't you do your own research and find out how it was done?

www.ted.com...

oh, I did, in fact, you posted the same video I posted a while back with my question:

Did Dr. Venter and his team of brilliant scientist’s created life from pre-existing life (i.e. mycoplasma genitalium)?

The answer is YES, YES and YES. They started with a mycoplasma genitalium. I'm surprised you didn't know this.

In sum - they took the cell of a mycoplasma genitalium (bacterium) then stripped the DNA and injected it with a 'synthetic DNA' (they created using a computer program).

The new organism is based on an existing bacterium that causes mastitis in goats, but at its core is an entirely synthetic genome that was constructed from chemicals in the laboratory.

The single-celled organism has four "watermarks" written into its DNA to identify it as synthetic and help trace its descendants back to their creator, should they go astray. "We were ecstatic when the cells booted up with all the watermarks in place," Dr Venter told the Guardian. "It's a living species now, part of our planet's inventory of life." Dr Venter's team developed a new code based on the four letters of the genetic code, G, T, C and A, that allowed them to draw on the whole alphabet, numbers and punctuation marks to write the watermarks.

www.theguardian.com...

The synthetic DNA code:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Here's for your further education: Watermarks

singularityhub.com...

a reply to: edmc^2

Go to the original research paper and find where that bacterium was turned into a synthetic cell. The bacterium code WAS NOT turned into the synthetic cell. Then it wouldn't be a synthetic cell. You don't understand the process so you (and others) have made up a story that isn't true.
Then go to 10:15 in the video and listen to what he says about differentiating synthetic DNA from natural DNA.

You are 100% wrong.

Post the section from the ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER that says that the bacterium simply turned into another cell. That means you post exactly how the experiment is misrepresented as a new synthetic cell. If you can't do that, then you're wrong (we already know that BTW). That also means you need to post EXACTLY how the synthetic cell was created and that the NEW cell has the same DNA as the bacterium. We'll wait patiently......

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2

Go to the original research paper and find where that bacterium was turned into a synthetic cell. The bacterium code WAS NOT turned into the synthetic cell. Then it wouldn't be a synthetic cell. You don't understand the process so you (and others) have made up a story that isn't true.
Then go to 10:15 in the video and listen to what he says about differentiating synthetic DNA from natural DNA.

You are 100% wrong.

Post the section from the ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER that says that the bacterium simply turned into another cell. That means you post exactly how the experiment is misrepresented as a new synthetic cell. If you can't do that, then you're wrong (we already know that BTW). That also means you need to post EXACTLY how the synthetic cell was created and that the NEW cell has the same DNA as the bacterium. We'll wait patiently......

singularityhub.com...

your playing games again.

here u go - if you don't understand the process, read this;


singularityhub.com...

a reply to: edmc^2

That's not the original research paper. You said that the synthetic cell was created by using a live bacteria. Where does the original research paper say that? What did he say in the video at 10:15...?

You're not reading and you're not listening. What you said is 100% false.

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: TzarChasm

Now, before I can proceed, can you at least confirm what I said ( a while back)?

Did Dr. Venter and his team of brilliant scientist’s created life from pre-existing life (i.e. mycoplasma genitalium)?

Just a simple yes or no will do.

It appears they used a sample of organism to engineer a brand new sample of genetic material (which doesn't mean they built on top of existing material, nor that a living specimen was the seed for the experiment). I'm sure you would say this is proof of intelligent design, and perhaps you have a point. Counter point - who made god? Who made the watchmaker? Or do watchmakers just spontaneously assemble themselves?

I will keep an eye out for your next thread featuring an airtight collection of creationism demonstrations and data derived from reproducible studies of divine agency. Make sure the boat floats buddy.

Edited for clarification

As per usual, edmc^2 evaporated into the aether just like Cooperton et al. This is the portion of the video I was referring to in a previous post.
www.youtube.com...

s

originally posted by: Phantom423


As per usual, edmc^2 evaporated into the aether just like Cooperton et al. This is the portion of the video I was referring to in a previous post.
www.youtube.com...

s

Remember when you stubbornly refused to admit that initial concentrations of the isotope is required to determine final concentration in the half life equation? People stop arguing with you because you're too stubborn to converse with. You send long-winded papers that are often erroneous to the discussion, and are often incapable of explaining anything in your own words.

Even if you are right in a scenario, you act like a child and rub it in someone's face, or mock them for 'disappearing' if they don't respond as quick as you want. It is disgraceful to the field of science.

But seriously though, you never admitted that the initial concentration of an isotopic sample is required to determine final concentration in the half life equation. You never admit when you're wrong, so that sort of bias makes conversation with you an effort in futility.

a reply to: cooperton

Totally false. This is what I told you about half life - it's a first order reaction. It doesn't matter where you start because you can measure the half life from any point on the curve, calculate any statistical error and then extrapolate.

The next time you go to the lab and they use an isotopic probe for something like thyroid, remember to tell them that it doesn't work because they don't have the original molecule of iodine.

You're making it up again. Don't you get tired of being caught in continual lies and deceit? You spread a lot of evil.

a reply to: cooperton

And of course, you never bothered to watch the excerpt from Venter's YouTube on TED. Of course not. Why? Because you're intent on spreading an evil message regardless what the logic is, regardless what the truth is, regardless what the evidence is. You're a person who could really use a legitimate religion - to learn how to tell the truth, and stop lying, cheating, stealing and whatever else you evil people do.

a reply to: cooperton

Look who's acting all morally superior now! You go guy!

Oh... and surprise surprise... discussing evolutionary research as usual... adding to the ever growing confirmation of evolution as a scientific fact. Thanks creationists!... your continued and incessant denial of facts has made evolution the most verified scientific theory of all time!

Keep it coming... keep questioning evolutionary research!... keep adding to the rigour of scientific inquiry by questioning the facts... don't worry, scientists will keep searching for answers... and won't just stop inquiry when they reach an "I don't know... god did it!" moment.

When are you going to discuss some creationist research instead?... and take the conversation away from evolution?

Oh... you can't... as there is no known alternative... Hahahaha... lol... lol...

Unless you can suggest one?!?... oh, I know!... Creation... lol...

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Totally false. This is what I told you about half life - it's a first order reaction. It doesn't matter where you start because you can measure the half life from any point on the curve, calculate any statistical error and then extrapolate.

Lol you're absurd. Look at your graph. Look at what they assume the initial concentration is: 1

The degree to which you will try to dance around being wrong is maniacal. To determine time allotted with an isotopic sample, you need to know the initial concentration. The fact that you're still arguing it demonstrates how stubborn you are. Just admit you're wrong. It's fine.

The fact that two others starred you for your nonsense:

to learn how to tell the truth, and stop lying, cheating, stealing and whatever else you evil people do.

You're a bigot.

a reply to: cooperton

I have no doubt that you can't read the curve and do the math. That was a given - in the last thread as well.
You just don't understand it. That's okay. Because NO ONE is listening to your garbage much less believes it.
According to you, the entire discipline of science as we know it should be trashed.

You might advocate for a Bible in the classroom. But you're the LAST ONE to read and understand it. You're spreading evil, not knowledge.

a reply to: cooperton

I would add that you have no respect for the Bible anyway. You're representing a cult, not a religion. At least Christianity doesn't try to reconstruct the world according to their individual beliefs. You, on the other hand, are advocating for a cult. A cult has no moral or ethical foundation. It simply lives or dies on the people it sucks in.

Your cult of evil will not survive. It's a given. Even the Bible says that.

originally posted by: Phantom423
At least Christianity doesn't try to reconstruct the world according to their individual beliefs.

What are they praying for then?

16 I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, 18 may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19 and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance

originally posted by: Phantom423
At least Christianity doesn't try to reconstruct the world according to their individual beliefs.

What are they praying for then?

16 I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, 18 may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19 and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.

As per usual, you're so damn inarticulate that no one can understand your point. Come back when you learn English and can construct a sentence properly.

a reply to: Phantom423

You said Christians don't want to reconstruct the world according their individual beliefs.

Then I posted what Christians pray for, that all the world may find Christ.

And then you did not get my point and had to help yourself.

Feel the burn.