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

a reply to: GetHyped

what would you call the design our nervous system has ? sophisticated ? smart ? i call it an intelligent design i am sorry language nazi.

a reply to: neoholographic

More appeals to ignorance. Your selective quoting of Yockey is laughable. He's right when his opinion aligns with yours but he's wrong when it goes against you. Too funny.

Maybe one day you'll make an argument based on evidence or actually answer the questions I posed to you, but your refusal and repetition of your original faulty claims are not evidence. I don't care about one guy's opinion on Information theory. You haven't proved a single thing with your claims sourced by biased lying creationist websites. LOL Learn to science, then we can talk. You have not proven that intelligence is required for DNA, not by a long shot. It's funny how you ignore any/all counterpoints and just repeat your original claims over and over.

a reply to: neoholographic

Yockey and Thaxton can debate Creationism all they want to. The important point is that Yockey agrees with me. It's impossible for science to explain the encoding/coding system in DNA therefore he says it an axiom of biology also agreeing with Dr. Sanford.

he also says intelligent design is full of crapola and that his words have been misused in intelligent design propaganda. like this thread, for instance.

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

and yet this mr yockey pretty clearly rejected intelligent design, so perhaps there is another hypothesis he personally favors. you ought to ask him and get back to...well, whoever is still on this thread at that point. go on, ask him. post a screencap of his email response. better yet, invite him to an AMA so we can get it straight from the horses mouth. that sounds fun, doesnt it?

a reply to: Phantom423

It's just business as usual for the YEC crowd. They only pull from sources like AIG & ICR or links provided by those organizations and have no idea how hard they're being played by the aforementioned who cherry pick and quote mine statements entirely out of context. I hate to paraphrase Sarah Palin but it's just a game of gotcha. Just entirely based in willful ignorance while they sit atop their thrones of supremacy with a smug smirk on their face. All the while they have no clue how out of their depth they are and how little they actually understand the science they seek to dismiss.

Every thread is the same. Parrot some creationist claim and pretend it's based in science and that it demonstrates flaws. The entire premise of this thread is incorrect from the beginning. The origins of life is not a prt of MES let alone it's primary axiom. The primary axiom of MES is descent with modification which the OP actually admits a few pages back actually occurs which should have ended the thread right there. Unfortunately the OP is so ignorant regarding the subject matter, they have no idea whatsoever when they have dug their own grave and just keep repeating the same things ad infinitum while ignoring all of the science behind it that comes from multiple disciplines.

a reply to: Phantom423

i never said there was a designer only that the design is intelligent or smart or sophisticated or whatever word you would use too describe the effectiveness of a process

originally posted by: kibric
a reply to: Phantom423

this circulatory system has an intelligent (a efficient and effective process of using energy ) design that enables it too pump blood around the body

not that the circulatory system has sentient intelligence jeeez

That's not what folks are talking about by intelligent design. They are using the traditional definition, that DNA/life was designed by an intelligent being. It's really just appealing to complexity, however, because science not yet knowing the answer isn't evidence of intelligent design. It's essentially judging a book by its cover. It appears complex, therefor it HAD to be designed. That's pretty much the crux of the argument here. Many things can appear to have "efficient" or "smart" appearance in the way that they function, but that doesn't mean it was created. Don't forget, life has been evolving for 4 billion years. That is an enormous amount of time to change and become more efficient and complex.

Anyways, I'm not saying you are wrong, I just wanted to clear up your misconception of Intelligent Design and how the term is being applied in this thread. They don't mean the design appears smart. They mean it was designed by an intelligent being.

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.

a reply to: peter vlar

That's very true. But it's unfortunate that Neo has to resort to fraud and deception to make his case. Yockley's letter was a slam down to Thaxton's ultimate use of his statement for his book. That's malintent and fraud. Yockley should have sued him.

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!!

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.

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.

Their citation on page 15 of their brief of my 1981 paper published in the Journal of
Theoretical Biology, “Self-organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information
Theory” to support the idea that “information theorists had determined that the
mathematical treatment of these biological texts was identical to that of human written
language” appears to be based on two areas of my paper: (1), on page 13, their
misunderstanding of a sentence in that paper about the sequence hypothesis; (2) their
misunderstanding of a couple of paragraphs on page 24 that used sarcasm to point out
that the origin of life isn’t just building blocks and the laws of physics and chemistry any
more than a message in language results from having all the letters of the alphabet and
rules of grammar. (The missing ingredient needed for the origin of living matter is the
genome, not Intelligent Design.)

Also on page 15 of their brief, FTE’s assertion following the one above that “This
suggested how to quantify information in long-chain protein molecules and DNA so that
we can identify the patterns characteristic of intelligence with a vastly greater precision
and level of confidence than before” is wrong.

...

First, the purpose of my paper was to give evidence why no origin of life theory based on
“self-organization” was credible. “Self-organization” scenarios of the origin of life are
not founded on science. These scenarios are founded on the Marxist-Stalinist
philosophical belief, called dialectical materialism, in the “Law of the Transformation of
Quantity into Quality.” They were put forward to bolster Stalin’s totalitarian regime.
Stalin ordered a generation of biologists who would not conform their scientific results to
his totalitarian philosophy to be murdered or jailed. This illustrates the level of danger
that a society faces when it allows science to be governed by beliefs.
FTE is wrong: “the mathematical treatment of these biological message texts” is NOT
“identical to that of human written language.”

you know, this guy is kind of confusing. he keeps taking shots at people using his work to promote intelligent design, but he claims to be in favor of it himself. also, dismissing self organization because of commies? thats just unoriginal. his motivations for trashing abiogenesis are less than inspiring, perhaps we should take a deeper look into that portion of his work? where he elaborates on exactly what stalin had to do with abiogenesis research? something doesnt add up here.

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.

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.

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. Read it again.

(face plant)

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.

a reply to: Phantom423

is there no common ground between you and neo?

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.

You have no axioms and you have no argument. You can't debate because you refuse to acknowledge the research that has been done and discuss what we know. You also, make blanket statements without substantive evidence. You make declarations of absolutes which have no basis in reality.

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.

originally posted by: kibric
a reply to: Phantom423

is there no common ground between you and neo?

Science is an on-going process. There are no absolutes. All possibilities are on the table until EVIDENCE and DEFINITIVE PROOF is acquired.

Also, resorting to fraud and misinterpretation of someone's work is reprehensible. It shouldn't be tolerated.

a reply to: Barcs

thank you for the composed response