Origins Thread

[Tiger]

You don't think that someone almost fifty would be a Nirvana fan?

You realise that Kurt died like thirty years ago?

How old r u btw?

My guess would be twenties, possibly teenager

The ‘arrested development’ tag is due to your inability to move on from the early 1990’s. Both in terms of your musical interests, your knowledge of evolution and your general levels of maturity.

You live in a time warp. A relic of the 90’s. It’s like nothing has happened in your life or in the world since then, or perhaps some trauma has stopped you moving on in life.

 

[Tiger]

<ends>

Here are a few quotes from the leaders of the intelligent design movement that I read aloud to the audience:

"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God.... The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ. ... And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ as the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view."
--William Dembski, February 6, 2000, National Religious Broadcasters convention in Anaheim

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." --William Dembski, Touchstone magazine

"Christians in the 20th century have been playing defense. They've been fighting a defensive war to defend what they have, to defend as much of it as they can. It never turns the tide. What we're trying to do is something entirely different. We're trying to go into enemy territory, their very center, and blow up the ammunition dump. What is their ammunition dump in this metaphor? It is their version of creation."
--Phillip Johnson, U.C. Berkeley Law Professor, National Religious Broadcasters convention in Anaheim

"This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science.... It's about religion and philosophy." --Phillip Johnson

Over a century ago, during the first round of evolution-creation debates in England, Herbert Spencer observed: "Those who cavalierly reject the theory of evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all."

The Cowardice and Calumny of Creationism

The Cowardice and Calumny of Creationism

www.huffpost.com

Quoting ideological statements doesn’t advance the scientific debate. The debate that you seem to go out of your way to avoid.

It’s a lazy minded distraction that avoids addressing the growing body of microbiological evidence challenging Darwinism head-on.

 

[Tiger]

@AN2

James, I know you don’t read books, but you should do yourself a favour and get this for Christmas.

 

[AN2]

Post in thread 'Origins Thread' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/origins-thread.639/post-120661



Anyone who reads the article can see that what's said in it (about IDers) is true. @Tiger of course can't read it (for comprehension) but he is the proof. ID doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Tiger]

Post in thread 'Origins Thread' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/origins-thread.639/post-120661



Anyone who reads the article can see that what's said in it (about IDers) is true. @Tiger of course can't read it (for comprehension) but he is the proof. ID doesn't have a leg to stand on.

See, this is why you’re banned from the REAL Origins thread. You’re a waster who just spams endlessly.

You never have anything of note to say. I thought you might have turned a corner with your post this morning until I realised it was a stupid copy and paste after a google search.

You found some words you liked that tickled your old ears and spewed them thoughtlessly onto your thread.

This is a toilet bowl of a thread.

Maybe it’s time for another ‘musical interlude’ to get some clicks?

Pathetic.

 

[AN2]

See, this is why you’re banned from the REAL Origins thread. You’re a waster who just spams endlessly.

You never have anything of note to say. I thought you might have turned a corner with your post this morning until I realised it was a stupid copy and paste after a google search.

You found some words you liked that tickled your old ears and spewed them thoughtlessly onto your thread.

This is a toilet bowl of a thread.

Maybe it’s time for another ‘musical interlude’ to get some clicks?

Pathetic.

Once again, you've said absolutely nothing

And you're not even the slightest bit aware of it

 

[AN2]

Why the word games? Because ID creationists have no science, no theory, and no research program. The only thing they can do is attack evolutionary theory and hope people don't notice that they are employing the fallacy of false alternatives: If A is wrong then B must be right. If evolutionary theory is wrong then intelligent design must be right. Wrong. In order to displace a prevailing theory or paradigm in science it is not enough to merely point out what it cannot explain; you have to offer a new theory that explains more data, and do so in a testable way. In their public debates IDers never define intelligence or design, and if they can help it they never tell anyone who they think the designer is, even though everyone in the room already knows that they think it is Yahweh, the God of Abraham.

^ So that's substance, for example

All you'll get from @Tiger is him shyteing on about me being fifty, drunk, unemployed spammer etc.

 

[AN2]

@Tiger's fraudulent 'Origins' (censored) thread should have been titled - The Case For Intelligent Design*. Or something like that.

And as the article says -

Meyer has a brand new 600-page book subtitled "The Evidence for Intelligent Design" that they were selling in the lobby, and he flew thousands of miles with no intention of telling us how he thinks life arose? This is what bothers me about creationists more than anything else--they don't have the courage of their convictions. They're cowards. They want to hide behind scientistic jargon and try to sneak in their religion later.

*Which you'll find out is mostly disputing evolutionary theory

 

[Tiger]

^ So that's substance, for example

All you'll get from @Tiger is him shyteing on about me being fifty, drunk, unemployed spammer etc.

Incorrect James, this isn't a post of "substance."

It's a dated, lazy ad hominem quote from a participant in a weak debate from 15 years ago which you’ve gone through all the trouble of copying and pasting.

To dismiss Intelligent Design with the blanket claim that it has “no science, no theory, and no research program” is not only inaccurate but betrays a deeper intellectual laziness.

Historically, scientific breakthroughs often began with the identification of flaws in dominant paradigms—pointing out these gaps isn’t the end of the process, it’s the beginning.

ID isn’t about proving Yahweh in a lab coat; it’s about highlighting where materialist explanations fail to account for the observable complexity and specified information embedded in life. Claims of irreducible complexity, the fine-tuning of molecular machines, and the inadequacy of random mutations to generate new functional information are testable critiques grounded in data.

But instead of addressing these points, the quote retreats to accusations of religious bias—a transparent attempt to smear rather than engage. Ironically, the very theory its defenders champion, Darwinian evolution, suffers from glaring evidentiary deficiencies, particularly in explaining the origin of the vast genetic code underpinning life. To critique others for exposing these weaknesses while ignoring their own is the equivalent of condemning the speck in ID’s eye while ignoring the plank lodged firmly in evolutionary materialism's own.

The vast majority of ID scientists are former evolutionary scientists who have changed their mind based on the evidence before them.

 

[Professor]

The Case For Intelligent Design

Intelligent design needs intelligent designers(engineers etc)
There must be some proof of evidence, for example . . .


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDu_onvlr44

 

[Tiger]

Intelligent design needs intelligent designers(engineers etc)
There must be some proof of evidence, for example . . .


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDu_onvlr44

The evidence for design in biology is overwhelming. With the failure of the fossil record to stack up, microbiology was the great hope to prove Neo Darwinism. Every new discovery does the complete opposite.

‘DNA’ is the longest ‘word’ in the language of life, spelling out the instructions for every living organism.

The average Joe in the street seems to think that evolution and evolutionary science is a ‘big part’ of the world of science. It isn’t. It’s actually completely niche.

It’s not even a significant part of Biology. Less than 1% of biologists are ‘evolutionary biologists’ and less than 0.2 or 0.1 % of all scientists deal with evolution as part of their job.

It’s much more ‘fringe’ than people realise.

It just happens to be very popular with the Godless for reasons that nobody needs to explain.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

You live in a time warp. A relic of the 90’s.

Some would say you're in a time warp Sir. A relic of the 1090's.

Those fairy stories you stand behind would be more appropriate in a child's schoolbook than anything scholarly.

 

[Tiger]

Some would say you're in a time warp Sir. A relic of the 1090's.

Those fairy stories you stand behind would be more appropriate in a child's schoolbook than anything scholarly.

That’s because your a brain shrivelled, poorly educated dim-wit Myles.

I’m reading all the latest relevant scientific papers on this subject matter on a regular basis, while you and the likes of you are sitting on your hole all day in Paddy Powers betting your government handout on horses.

 

[SwordOfStZip]

Some would say you're in a time warp Sir. A relic of the 1090's.

Those fairy stories you stand behind would be more appropriate in a child's schoolbook than anything scholarly.

Proper or traditional "fairy stories" often contain a primordial power that works upon the deeper layers of our psyches which makes them reflective of more real realities so to speak than those you would find on the pages of contemporary wannabe Zolas.

 

[Professor]

The evidence for design in biology is overwhelming.

OK, go on then, show us a quick Top-5 list of popular examples from the intelligent designers

With the failure of the fossil record to stack up, microbiology was the great hope to prove Neo Darwinism. Every new discovery does the complete opposite.

Really? That's quite surprising due to the evolution of our current up-to-the-minute combined networked human intelligence.
Again, please do demonstrate with a few examples?

The average Joe in the street seems to think that evolution and evolutionary science is a ‘big part’ of the world of science. It isn’t. It’s actually completely niche.

It’s not even a significant part of Biology. Less than 1% of biologists are ‘evolutionary biologists’ and less than 0.2 or 0.1 % of all scientists deal with evolution as part of their job.

Really quite a surprise at what you suggest, simply because all the notable uni's are doing it.

World's best Evolutionary Biology universities [Rankings]

Below is the list of 100 best universities for Evolutionary Biology in the World ranked based on their research performance: a graph of 86M citations received by 2.04M academic papers made by these universities was used to calculate ratings and create the top.

edurank.org

It’s much more ‘fringe’ than people realise.

Especially "Fringe" for folk who 'don't want to know' and simply taken for granted as correct and don't give it much extra thought.

It just happens to be very popular with the Godless for reasons that nobody needs to explain.

This is the point I wanted to focus on. God is quite a subjective concept (always has been) for humanity.

Well obviously , Abrahamic's have there own recorded recited version of Earth & Humanity's origins which is of a distinct Super Natural theme - Based on Faith.

Other Religions & Philosophies who do not believe in unsupported supernatural ideas must persevere with evidence of the real.

That's to be acknowledged.

 

[Tiger]

Proper or traditional "fairy stories" often contain a primordial power that works upon the deeper layers of our psyches which makes them reflective of more real realities so to speak than those you would find on the pages of contemporary wannabe Zolas.

You lost Myles at ‘Proper’

 

[Tiger]

OK, go on then, show us a quick Top-5 list of popular examples from the intelligent designers



Really? That's quite surprising due to the evolution of our current up-to-the-minute combined networked human intelligence.
Again, please do demonstrate with a few examples?



Really quite a surprise at what you suggest, simply because all the notable uni's are doing it.

World's best Evolutionary Biology universities [Rankings]

Below is the list of 100 best universities for Evolutionary Biology in the World ranked based on their research performance: a graph of 86M citations received by 2.04M academic papers made by these universities was used to calculate ratings and create the top.

edurank.org

Especially "Fringe" for folk who 'don't want to know' and simply taken for granted as correct and don't give it much extra thought.


This is the point I wanted to focus on. God is quite a subjective concept (always has been) for humanity.

Well obviously , Abrahamic's have there own recorded recited version of Earth & Humanity's origins which is of a distinct Super Natural theme - Based on Faith.

Other Religions & Philosophies who do not believe in unsupported supernatural ideas must persevere with evidence of the real.

That's to be acknowledged.

I’ll answer your questions over on the real ‘Origins’ thread.

 

[Tiger]

Answering your question over here @Professor

So, here are the five most well known robust lines of evidence that are a stumbling block for evolutionists (all of which have been discussed many times in this thread)

a) Irreducible Complexity: Molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum or the ATP synthase motor demonstrate systems that fail without all their components present—making stepwise evolution via mutations highly implausible.

b) Fine-tuning of DNA Information: DNA isn’t just a molecule; it’s an information storage system encoding complex algorithms. The origin of specified information, particularly the instructions for building life forms, remains unexplained by undirected processes.

c) The Cambrian Explosion: Sudden appearances of diverse animal forms with no apparent evolutionary precursors challenge gradual Darwinian processes

d) Epigenetics and Non-Coding DNA: Discoveries in epigenetics show regulatory systems that go beyond random mutations and natural selection, pointing toward pre-designed adaptability mechanisms.

e) Cosmic Fine-Tuning for Life: The extreme precision of constants in the universe necessary for life (e.g., gravity, electromagnetic force) suggests purpose, not accident.

These examples aren’t fringe but are grounded in empirical data and highlight areas where Neo-Darwinism offers no satisfactory explanation.

There are also tons of recent studies challenge the Neo-Darwinian framework, revealing that mutation rates are influenced by genomic and environmental factors, undermining the notion of purely random mutations driving evolution. This suggests more intricate mechanisms at work, requiring a conceptual expansion beyond traditional model sifting toward an "Integrative Synthesis," incorporating epigenetics, systems biology, and adaptive mechanisms that go beyond gene-centric views.

Additionally there are also other emerging fields in biology—such as niche construction theory—which are forcing a reconsideration of how evolutionary processes could even possibly operate. While some evolutionary biologists are attempting to integrate these ideas into a broader synthesis, there remains a lack of consensus on how to reconcile these findings with the traditional Neo-Darwinian model, mainly because there is no logical way.


In terms of Universities offering courses in evolution. That doesn't really mean anything in practical terms. It's a box ticking exercise.

Those same Universities almost certainly also all have a 'gender studies' course or a 'queer theory' course too. Universities often offer niche courses or disciplines that have limited direct applications or employment opportunities. There's stuff like - Medieval Studies, Comparative Mythology, Paleography, and Theoretical Mathematics, which are primarily relevant in academia or niche fields like museums or archives. Similarly, Postmodern Literary Criticism, have little practical connection to mainstream industries.

 

[AN2]

Incorrect James, this isn't a post of "substance."

It's a dated, lazy ad hominem quote from a participant in a weak debate from 15 years ago which you’ve gone through all the trouble of copying and pasting.

To dismiss Intelligent Design with the blanket claim that it has “no science, no theory, and no research program” is not only inaccurate but betrays a deeper intellectual laziness.

Historically, scientific breakthroughs often began with the identification of flaws in dominant paradigms—pointing out these gaps isn’t the end of the process, it’s the beginning.

ID isn’t about proving Yahweh in a lab coat; it’s about highlighting where materialist explanations fail to account for the observable complexity and specified information embedded in life. Claims of irreducible complexity, the fine-tuning of molecular machines, and the inadequacy of random mutations to generate new functional information are testable critiques grounded in data.

But instead of addressing these points, the quote retreats to accusations of religious bias—a transparent attempt to smear rather than engage. Ironically, the very theory its defenders champion, Darwinian evolution, suffers from glaring evidentiary deficiencies, particularly in explaining the origin of the vast genetic code underpinning life. To critique others for exposing these weaknesses while ignoring their own is the equivalent of condemning the speck in ID’s eye while ignoring the plank lodged firmly in evolutionary materialism's own.

The vast majority of

ID scientists

Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]

are former evolutionary scientists who have changed their mind based on the evidence before them.

 

[Tiger]

Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]

Another utterly hopeless post James.

A copy and paste from Wiki. You’re some dimwit Dawson. A man of your age should do better.

I’d say you haven’t read a book in decades.

 

[AN2]

I’ll answer your questions over on the real ‘Origins’ thread.

But it isn't. It's the Case for Intelligent Design thread

Surely even you have realised by now that you've admitted to your dishonesty

 

[Tiger]

But it isn't. It's the Case for Intelligent Design thread

Surely even you have realised by now that you've admitted to your dishonesty

Nope, wrong as usual. Anyone (other than banned spammers who think Wikipedia is a beacon of truth) is free to post whatever they want in terms of their Origin of life thesis.

Of course I don’t have to agree with it. However , they’re free to discuss it there.

This thread on the other hand is spam central. Where nothing of any substance gets discussed.

Just you mouthing like a spoilt, poorly educated whiny 12 year old.

 

[AN2]

Nope, wrong as usual. Anyone (other than banned spammers who think Wikipedia is a beacon of truth)

Intelligent Design: Is it scientific? - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

is free to post whatever they want in terms of their Origin of life thesis.

Of course I don’t have to agree with it. However , they’re free to discuss it there.

This thread on the other hand is spam central. Where nothing of any substance gets discussed.

Just you mouthing like a spoilt, poorly educated whiny 12 year old.

 

[Tiger]

Intelligent Design: Is it scientific? - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

Is that a lame attempt at an appeal to authority?


Why yes I think it is.

You have no idea about the current landscape of evolution do you?

Do you know what that same University teaches about ‘trans men’ ?

Truly changing sex is possible, says Berkeley trans scholar Grace Lavery - Berkeley News

Grace Lavery, an associate professor of English and an expert in trans studies at UC Berkeley, discusses her work in trans feminist studies, her own transition and how allies can help to protect trans rights

news.berkeley.edu

 

[AN2]

Is that a lame attempt at an appeal to authority?

Why yes I think it is.

You have no idea about the current landscape of evolution do you?

Relies on evidence?
Because the central mechanism of Intelligent Design is untestable, evidence relevant to the idea is lacking. However, some ID proponents have made testable claims that deal more with discrediting evolution than with the mechanism of Intelligent Design. These claims (e.g., that the components of bacterial flagella cannot function independently of one another) have been tested and refuted by the evidence.

PS. Apparently you have no idea how old the Earth is

 

[Tiger]

Relies on evidence?
Because the central mechanism of Intelligent Design is untestable, evidence relevant to the idea is lacking. However, some ID proponents have made testable claims that deal more with discrediting evolution than with the mechanism of Intelligent Design. These claims (e.g., that the components of bacterial flagella cannot function independently of one another) have been tested and refuted by the evidence.

PS. Apparently you have no idea how old the Earth is

Can you not speak for yourself James?

Is everything going to be a copy and paste today? See, this is the problem with people who don’t read books.

Scientifically speaking, what do you think the people of Berkeley mean by ‘Transgender’ and ‘Non-binary’?

Transgender and Nonbinary Empowerment Month | Equity & Inclusion

diversity.berkeley.edu

 

[AN2]

Can you not speak for yourself James?

I've said it before myself, everything I've posted today says the same thing (it's a central theme)

You think that discrediting evolution is an argument for ID. It's what most of your stupid thread is about.

How old is the Earth?

Is everything going to be a copy and paste today? See, this is the problem with people who don’t read books.

Scientifically speaking, what do you think the people of Berkeley mean by ‘Transgender’ and ‘Non-binary’?

Transgender and Nonbinary Empowerment Month | Equity & Inclusion

diversity.berkeley.edu

 

[Tiger]

I've said it before myself, everything I've posted today says the same thing (it's a central theme)

You think that discrediting evolution is an argument for ID. It's what most of your stupid thread is about.

How old is the Earth?

Do you think that what Berkeley teach about ‘Critical Race Theory’ is correct or do you think it’s complete bullshit?

Which is it?

You don’t think things through James. You’re too emotional and poorly read.

P.S. How old is the earth?

 

[AN2]

Do you think that what Berkeley teach about ‘Critical Race Theory’ is correct or do you think it’s bullshit?

Which is it?

You don’t think things through James. You’re too emotional and poorly read.

Another tactic of yours is to change the subject

How old is the Earth, why are you dodging that question?

 

[Tiger]

Another tactic of yours is to change the subject

How old is the Earth, why are you dodging that question?

I’m not changing the subject dumb dumb.

You brought up a particular institute (which is saturated in ideology) as some sort of lame appeal to authority and now you won’t answer some simple questions about their positions on certain things they teach as you know that that probably wasn’t a smart move.

What do you think about what they teach on Critical Race Theory? Do you think it’s bullshit?

 

[AN2]

I’m not changing the subject dumb dumb.

You brought up a particular institute (which is saturated in ideology) as some sort of lame appeal to authority and now you won’t answer some simple questions about their positions on certain things they teach as you know that that probably wasn’t a smart move.

What do you think about what they teach on Critical Race Theory? Do you think it’s bullshit?

CRT isn't science, we're talking about science

How old is the Earth?

 

[Professor]

Go easy Tiger! A great post . . . Amazing how we look for and get definitive answers from 350 million years ago!

I'm in need of brushing up on the details etc etc - The certainties Vs uncertainties

One can see why Evolution is popular belief system in lieu of other substantial theories.
Simply put, the design & stuff which make modern humans was in existence and constituting the make-up of mammalian life forms for a hundred million years before the appearance of man, who comprised of the same biology.
Environmental conditions over such an extended period would have had huge impacts on all the earthly life, leading to changes in their forms.

 

[AN2]

CRT isn't science, we're talking about science

How old is the Earth?

^ @Tiger:




I have an uncanny knack of knowing to ask spoofers the right questions

 

[SwordOfStZip]

PS. Apparently you have no idea how old the Earth is

Whatever about Tiger I don't. I think there was a long gap between the Creation of the Earth and that of our Ur-Parents Adam and Eve (personally I prefer to refer to her as Cheva) but maybe there wasn't. Archbishop Ussher, the famous and in many ways brilliant but in some ways mad Church of Ireland Primate, worked out what he believed that the date of Creation was from the King James Bible but this was never accepted as in any way binding by Anglicans of his time no mind now. The Byzantine/Eastern Christian Roman Empire dated their year zero so to speak from Creation rather than the Birth of Christ but they had a different year for that than the one claimed by Archbishop Ussher. I don't think that Latin Catholicism has ever claimed to know just how old the Earth is.

Rabbinic Jews though also date the start of their Calendar from Creation- we are in the year 5785 according to the Jews.

James Ussher - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Byzantine calendar - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[AN2]

Whatever about Tiger I don't. I think there was a long gap between the Creation of the Earth and that of our Ur-Parents Adam and Eve (personally I prefer to refer to her as Cheva) but maybe there wasn't.

What if I told you that the gap was billions of years?

I mean, I'm not even sure why @Tiger won't answer.. I just had the gut feeling to ask him.

And then perhaps I could ask him: What the heck was God doing in the billions of years before he planted Adam and Eve on Earth?

Archbishop Ussher, the famous and in many ways brilliant but in some ways mad Church of Ireland Primate, worked out what he believed that the date of Creation was from the King James Bible but this was never accepted as in any way binding by Anglicans of his time no mind now. The Byzantine/Eastern Christian Roman Empire dated their year zero so to speak from Creation rather than the Birth of Christ but they had a different year for that than the one claimed by Archbishop Ussher. I don't think that Latin Catholicism has ever claimed to know just how old the Earth is.

Rabbinic Jews though also date the start of their Calendar from Creation- we are in the year 5785 according to the Jews.

James Ussher - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Byzantine calendar - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Well, we, in the Christian world live in the 21st century Anno Domini, that's our calendar. Not to be confused with the age of the Earth

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

You lost Myles at ‘Proper’

As in Proper 12? Never drank the stuff. Its founder may well be a convicted rapist this time tomorrow.

 

[AN2]

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SsmVgoXDq2w

 

[AN2]

Chess Monday

Ha.. Well I don't I'll make it a feature (of the thread) but how about some chess to get the neurons firing this Monday morning.

It's a wee bit tricky, so take your time @Tiger

Clue available upon request (and it's a good one) to anyone who wants it, just reply to this post:

Clue (or Clue, please if you're feeling polite )

 

[AN2]

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D-x3Wzy6pVk&t=3

 

[AN2]

Zugzwang - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org