The Privileged Planet

6days · Oct 2, 2015

Jose Fly said:
Post #115

Post 115...

Jose Fly said:
I'd say apathetic agnostic is more accurate.

A pathetic agnostic?... Naaaaaaa. We loves ya Jose... Honestly!
(Even though we might slightly change apathetic to razz you a bit)

Jose Fly said:
But given everything I've studied about the subject, the evolutionary conclusion is ridiculously obvious

What is amazing Jose is that thousands have studied the same stuff, but reject the evolutionary conclusions.

Jose Fly said:
Think of it this way....if under your religious beliefs, Noah took representatives of "kinds" aboard the ark, how did those "kinds" give rise to the diversity of species that we see around us today?

If you have studied biology..... or even paid attention here in TOL, you already know the answer.

Diversity comes from pre-existing information and mechanisms. Diversity / adaptation often is a result of a loss of pre-existing information.

Jose Fly said:
Ah, so then "genetic information" is simply strings of nucleotides. IOW, if one genome has 1,000 nucleotides and another has 1,500 nucleotides, then then one with 1,500 has more "genetic information" (because it has more nucleotides), correct?

Surely you don't believe that.

JJJooossseee Ffllyyy is not more information that 'Jose Fly'.

Jose Fly said:
The fact that the majority of people who accept the reality of evolution are theists is related to your claim that evolution is just about people rejecting God.

ALL theists accept the reality of mutations, adaptation, etc. (Real and observational science) But Biblical creationists reject common ancestry beliefs

MichaelCadry · Oct 3, 2015

Hey Guys,

So now I know where you went instead of my Creation vs. Evolution thread. Sure hope you can find some time to post there. I have a new Christian person, and two new agnostics. They're pretty smart to me. Well, I miss you all. New people are fine. I've got three agnostics now.

Ciao!!

Michael

Jose Fly · Oct 3, 2015

Right Divider said:
Two posts BEFORE that you said that you were an apatheist

And then right after that I specified that "apathetic agnostic" was a more accurate term.

Jose Fly · Oct 3, 2015

6days said:
What is amazing Jose is that thousands have studied the same stuff, but reject the evolutionary conclusions.

Really? You want to compare numbers of experts who support evolution versus those who support young-earth creationism? Are you sure that's a road you want to go down?

Diversity comes from pre-existing information and mechanisms. Diversity / adaptation often is a result of a loss of pre-existing information.

JJJooossseee Ffllyyy is not more information that 'Jose Fly'.

And once again we see that creationists see no problem with making quantitative claims about "genetic information", even though they can't define it or say how they're measuring it.

Jose Fly · Oct 3, 2015

Greg Jennings said:
The whole kleptch thing I found rather amusing myself

It was funny, wasn't it? :chuckle:

Right Divider · Oct 3, 2015

Jose Fly said:
And then right after that I specified that "apathetic agnostic" was a more accurate term.

Maybe you should make up your mind.

Oh, that's right. Your thoughts are just a bunch of random chemical reactions without any guiding intelligence.

alwight · Oct 3, 2015

Right Divider said:
Maybe you should make up your mind.

Oh, that's right. Your thoughts are just a bunch of random chemical reactions without any guiding intelligence.

The human brain seems to me to contain its own, stand alone, organised, guiding intelligence, but perhaps you think it needs an outside influence of some kind to function properly?

Jose Fly · Oct 3, 2015

Right Divider said:
Maybe you should make up your mind.

Um......I've told you exactly what label best applies to my views on gods. Not really sure why this is so difficult for you to grasp, or why you think it's so important to our discussion of science.

Is it because since you formulate your views on science from a religious perspective, you figure everyone else must do the same?

exminister · Oct 3, 2015

Jose Fly said:
FYI, I'm a biologist, so there's no need to explain basic genetics to me.

If someone is going to make claims about "genetic information" then they need to define "genetic information". That's just common sense. And if they're going to make quantitative claims about "genetic information" (e.g., whether it increases or decreases), they need to provide a means of measuring it. Understand?

Oh no. You asked me to explain what I say it is and then you feel insulted with my answer. That was never my intent.

Ok. I will bow out and go back to lurking. I simply wanted your answer not mine.

Jose Fly · Oct 3, 2015

exminister said:
Oh no. You asked me to explain what I say it is and then you feel insulted with my answer. That was never my intent.

Insulted? No.

Ok. I will bow out and go back to lurking. I simply wanted your answer not mine.

You mean what I think "genetic information" is? I don't think it's a meaningful term. Geneticists don't use it, nor do they speak in terms of it increasing or decreasing. It's pretty much a creationist thing.

Right Divider · Oct 3, 2015

alwight said:
The human brain seems to me to contain its own, stand alone, organised, guiding intelligence, but perhaps you think it needs an outside influence of some kind to function properly?

Perhaps you think that the universe has some unknown force that causes intelligence to come into existence by random chance where it did not exist before.

Please free to start a thread explaining how random chance is a creative and guiding force.

Right Divider · Oct 3, 2015

Jose Fly said:
Um......I've told you exactly what label best applies to my views on gods. Not really sure why this is so difficult for you to grasp, or why you think it's so important to our discussion of science.

Is it because since you formulate your views on science from a religious perspective, you figure everyone else must do the same?

In TWO consecutive posts, you modified your "view". And you wonder why I have a hard time understanding your "view"?

Your "view" is just as religious as mine. You start by assuming NO God and work from there.

alwight · Oct 3, 2015

Right Divider said:
Perhaps you think that the universe has some unknown force that causes intelligence to come into existence by random chance where it did not exist before.

Please free to start a thread explaining how random chance is a creative and guiding force.

Perhaps you'd like to answer my question first?

exminister · Oct 3, 2015

Jose Fly said:
Insulted? No.

You mean what I think "genetic information" is? I don't think it's a meaningful term. Geneticists don't use it, nor do they speak in terms of it increasing or decreasing. It's pretty much a creationist thing.

Thank you. That I did not understand.

The government uses it. That is what I plagiarized

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/genetic.cfm

Right Divider · Oct 3, 2015

alwight said:
Perhaps you'd like to answer my question first?

It seems like you should already know that answer.

Indeed I do and you do too, although you won't admit it.

Jose Fly · Oct 3, 2015

Right Divider said:
In TWO consecutive posts, you modified your "view". And you wonder why I have a hard time understanding your "view"?

Your "view" is just as religious as mine. You start by assuming NO God and work from there.

Just as I said. You're assuming that since you take a religiously-biased approach to science, everyone else must do the same.

Jose Fly · Oct 3, 2015

exminister said:
Thank you. That I did not understand.

No worries.

The government uses it. That is what I plagiarized

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/genetic.cfm

Right, but in that context "genetic information" refers to information about your genome, such as an employer firing you once he finds out you have a genetic predisposition for Parkinson's Disease or something. IOW, the "information" refers to what someone knows about what's in your genome.

That's very different than the sorts of claims creationists make about "genetic information".

Right Divider · Oct 3, 2015

exminister said:
Thank you. That I did not understand.

The government uses it. That is what I plagiarized

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/genetic.cfm

JF likes to try and hide behind this topic.

From: http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-is-a-structure-that-encodes-biological-6493050

DNA Is a Structure That Encodes Biological Information

How dare they oppose Jose Fly!

The first paragraph is very nice too (highlighted by me for emphasis):

What do a human, a rose, and a bacterium have in common? Each of these things — along with every other organism on Earth — contains the molecular instructions for life, called deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA. Encoded within this DNA are the directions for traits as diverse as the color of a person's eyes, the scent of a rose, and the way in which bacteria infect a lung cell.

I guess that maybe nature.com is now a bastion of creationist propaganda.

Right Divider · Oct 3, 2015

Jose Fly said:
Just as I said. You're assuming that since you take a religiously-biased approach to science, everyone else must do the same.

The origin of ALL THINGS is definitely outside the realm of your materialist science. You're just to dumb to accept that fact.

Jose Fly · Oct 3, 2015

Right Divider said:
The first paragraph is very nice too (highlighted by me for emphasis):
I guess that maybe nature.com is now a bastion of creationist propaganda.

Did I miss where they made any claims about "genetic information", let alone it increasing or decreasing?

The Privileged Planet

New member

LIFETIME MEMBER

New member

New member

New member

Body part

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Body part

Body part

New member

Well-known member

Body part

New member

New member

Body part

Body part

New member