Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creation...

[lrkun]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

If computer Code had one Generation of mutation to IT'S code instead of Intelligent People Updating it with better code.

Irrelevant, argument from intelligent design fallacy. Why fallacy? It's been held that intelligent design is not science but a creationist argument in favor of a designer. Also, a computer code follows a set of rules based on a specific program and a non-intellegent IT cannot make it work.

To clarify why mutation does not apply to a computer code, you must first start with the definition of mutation.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

You do know that one point mutation does pretty much nothing to the genetic code. There is a large chance that it would the new triplet would still code for the same amino acid or one very similar in chemical structure. Again proof you are talking out of your ass and know nothing about evolution, or even simple biochem.

 

[lrkun]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

P.s. try not to use analogies because even if you succeed in arguing for your analogy it does not mean you solved the bigger issue which refers to evidence in support of creation.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

1: Your Projecting.

2: Santa Riding a Unicorn.

1. Pup, try to make sense. "You're projecting" is vague.

2. That's not proof. If this is your claim, you need to prove santa exists, a unicorn exists, and that santa is indeed riding a unicorn. Here, not only did you change the language of your claim, but added three difficult burdens in your part, and this is notwithstanding your first burden.

No, Heeeeeeeeelllllllllllllllll NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, Mutations NEVER add new and Additional and Useful Structures.

To prove beneficial mutations, the following article is enlightening.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

1: Study Psychology
2: The Guy asked me if I would Accept Evidence That Proves me wrong, But I'm not wrong and No Evidence that I'm wrong could ever exist.

 

[Inferno]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

I Freaking decide how you make me look stupid. (I'm Going to Regret Typing that)

Ohhh, the restraint!!!!! :lol:

If computer Code had one Generation of mutation to IT'S code instead of Intelligent People Updating it with better code.

So freaking what? Those things would spread like a virus and we wouldn't be able to use computers any more. Don't forget that electronic things can replicate as long as there is space on the HardDrive.
This is totally irrelevant and in no way related to Biological Evolution. Could you get back on topic please?

 

[lrkun]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

1: Study Psychology
2: The Guy asked me if I would Accept Evidence That Proves me wrong, But I'm not wrong and No Evidence that I'm wrong could ever exist.

1. Irrelevant reply. If you're not going to explain it, don't bother posting it.

2. You are wrong, and no.2 is the evidence.

 

[Inferno]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

2. You are wrong, and no.2 is the evidence.

Seconded.
The evidence has already been shown to you, TPT. It exists, you simply choose not to see it.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

"a computer code follows a set of rules based on a specific program and a non-intellegent IT cannot make it work."

You're so close to Getting it
And Everyone stop Posting for 5 minutes and let me respond to Everyone Please.

 

[lrkun]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

"a computer code follows a set of rules based on a specific program and a non-intellegent IT cannot make it work."

You're so close to Getting it
And Everyone stop Posting for 5 minutes and let me respond to Everyone Please.

Getting what? Don't assume I know what it is. And by quoting a part of my reply does not show the whole context in which I stress that analogies of this sort has nothing to do with the topic. Take your time in replying.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

I find it particularly anoying that I have to ask this a 3rd fucking time:

Do you recognise that we have managed to "evolve" animals in the laboratory? And do you recognise the methods and the process by wich so was done, like the role of DNA and selection? (even if at this moment you do not reconise that it applys to everything else).

If you do not care to touch this topic with a 10 foot pole, don't come here and complain that you find that the pieces only seam to fit because they are weared out.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

"a computer code follows a set of rules based on a specific program and a non-intellegent IT cannot make it work."

You're so close to Getting it
And Everyone stop Posting for 5 minutes and let me respond to Everyone Please.

Please address my point about mutations next. This is the most important right now. the analogy thing seems to be a dead horse right now.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

"Those things would spread like a virus and we wouldn't be able to use computers any more."
EXACTLY, ******* EXACTLY

 

[lrkun]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

"Those things would spread like a virus and we wouldn't be able to use computers any more."
EXACTLY, ******* EXACTLY

This has nothing to do with the topic. This is not an IT thread. In addition by saying exactly exactly does not even mean a thing when you don't explain it in the context of the topic.

To help you a little, you could have written it this way: exactly because the virus represents mutation and the computer represents the animal therefore...

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

"Getting what?"

That Mutations are errors Mistakes, and can't explain the Diversity, traits Origeon or ******* anything else in Life. And please stop posting so much, there's one of me and 10 of you and I have to WAIT between posts.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

"Getting what?"

That Mutations are errors Mistakes, and can't explain the Diversity, traits Origeon or ******* anything else in Life. And please stop posting so much, there's one of me and 10 of you and I have to WAIT between posts.

You didn't read my post at all did you. Go read my post on mutations on the previous page first. Before you reply or do anything, go read it now.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

"Those things would spread like a virus and we wouldn't be able to use computers any more."
EXACTLY, ******* EXACTLY

This has nothing to do with the topic. This is not an IT thread. In addition by saying exactly exactly does not even mean a thing when you don't explain it in the context of the topic.

To help you a little, you could have written it this way: exactly because the virus represents mutation and the computer represents the animal therefore...

At's an Analogy, Computers = Lifeforms

 

[lrkun]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Now he gets it and I had to help him a little bit. Anyway, to rattle your boat, again, let me stress that we're not talking about computers per se or lifeforms per se, but evidence which supports creation.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

At's an Analogy, Computers = Lifeforms

Not really, but there are computer programs designed to carry out evolutionary simulations and they show that evolution does work. And please read my post about mutations.

 

[australopithecus]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

2: The Guy asked me if I would Accept Evidence That Proves me wrong, But I'm not wrong and No Evidence that I'm wrong could ever exist.

Sorry to say it does exist, and has existed for ions and has been recognised for at least 150 years. Your Dunning-Kruger ignorance will never be a refutation of that evidence. Considering, y'know, you know NOTHING about biology, let alone evolutionary theory. But hey, that's your right. Just remember that all those medicines you take when you're ill...they work because they were designed to work based on biochemistry underpinned by Evolutionary theory. But whatever, I guess that we need new inoculations every year because viruses evolve. That'll save the health care sector billions. Nice catch, inform the towns folk...

You're so close to Getting it
And Everyone stop Posting for 5 minutes and let me respond to Everyone Please.

I see what you're trying to assert, and frankly it fails big time. DNA is not a code. It is a sting of chemicals that happens to perform a certain function, it is an emergent property of chemistry, and no, it didn't need an intelligence to emerge.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

To respond to Many of your Points at once, MUTATIONS ARE ERRORS, I'M NOT THE PRODUCT OF A 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ******* ERRORS ONE AFTER ANOTHER STACKING UP TO MAKE A RANDOM FREAK. NO ******* WAY