Some questions 2 'Lote Tree'
-
Hello IDMkhizar,
I would like to hear your answers in your own words, not links to refutations websites, not quotes from other peoples work, but in your own words, of some of the points I have put to you
Have ever read Behe, Darwin, Dawkins, Gould?
Studied John Conways "Game of Life" principles and the cellular automation programming?
Does someone's unbelief in God or their political views make them unable to be a sincere person?
Regards
-
Hello IDMkhizar,
I would like to hear your answers in your own words, not links to refutations websites, not quotes from other peoples work, but in your own words, of some of the points I have put to you
Khi- I have addressed quite a few issues in my own words.
Have ever read Behe, Darwin, Dawkins, Gould?
Khi- Not the complete books neither the complete boks of creationists or HY but parts. But i know their views very well.
Studied John Conways "Game of Life" principles and the cellular automation programming?
Khi- I expalined this 2 u tht tht program has a save function in it n the goals r defined. If they were not reasonable patterns wld never occur.
Does someone's unbelief in God or their political views make them unable to be a sincere person?
RegardsKhi- Mostly yes. We have seen this in case of communists like Darwin, Leni, Marx, etc. All disbelieved in GOD supported evolution n therefore were materialists who sought only power n self survival in this world. They stubbornly denied the truth though even Darwin had 2 admit at times this his theory had faults especially regrading the complex structure of the eye which puzzled even him at his time. Such persons were insincere 2 themselves. How can they be sincere 2 others? GOD Bless!
-
Hello idmkhizar,
you wrote
"Khi- Not the complete books neither the complete boks of creationists or HY but parts. But i know their views very well."How can you read only parts of the books? This Evolution issue is obviously affects very much and therefore is it not very important that you should try to understand it fully?
you wrote
"Khi- I expalined this 2 u tht tht program has a save function in it n the goals r defined. If they were not reasonable patterns wld never occur."John Conways cellular automation programs does not have a save function. I think you have confused it with Dawkins Mutation Program, which does have this function. Please recheck...
you wrote
"Khi- Mostly yes. We have seen this in case of communists like Darwin, Leni, Marx, etc. All disbelieved in GOD supported evolution n therefore were materialists who sought only power n self survival in this world. They stubbornly denied the truth though even Darwin had 2 admit at times this his theory had faults especially regrading the complex structure of the eye which puzzled even him at his time. Such persons were insincere 2 themselves. How can they be sincere 2 others? GOD Bless"I think here lies the problem idmkhizar. Please note people's unbelief does not make them inhuman. They are still like you and me. You should not judge their scientific work on the basis of their political views. If you had read Darwin's record of his voyage on the Beagle then you would have realised how sincere human being he was. He never set out to deceive anyone...
Anyway idmkhizar, you take care.
It was interesting debating with you.Bye.
Regards,
-
Hello idmkhizar,
How can you read only parts of the books? This Evolution issue is obviously affects very much and therefore is it not very important that you should try to understand it fully?
Khi- I made read along more as i get time.
John Conways cellular automation programs does not have a save function. I think you have confused it with Dawkins Mutation Program, which does have this function. Please recheck...
Khi- Whtever it has it is a prgram desgned by someone. Perfect patterns just dont appear like tht by random chance. The prgram must be coded in a way tht such patterns appear. Ill study this prgram too once i get time.
I think here lies the problem idmkhizar. Please note people's unbelief does not make them inhuman. They are still like you and me. You should not judge their scientific work on the basis of their political views. If you had read Darwin's record of his voyage on the Beagle then you would have realised how sincere human being he was. He never set out to deceive anyone...
Anyway idmkhizar, you take care.
It was interesting debating with you.Bye.
Regards,
Khi- i think here lies ur prob. These ppl like Darwin did not understand y ppl had 2 suffer in this world. They did not understand GOD's Wisdom behind everything. Therefore they searched 4 theories which were made up by biased n fraudulous reasearch 2 support such. However it seems tht whtever proofs quotes from evolutinists themselves i show u, u still dont seem 2 just ignore them at hand. GOD Bless!
-
Hello,
With due respects to you idmKhizar, I don't have any problem with evolution and neither do other people on this forum. It was you who posted the lengthy article denouncing Evolution, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt by reading it. But I think you have very little understanding of the subject matter. Your knowledge is based on refutations that are posted on websites. This is a very faulty premise to rely on to acquire knowlege and understanding.
You say I have ignored your proofs against evolution? How did I? You only gave me links to refutations websites but I have told you time and time again that I have read the SOURCE materials, not in part or bits but in whole including books by creationist scientist like Micheal Behe.
I urge you to read the source materials with objectivity and without prejudice. Since this Evolution issue affects you so much, you owe it to yourself to get a fuller understanding of the subject matter. Perhaps then we could have fruitful discussion on the validity of Evolution...
Take care.
Regards,
-
Hello idmkhizar,
I have read your posts and they tell me you have very little understanding of evolution. You have a mistaken understanding of the role of CHANCE and MUTATIONS in evolution. Thats why I urge you to read some books objectively...
CHANCE only plays a part in Evolution and MUTATIONS in DNA can be observed. The AIDS virus has accumulated thousands of mutations since its discovery in the 1980s. This is because the Gene copy process is not perfect. It always creates errors in the DNA sequence. Your contention is that all variation of a GENE has been coded from the begining in the DNA is not true. If that was the case then "unexpressed" genes will accumulate large number of mutations which will render it useless...
Regards,
-
Hello idmkhizar,
I have read your posts and they tell me you have very little understanding of evolution. You have a mistaken understanding of the role of CHANCE and MUTATIONS in evolution. Thats why I urge you to read some books objectively...
CHANCE only plays a part in Evolution and MUTATIONS in DNA can be observed. The AIDS virus has accumulated thousands of mutations since its discovery in the 1980s. This is because the Gene copy process is not perfect. It always creates errors in the DNA sequence. Your contention is that all variation of a GENE has been coded from the begining in the DNA is not true. If that was the case then "unexpressed" genes will accumulate large number of mutations which will render it useless...
Regards,
Khi- 1stly everything has been perfectly calculated in the gene code n therefore nothing is rendered entirely useless. 2ndly i know there can be n were mutations but mutations NEVER ADD ANY INFORMATION TO THE GENE CODE BUT ONLY TAKE THEM AWAY. Therefore mutation has no evolutionary power but a destructive one. GOD Bless!
-
you wrote
"Therefore mutation has no evolutionary power but a destructive one". GOD Bless!This is is nonsense. Have you not heard of Sickel Anaemia? How is that destructive?
Thats I am saying to you that you have very little understanding of Evolution.
Regards,
-
you wrote
"Therefore mutation has no evolutionary power but a destructive one". GOD Bless!This is is nonsense. Have you not heard of Sickel Anaemia? How is that destructive?
Thats I am saying to you that you have very little understanding of Evolution.
Regards,
Khi- If ive not heard of something tht doesnt change anything. R u talking abt mutation or variation here? Plz dont confuse the two. If it is variation then it is well possible tht something healthier or more beneficial came out since tht was already present in the gene code. For example i may have something beneficial in my genes tht might become active in future generations if passed on. Tht however, i repeat, is NOT evolution but variation. GOD Bless!
-
Your wrote
"Khi- If ive not heard of something tht doesnt change anything. R u talking abt mutation or variation here? Plz dont confuse the two. If it is variation then it is well possible tht something healthier or more beneficial came out since tht was already present in the gene code. For example i may have something beneficial in my genes tht might become active in future generations if passed on. Tht however, i repeat, is NOT evolution but variation. GOD Bless!"You telling me you don't even know about Sickel Cell mutation? you surprise me with your ignorance! -)
-
You telling me you don't even know about Sickel Cell mutation? you surprise me with your ignorance! -)
Khi- U can bring up any pts here n we can discuss it. I know evolutionists may have 100s n 1000s of claims 2 support their theory which u n i r unaware of. Yet there is NO evidence 2 prove tht a single muation added info 2 the gene code. Plz also see Dr. Kent's challenge. GOD Bless!
-
you wrote
"Khi- U can bring up any pts here n we can discuss it. I know evolutionists may have 100s n 1000s of claims 2 support their theory which u n i r unaware of. Yet there is NO evidence 2 prove tht a single muation added info 2 the gene code. Plz also see Dr. Kent's challenge. GOD Bless!"Ok. Lets try to clarify what do you mean by "added" info to the gene?
If a gene gets duplicated by the gene copy process does that means info is added?
If a gene gets deleted in the gene copy process does that mean info lost?
If a gene gets inserted into the existing DNA sequence does that mean information is added?
If two gene combine to form on gene sequence does that mean information is added?
Regards,
-
Ok. Lets try to clarify what do you mean by "added" info to the gene?
If a gene gets duplicated by the gene copy process does that means info is added?
Khi- Ofcourse not. No new in fo is added.
If a gene gets deleted in the gene copy process does that mean info lost?
Khi- Depends.
If a gene gets inserted into the existing DNA sequence does that mean information is added?
Khi- From where shld tht extra gene get inserted? It must be coming from somewhere. Genes dont form out of the earth by chance. They have a complex code which was designed.
If two gene combine to form on gene sequence does that mean information is added?
Regards,
Khi- No. Since if this happens it's coz of the coding already present which tells tht they shld combine. It's like two designed sub progs adding 2 the main program which was also designed. They need 2 be compatible 2 function. Im talking abt the addition of info 2 the individual gene as a result of chance which is utterly impossible. GOD Bless!
-
It's interesting that Charles Darwin was a Christian until the age of forty.
On another occasion he wrote, "I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age." He turned 40 in 1849. Commenting on this, Darwin's biographer, James Moore, says, "... just as his clerical career had died a slow 'natural death,' so his faith had withered gradually."
His faith in Christianity was discarded at forty, the age of maturity in the Koran.
"In 1880, in reply to a correspondent, Charles wrote, "I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God."
Note that he states he does not believes in the bible as divine revelation and rejects Jesus as the son of god.
Now look at what Darwin writes in his auto-biography regarding his understanding of God...
"Another source of conviction in the existance of God connected with the reason and not the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look at a first cause having an intelliegent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a theist."
and later he writes
" I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."
So I would be very careful about your sweeping condemnation of him as an atheistic "communist". It only proves that you have been brainwashed by 'websites' of quasi-science pretenders I don't have to name.
Regards.
You may be interested in the following excerpt from Darwin's autobiography also
"A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones. A dog acts in this manner, but he does so blindly. A man, on the other hand, looks forwards and backwards, and compares his various feelings, desires and recollections. He then finds, in accordance with the verdict of all the wisest men that the highest satisfaction is derived from following certain impulses, namely the social instincts. If he acts for the good of others, he will recieve the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives; and this latter gain undoubtely is the highest pleasure on this earth. By degrees it will become intolerable to him to obey his sensuous passions rather than his higher impulses, which when rendered habitual may be almost called instincts. His reason may occasionally tell him to act in opposition to the opinion of others, whose approbiation he will then not recieve; but he will still have the solid satisfactionof knowing that he has followed his innermost guide or conscience. -- As for myself I believe that I have acted rightly in steadily following and devoting my life to science. I feel no remorse from having committed any great sin, but have often and often regretted that I have not done more direct good to my fellow creatures. My sole and poor excuse is much ill-health and my mental constitution, which makes it extremely difficult for me to turn from one subject or occupation to another. I can imagine with high satisfaction giving up my whole life to philantropy, but not a portion of it; though this would have been a far better line of conduct.
-
His faith in Christianity was discarded at forty, the age of maturity in the Koran.
Khi- He did not only discard his faith in the Bible. He discarded his faith in tht GOD made a perfect Creation. Hence while some believe at 40 others become disbelievers at 40 n thus r condemned 2 Hell.
"In 1880, in reply to a correspondent, Charles wrote, "I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God."
Note that he states he does not believes in the bible as divine revelation and rejects Jesus as the son of god.
Khi- Ok but tht doesnt mean he still believed GOD created everything.
Now look at what Darwin writes in his auto-biography regarding his understanding of God...
"Another source of conviction in the existance of God connected with the reason and not the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look at a first cause having an intelliegent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a theist."
Khi- Her Darwin makes another mistake. Reason n feelings r both granted 2 us by GOD n therefore they must BOTH be used. Relying exclusively on either one wld be wrong. The other statement may have been fine if there had not been the comparison of tht intelligent designer 2 man.
and later he writes
" I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."
Khi- See so he was an agnostic.
So I would be very careful about your sweeping condemnation of him as an atheistic "communist". It only proves that you have been brainwashed by 'websites' of quasi-science pretenders I don't have to name.
Regards.
Khi- We all knwo tht all this evolution nonsense started with Darwin's false claims n now the materialists r funding the instituions with billions of Dollars but all their money will GW in the end avail them nothing n the Truth i.e. Intelligent Design will stand out clearly from falsehood(evolution).
You may be interested in the following excerpt from Darwin's autobiography also
"A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones. A dog acts in this manner, but he does so blindly. A man, on the other hand, looks forwards and backwards, and compares his various feelings, desires and recollections. He then finds, in accordance with the verdict of all the wisest men that the highest satisfaction is derived from following certain impulses, namely the social instincts. If he acts for the good of others, he will recieve the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives; and this latter gain undoubtely is the highest pleasure on this earth. By degrees it will become intolerable to him to obey his sensuous passions rather than his higher impulses, which when rendered habitual may be almost called instincts. His reason may occasionally tell him to act in opposition to the opinion of others, whose approbiation he will then not recieve; but he will still have the solid satisfactionof knowing that he has followed his innermost guide or conscience. -- As for myself I believe that I have acted rightly in steadily following and devoting my life to science. I feel no remorse from having committed any great sin, but have often and often regretted that I have not done more direct good to my fellow creatures. My sole and poor excuse is much ill-health and my mental constitution, which makes it extremely difficult for me to turn from one subject or occupation to another. I can imagine with high satisfaction giving up my whole life to philantropy, but not a portion of it; though this would have been a far better line of conduct.
Khi- I believe he was addressing his race only n not all mankind. He wanted the "best", the white men 2 survive. Here again ego comes in. GOD Bless!
-
You need to set a higher threshold for bullshit detection.
Mine is always set on high and your reply above registered a supramaximal response.
lol
-
Hello Truth,
I have already advised idmkhizar to read upon Darwin and find out what kind of man he was but he seems to have an aberrant reation to reading any of his orginal material...how can one be objective if your prejuidice gets in the way of acquiring knwolege and understanding...
Hello idmkhizar,
I wrote
"If a gene gets duplicated by the gene copy process does that means info is added?"you wrote
"Khi- Ofcourse not. No new in fo is added".Gene duplication is also a process of mutation. But can you see how the genome size increases?
i wrote
"If a gene gets deleted in the gene copy process does that mean info lost?"you wrote
"Khi- Depends."Can you elaborate on that?
i wrote
"If a gene gets inserted into the existing DNA sequence does that mean information is added?"Khi- From where shld tht extra gene get inserted? It must be coming from somewhere. Genes dont form out of the earth by chance. They have a complex code which was designed.
Extra gene can come from Bacterium and viruses
(we can deal with chance on a another thread and also it is not the view of scientist that whole DNA arose by chance)
i wrote
If two gene combine to form on gene sequence does that mean information is added?you wrote
"It's like two designed sub progs adding 2 the main program which was also designed. They need 2 be compatible 2 function. GOD Bless!"are you saying that two simple separate entities can come together to build something complex?
Regards,