Enoch2021

Yep. It's a feeble Poisoning the Well (Fallacy) via a Fallacy of Innuendo. Interestingly, he had his "Hat Handed to Him" on that topic more times than I can count. regards

Try IMPOSSIBLE . I'd say there's a better chance of Liberace being resurrected sporting a purple tutu and jumping on a chartreuse hobbled unicorn and riding around the Sombrero Galaxy. "We" meaning "YOU" ?? "You" have trouble PARROTING 'wiki'. 1. List the "Building Blocks" that come about "Naturally"...? 2. Even if I give you ALL the "Building Blocks", it's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE for them to Polymerize. If you had a Junior High Intro to General Chemistry Acumen you'd already know this. You (and one.opinion) wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your heads, spun around, and whistled dixie, for goodness sakes!! oy vey regards

Ahhh, "NEWSFLASH" mr. Straw Man Fallacy: You're 'Whistl'n Past the Graveyard' trainwreck appeal here has already been taken out back to the Woodshed and given "What For" on this very page. What in the World? You don't get "Evidence" for a Scientific Hypothesis, professor; all you do is "Observe Phenomenon" (The First Step of The Scientific Method). THEN, the Hypothesis (Step 3 of The Scientific Method) when Validated or Invalidated... gives you "EVIDENCE"!! i.e., "Evidence" is The Consequent, the Hypothesis is the Necessary Antecedent. Your appeal here is tantamount claiming you gotta have Water before you can have Hydrogen Bonds!! Yea smh, it's a Mindlessly PARROTED "meme" used in Right in the Face of the evidence to the CONTRARY !!! (Like... ON THIS PAGE!!) The purveyors just "Whistle Past the Graveyard' and "B-gAAK" this meme because they can't tear themselves away from their Stage 5 Clinger Kung Fu Death Grip on the Trainwreck Narrative. THEN...for a Cherry-On-Top to their 'Hammer meet c4 Fire' Clown Show, they unwittingly Fall... Face-Plant Style over and over again, directly into the very trap as to what they're charging others with: 'evolution of the GAPS' !! Here's a Classic: Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University (“Ernst Mayr, the world’s greatest living evolutionary biologist" -- Stephen Jay Gould)... "Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." Ernst Mayr; What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14. So the "GAPS" are plugged with...you guessed it: 'evolution' (Whatever that is (??), they can't even DEFINE THE TERM !!!) oy vey

1. "Science" isn't an ENTITY or a result, It's a Method; The Scientific Method. "Science doesn't: "SHOW", say, jump, run, swim, point to, or do the hokey pokey. To do such things takes, Sentience, Prescience, and Intelligence...to be ALIVE. Science isn't ALIVE, Ergo...Reification Fallacy. 2. We're not talking about mere Complexity, we're talking about Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity. (See below) 3. You don't have the "Natural World" (Matter) without a KNOWER (Creator) First. (SEE: Quantum Mechanics below) Really?? Post the Citation...? THEN, Most Importantly...Post the Scientific Evidence he provided, in this Format Please... a. What Phenomenon was Observed...? b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...? c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...? d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...? By the presence of Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity. (SEE below) And, Errr...is there another kind of DESIGN?? Since Intelligent Design is Painfully Redundant. Does it contain Information (Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity)? Is it a Functional Interlinked System? Does it contain Redundancy and Contingency? If the Answer is YES to any of the above...then, you have your answer. Design Hallmarks reveal: Intent, Purpose, Planning, Choice, often with Contingency, CONTRIVED; without deterministic law like necessity. Example: Functional Interlinked Systems. Not only "LOOKS"... it contains the Hallmarks of Design listed above. We don't need to investigate that since it contains the Hallmarks of Design listed above. 1.) That's Right. 2.) What does "reproduction" have to do with it?? You need the "IT" first to reproduce (Asexually), Two "IT's" for Sexual. Yes, we surely do... 1. Scientific Law: Information/"CODE"/Software is ONLY ever ever ever CAUSED by Intelligent Agency, Without Exception! That is...whenever we find INFORMATION existing and trace it back to it's source...it invariably leads to an Intelligent Agent EVERY SINGLE TIME !! SUPPORT: 1. Library of Congress. 2. ALL Books. 3. ALL Newspapers. 4. ALL Languages. 5. ALL Computer Software. 6. THE INFORMATION AGE !!! Null Hypothesis in Support: Nature/Natural Phenomena Causation CAN NOT create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes --- (INFORMATION). If you 'cry foul' and claim there is No "Information" or "CODE" in the " Genetic CODE ", you're screwed... "DNA has two types of DIGITAL INFORMATION — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes." Hood, L., Galas, D.,: The Digital Code of DNA: Nature 421, 444-448 (23 January 2003) | doi :10.1038/nature01410 "The genetic code performs a mapping between the sequences of the four nucleotides in mRNA to the sequences of the 20 amino acids in protein. It is highly relevant to the origin of life that the genetic code is constructed to confront and solve the problems of communication and recording by THE SAME PRINCIPLES found both in the GENETIC INFORMATION SYSTEM and in MODERN COMPUTER and COMMUNICATION CODES." Yockey, HP; Origin of life on earth and Shannon's theory of communication. In open problems of computational molecular biology. Computers and Chemistry; 24(1):105-123, Jan 2000 I have roughly 1.8 Million more in SUPPORT, if needed. Sooo... Theist Position-- The Null Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Phenomena causation CAN NOT create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes. (DNA -- Transcription & Translation) Your Position --Alternative Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Phenomena causation *CAN* create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes. So essentially, you MUST SHOW: Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules Authoring Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...? We'll wait. 2. Quantum Mechanics: a. Observe a Phenomenon: Photons/elementary particles/atoms/molecules exhibit both "Wave-Like" and a Particle behavior. b. Alternative Hypothesis: If the "which-path Information" is KNOWN or can be KNOWN then we will observe "No Interference" (Wave-Function Collapse: Matter Existing); Conversely, If the "which-path Information" is NOT Known and never can be KNOWN then we will observe "Interference" (Wave Function Intact: No Matter). Null Hypothesis: If the Environment is the mechanism for Wave-Function Collapse (i.e., "Decoherence" --- interaction of quanta with a physical measuring device "Slit Detectors") then we WILL NOT observe any change in pattern (All Detectors will denote ' No Interference '). c. Experiment: Which one of the Thousands (Without Exception !!) would you like?? 1. Xiao-song Ma et al. (2013): Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, pp. 1221-1226. "The presence of PATH INFORMATION anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it. The mere possibility is enough." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557028/ [THEREFORE, The LACK of 'which-path' Information anywhere in the Universe is sufficient enough to prohibit any possibility of Wave Function Collapse. i.e. Formation of Matter!!] 2. Kim, Y-H. et al. (2000). A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser; Physical Review Letters 84, pp. 1–5. The authors show not only that "Knowledge" of 'which-path' Information SOLELY collapses "The Wave Function" but can accurately predict future actions of "wave-like" and particle behavior after the Signal Photon has registered and before it's twin Idler has arrived; i.e., QM phenomena transcend Time and Space. SEE also: Walborn SP et al 2002, Scarcelli G et al 2005. http://cds.cern.ch/record/381875/files/9903047.pdf In conclusion, this Experiment Unequivocally Validates: a. Knowledge (Knowing) the 'WHICH-PATH' Information ALONE causes Wave Function Collapse. b. Decoherence (physical interaction with the measuring devices) DOES NOT cause Wave Function Collapse. c. QM Phenomena transcend Time and Space. i.e., Space-Time has NO MEANING in Quantum Mechanics. Ergo: "Matter" (Our Reality) doesn't exist without, FIRST: A "Knower"/Existence of the "Which-Path" Information. That is MATTER is Derivative (The Consequent). Consciousness is Primary (Necessary Antecedent). To overturn the Scientific Falsification of "Locality" and by direct proxy ---- Philosophical Naturalism/Realism (atheism); whereby invalidating Idealism "Christianity" (which is not a "religion", btw) and as an ancillary benefit collect yourself a 'Feather in your Cap' Nobel Prize... Please take up the Quantum Randi Challenge (arXiv:1207.5294, 23 July 2012) https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5294 http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/official_quantum_randi_challenge-80168 .... ( "The Quantum Randi Challenge, hence forth QRC, challenges any pseudo-scientist [ YOU, as it were ] who claims that quantum physics is not true and that quantum entanglement experiments can be explained by a classically realistic and locally causal model." https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1207/1207.5294v1.pdf A Nobel Prize AND $1,000,000(USD) is being offered: All you have to do is... Prove Naive Realism or Local Realism is True and not Observation Dependent. 4 Years + and still no takers, I wonder why? Alice in Wonderland has more veracity and is more tenable than your position. 3. Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity: Hallmarks reveal: Intent, Purpose, Planning, Choice, often with Contingency, CONTRIVED; without deterministic law like necessity. Example: Functional Interlinked Systems. There are 3 Types of Complexity 1) random sequence complexity (RSC), 2) ordered sequence complexity (OSC), or 3) Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC)." Random (RSC): fgskztosbclgdsk. e.g., Aftermath of a Tornado. Order (OSC): hhhhhhdddddduuuuuu. e.g., Crystals, Snow Flakes, Sand Dunes, Fractals. Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC): "It Puts The Lotion in the Basket", Sand Castles, The Genetic CODE, Barbecue Grills, Indy Cars, Hyper-NanoTech Machines and Robots (Kinesin, ATP Synthase, Flagellum, Cilia....ad nauseam) et al. So RSC and OSC = "Nature" construct. FSC = Intelligent Design Construct. "In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity". Leslie E. Orgel; The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection, pg. 189 (Chapman & Hall: London, 1973) "The attempts to relate the idea of order...with biological organization or SPECIFICITY must be regarded as a play on words that cannot stand careful scrutiny. Informational macromolecules can code genetic messages and therefore can carry information because the sequence of bases or residues is affected very little, if at all, by [self-organizing] physico-chemical factors". H.P. Yockey; "A Calculation of Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory"; Journal of Theoretical Biology 67, 1977; p. 390. No amount of RSC or OSC or the combination thereof, will EVER lead to Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC). Examples FSC: Cholecystokinin: is a Peptide Hormone "Functional Protein" produced in the mucosal epithelium of the small intestine and stimulates release of Digestive Enzymes from the Pancreas vital for digestion and absorption... Without it, you die. Albumin: a "Functional Protein" is ONLY produced by the Liver. It's consists of a single polypeptide chain of 580 amino acids. Of it's many functions, it's Main Function is to maintain intravascular oncotic (colloid osmotic) pressure. It's vital to homeostasis... Without it, you die. They are Functionally Specific/Sequentially Complex...you cannot interchange them. They are Specifically Designed for their Specific Roles and Specific Functions. If anyone is having a case of the 'Willful Stupids', please call/email the SETI Institute (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) and ask them how they tell the difference between RSC/OSC and Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC); they'll Tighten their Shot Group, right quick. btw, "INFORMATION" (All of Biology (LIFE) ): The Genetic Code ---Replication/ Transcription/Translation, Metabolic Pathways ect; All of Physics: Quantum Mechanics, Basically...the foundation of ALL OF REALITY, is the Quintessential Example of Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC) I got roughly 30 more But they would be Painfully Redundant in lieu of the above. 1. What do you mean by "Change Form"...? 2. Everything "Changes over time"...it's called the Laws of Entropy, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Saying things "Change Over Time" is tantamount to saying H2O Molecules contain Hydrogen. See Above. More like YES "Matter"; Therefore A Creator. (SEE QM above.) 1. I'd say there's a better chance of Liberace being resurrected sporting a purple tutu and jumping on a chartreuse hobbled unicorn and riding around the Sombrero Galaxy. 2. Begging The Question Fallacy: Where'd you get DNA? Start here... 1. "Functional" DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively. It's Physically and Chemically "IMPOSSIBLE". That's just the Hardware! To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed Spontaneously/Naturally "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism from: Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively: CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin ! Conclusion from the Grand Poobah's of OOL Research... "We conclude that the direct synthesis of the nucleosides or nucleotides from prebiotic precursors in reasonable yield and unaccompanied by larger amounts of related molecules could NOT BE achieved by presently known chemical reactions." Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 18 The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993. Do you know the reasons WHY that is? Of the ~50 obstacles precluding the Natural/Spontaneous formation, what are the Two ELEPHANTS IN THE ROOM here...? Dr. Leslie Orgel's last Published Words (Literally), after more than 50 Years of OOL Research... "However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “If Pigs Could Fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help." Orgel LE (2008): The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth, PLoS Biology. http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060018 So after showing us "PIG'S FLYING" ... Then the WOOLLY T-REX in the Room... 2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....? In other words, show how Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...? “DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic databank that transmits its INFORMATION using a mathematical code. Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in terms of material stuff — hardware — but as INFORMATION, or SOFTWARE. Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won’t work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level.” Paul Davies PhD Physics; How we could create life. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2002/dec/11/highereducation.uk You are at the beginning of figuring out what ACTUAL "Science" is. 1. Argument to the Future (Fallacy). 2. And what does future 'Achievement' have to do with any of your Trainwreck Arguments? What in the World is this?? Just the Opposite...it's what WE DO KNOW (See above); Therefore GOD. The Entire Foundation of your "Scientifically Falsified" Fairytale Religion: Philosophical Naturalism/Realism aka: atheism By the Presence of Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity. (SEE Above) Faith?? Yes...Biblical Faith --- Substance and Evidence. regards

They're not gonna do it because they know that the: "Pseudo-Genes", ERV, Junk DNA Texas Two-Step fiascos used to 'grease the skids' for the Pseudo-Scientific Trainwreck "Common Ancestry" Affirming The Consequent Formal Logical Fallacy from the Indoctrinated Peanut Gallery is a Tear Jerk'n Belly Laugher. Their time would be better spent filling their common corporate latrines with "Mountain Fresh" Scents. regards

Phlogiston, 13th Century Alchemy, and Alice in Wonderland are more 'plausible' than the 'big bang'. 'models' are demonstrable Pseudo-Science Please show "models" in the Scientific Method...? (and not "Ball-Stick" Airplane 'Models' Either !!! lol)...? "A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a LIMITATION ON IT'S VALIDITY." https://www.thoughtco.com/hypothesis-model-theory-and-law-2699066 Allow me to translate: "Pseudo-Science" ...There is no such animal as a Scientific Hypothesis with 'limited validity' it's tantamount to a woman being 'A LITTLE' PREGNANT !! REAL Scientific Hypotheses are either CONFIRMED or INVALIDATED, PERIOD...End of Story!! Furthermore, Scientific Hypotheses do not exist in PERPETUITY or wait for more DATA !!! 'Data' comes FROM Experiments -(Hypothesis TESTS). A "Model" is conjured when the 'alleged' Hypothesis is UNTESTABLE !!! That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with !! 1. "sr" and "gr" have been Scientifically Falsified by Quantum Mechanics. (Laughed at by 3rd Graders everywhere 10 minutes after their respective publications.) 2. Mathematics (equations) isn't "Science"! I PUMMEL Hubble's Law -- Red Shift and the CMB here, (You Tube): Science vs. Scientism Episode 6 - Speed of Light and the CMB. If you wish to read then witness an evisceration of the 'big bang', here: Evisceration of the 'big bang' Observing Phenomenon is merely the First Step of The Scientific Method. And your comments concerning "SCIENCE" in general are hollow since it's been shown on this forum so many times now I've lost count...that you couldn't Pass 5th Grade General Science . AGAIN?? This is well over the 10th Time to you personally... 1. Scientific Law: Information/"CODE"/Software is ONLY ever ever ever CAUSED by Intelligent Agency, Without Exception! That is...whenever we find INFORMATION existing and trace it back to it's source...it invariably leads to an Intelligent Agent EVERY SINGLE TIME !! SUPPORT: 1. Library of Congress. 2. ALL Books. 3. ALL Newspapers. 4. ALL Languages. 5. ALL Computer Software. 6. THE INFORMATION AGE !!! Null Hypothesis in Support: Nature/Natural Phenomena Causation CAN NOT create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes --- (INFORMATION). If you 'cry foul' and claim there is No "Information" or "CODE" in the " Genetic CODE ", you're screwed... "DNA has two types of DIGITAL INFORMATION — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes." Hood, L., Galas, D.,: The Digital Code of DNA: Nature 421, 444-448 (23 January 2003) | doi :10.1038/nature01410 "The genetic code performs a mapping between the sequences of the four nucleotides in mRNA to the sequences of the 20 amino acids in protein. It is highly relevant to the origin of life that the genetic code is constructed to confront and solve the problems of communication and recording by THE SAME PRINCIPLES found both in the GENETIC INFORMATION SYSTEM and in MODERN COMPUTER and COMMUNICATION CODES." Yockey, HP; Origin of life on earth and Shannon's theory of communication. In open problems of computational molecular biology. Computers and Chemistry; 24(1):105-123, Jan 2000 I have roughly 1.8 Million more in SUPPORT, if needed. Sooo... Theist Position-- The Null Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Phenomena causation CAN NOT create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes. (DNA -- Transcription & Translation) Your Position --Alternative Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Phenomena causation *CAN* create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes. So essentially, you MUST SHOW: Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules Authoring Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...? We'll wait. 2. Quantum Mechanics: a. Observe a Phenomenon: Photons/elementary particles/atoms/molecules exhibit both "Wave-Like" and a Particle behavior. b. Alternative Hypothesis: If the "which-path Information" is KNOWN or can be KNOWN then we will observe "No Interference" (Wave-Function Collapse: Matter Existing); Conversely, If the "which-path Information" is NOT Known and never can be KNOWN then we will observe "Interference" (Wave Function Intact: No Matter). Null Hypothesis: If the Environment is the mechanism for Wave-Function Collapse (i.e., "Decoherence" --- interaction of quanta with a physical measuring device "Slit Detectors") then we WILL NOT observe any change in pattern (All Detectors will denote ' No Interference '). c. Experiment: Which one of the Thousands (Without Exception !!) would you like?? 1. Xiao-song Ma et al. (2013): Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, pp. 1221-1226. "The presence of PATH INFORMATION anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it. The mere possibility is enough." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557028/ [THEREFORE, The LACK of 'which-path' Information anywhere in the Universe is sufficient enough to prohibit any possibility of Wave Function Collapse. i.e. Formation of Matter!!] 2. Kim, Y-H. et al. (2000). A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser; Physical Review Letters 84, pp. 1–5. The authors show not only that "Knowledge" of 'which-path' Information SOLELY collapses "The Wave Function" but can accurately predict future actions of "wave-like" and particle behavior after the Signal Photon has registered and before it's twin Idler has arrived; i.e., QM phenomena transcend Time and Space. SEE also: Walborn SP et al 2002, Scarcelli G et al 2005. http://cds.cern.ch/record/381875/files/9903047.pdf In conclusion, this Experiment Unequivocally Validates: a. Knowledge (Knowing) the 'WHICH-PATH' Information ALONE causes Wave Function Collapse. b. Decoherence (physical interaction with the measuring devices) DOES NOT cause Wave Function Collapse. c. QM Phenomena transcend Time and Space. i.e., Space-Time has NO MEANING in Quantum Mechanics. Ergo: "Matter" (Our Reality) doesn't exist without, FIRST: A "Knower"/Existence of the "Which-Path" Information. That is MATTER is Derivative (The Consequent). Consciousness is Primary (Necessary Antecedent). To overturn the Scientific Falsification of "Locality" and by direct proxy ---- Philosophical Naturalism/Realism (atheism); whereby invalidating Idealism "Christianity" (which is not a "religion", btw) and as an ancillary benefit collect yourself a 'Feather in your Cap' Nobel Prize... Please take up the Quantum Randi Challenge (arXiv:1207.5294, 23 July 2012) https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5294 http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/official_quantum_randi_challenge-80168 .... ( "The Quantum Randi Challenge, hence forth QRC, challenges any pseudo-scientist [ YOU, as it were ] who claims that quantum physics is not true and that quantum entanglement experiments can be explained by a classically realistic and locally causal model." https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1207/1207.5294v1.pdf A Nobel Prize AND $1,000,000(USD) is being offered: All you have to do is... Prove Naive Realism or Local Realism is True and not Observation Dependent. 4 Years + and still no takers, I wonder why? Alice in Wonderland has more veracity and is more tenable than your position. 3. Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity: Hallmarks reveal: Intent, Purpose, Planning, Choice, often with Contingency, CONTRIVED; without deterministic law like necessity. Example: Functional Interlinked Systems. There are 3 Types of Complexity 1) random sequence complexity (RSC), 2) ordered sequence complexity (OSC), or 3) Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC)." Random (RSC): fgskztosbclgdsk. e.g., Aftermath of a Tornado. Order (OSC): hhhhhhdddddduuuuuu. e.g., Crystals, Snow Flakes, Sand Dunes, Fractals. Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC): "It Puts The Lotion in the Basket", Sand Castles, The Genetic CODE, Barbecue Grills, Indy Cars, Hyper-NanoTech Machines and Robots (Kinesin, ATP Synthase, Flagellum, Cilia....ad nauseam) et al. So RSC and OSC = "Nature" construct. FSC = Intelligent Design Construct. "In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity". Leslie E. Orgel; The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection, pg. 189 (Chapman & Hall: London, 1973) "The attempts to relate the idea of order...with biological organization or SPECIFICITY must be regarded as a play on words that cannot stand careful scrutiny. Informational macromolecules can code genetic messages and therefore can carry information because the sequence of bases or residues is affected very little, if at all, by [self-organizing] physico-chemical factors". H.P. Yockey; "A Calculation of Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory"; Journal of Theoretical Biology 67, 1977; p. 390. No amount of RSC or OSC or the combination thereof, will EVER lead to Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC). Examples FSC: Cholecystokinin: is a Peptide Hormone "Functional Protein" produced in the mucosal epithelium of the small intestine and stimulates release of Digestive Enzymes from the Pancreas vital for digestion and absorption... Without it, you die. Albumin: a "Functional Protein" is ONLY produced by the Liver. It's consists of a single polypeptide chain of 580 amino acids. Of it's many functions, it's Main Function is to maintain intravascular oncotic (colloid osmotic) pressure. It's vital to homeostasis... Without it, you die. They are Functionally Specific/Sequentially Complex...you cannot interchange them. They are Specifically Designed for their Specific Roles and Specific Functions. If anyone is having a case of the 'Willful Stupids', please call/email the SETI Institute (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) and ask them how they tell the difference between RSC/OSC and Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC); they'll Tighten their Shot Group, right quick. btw, "INFORMATION" (All of Biology (LIFE) ): The Genetic Code ---Replication/ Transcription/Translation, Metabolic Pathways ect; All of Physics: Quantum Mechanics, Basically...the foundation of ALL OF REALITY, is the Quintessential Example of Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC) I got roughly 30 more But they would be Painfully Redundant in lieu of the above. This is Incoherent. You don't know what an ACTUAL Scientific Theory is. Exhibit A: Evidence comes BEFORE a Scientific Theory, it's called Validated Hypotheses. Well we 'decided' based on "Evidence" and Logic (Biblical Faith)... 1. SEE Quantum Mechanics above, and... 2. Laws of Thermodynamics: 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT): The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant. (Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create or destroy Matter/Energy). 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT): The amount of energy available for work is running out, the Universe is moving inexorably to "Maximum Entropy" or Heat Death. If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the Universe will End — the 'Heat Death’ (The Big Chill) of the Universe; ERGO...it had a BEGINNING (CREATION) ---and not the 'big bang' Pseudo-Science Trainwreck. Since that First Law (1LOT) states that Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create or destroy Matter/Energy. AND... Since the Universe had a BEGINNING (2LOT), AND... Since there are ONLY Two Choices, (Nature vs Intelligent Design)--- for 'The HOW' of that Beginning... AND... Since "Matter" (Nature) CAN'T Pre-Exist before it's Existence then Poof itself into Existence (before that... Poof itself from Nothing into Pre-Existence)... Therefore: 'A CREATOR'. regards

Really? So: 1 - 6 = -5 ... show us -5 Apples in "Reality"?? Yes and dark matter is created from nothing by luminescent gerbils. Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ?? THEN... a. Is gravity a Force? b. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory? c. What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...? I'd say there's a better chance of Liberace being resurrected sporting a purple tutu and jumping on a chartreuse hobbled unicorn and riding around the Sombrero Galaxy. 1. Show the "Peer-Review" Step in the Scientific Method...? 2. The Scientific Method was created to RID the landscape of BIAS: Loudest Voices, Ruling Class, Majority (Votes/Consensus), 'Opinions' ect ---- (The Subjective) by instituting A Method SOLELY focused on the (The Objective) EMPIRICAL: Observable, TESTABLE, Repeatable, Falsifiable; The PROCESS of The Scientific Method. You and your 'cohorts' appeal to it because it's the only way to get your FAIRYTALES into the mix, Whereby, BASTARDIZING IT! 3. "The author describes the three-legged stool of scientific error correction as experimental care, reproducible experiment, and peer review. Like Occam’s razor, PEER REVIEW is a TEMPORAL EXPEDIENT for judging scientific work at a given time. Peer review serves the temporal interests of publishers, funding agencies, and employers. The ultimate arbiter of scientific validity is REPEATABLE EXPERIMENT ALONE." Courtney, A et al: Comments Regarding “On the Nature of Science”; Physics in Canada, Vol. 64, No. 3 (2008), p 7-8. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0812/0812.4932.pdf Do what? You can't Scientifically Validate Historical Evidence because you can't breach the First Step of The Scientific Method: "Observe a Phenomenon". By the mere fact that you queried this is a Screaming Testimony that you'd "FAIL" 5th Grade General Science. 1. No we can't because the question is Nonsensical (See discussion directly above). 2. You're Equivocating Fallacy with the word "Faith". Blind Faith vs Biblical Faith. See the difference ? Astonishing! 1 x 1 = 1 is not a TEST . And it's spelled "TESTABLE". What?? ... that you couldn't Pass 5th Grade General Science? Sure is Priceless regards

Thanks for posting, couldn't have Illustrated the Situation without'cha.

R-Ya-Kiddin Me? This is tantamount to Pol Pot charging the Dalai Lama with Genocide!! You've WHOLESALE DODGED every single rebuttal! I even asked you EXPLICITLY to Quote My 2 Reasons and speak to them directly. What did you do? SKIPPED THEM Again, The "Established Paradigm" is a demonstrable Fairytale, which I Illustrated in detail. Again, Tristen is not required to post Experimental Evidence or an offer 'explanation' invalidating your Non-Experimental Evidence (aka: "Just-So" Stories) because your claims (aka: Fairytales) aren't VALIDATED to begin with. All he needs to do is snicker, roll his eyes, and walk away. Again, The "Established Paradigm" is a demonstrable Fairytale, which I Illustrated in detail. Again, The "Established Paradigm" is a demonstrable Fairytale, which I Illustrated in detail. You can't form a VIABLE Scientific Hypothesis regarding your claim (or Tristen's claims). Why? Well, there is no VIABLE "Independent Variable"; Ergo...it's: Untestable!! Unfalsifiable!!! It's a "Just-So" Story!!!! I "objected" to your Fairytale Claims then I proceeded to Illustrate "WHY" they are Fairytale Claims. The 'Source' of the objection is "Me". The Rationale is: Fairytale Claims masquerading as Science. simple. The End. regards

Perhaps if you didn't "Quote" my Entire Post...and not speak to a single rebuttal smh, would prevent you from 'Whistl'n Past the Graveyard' and continue asking inane questions on a "Debunked" topic. Restocking Fees are more legitimate than this ^^^^^, smh. So again (Just Quote these next Two and Respond Directly. K?)... 1. You have No Experimental Evidence supporting your "established paradigms" (aka: "Just-So" Stories), so Tristen is not required to post Experimental Evidence invalidating your Non-Experimental Evidence (aka: "Just-So" Stories). All he needs to do is snicker, roll his eyes, and walk away. Again... 2. Do you find it 'Scientific' or 'Logical' to imagine things THEN have other people attempt to disprove your imaginings before you give evidence of your imaginings...? Which part of these is particularly confusing?? regards

This is not a Disagreeing/Agreeing "Subjective" subject. You're 'allegedly' making a Scientific Claim... "Objective". So your claim is either Validated by Experiment or it's NOT. The End. "Established Paradigms" are not a part of The Scientific Method, they're a part of Propaganda States; Ergo...you're in the WRONG Forum. Along the same line of thought, "Acceptance" is for: Propaganda State's, Political 'science', 2nd Grade Story Time, and Religions. It has no place and is Non-Sequitur to The Scientific Method. I've simply Invalidated your PARROTED Fairytale Stories. You have No Experimental Evidence supporting your "established paradigm" (aka: "Just-So" Stories), so Tristen is not required to post Experimental Evidence invalidating your Non-Experimental Evidence (aka: "Just-So" Stories). All he needs to do is snicker, roll his eyes, and walk away. Again... Do you find it 'Scientific' or 'Logical' to imagine things THEN have other people attempt to disprove your imaginings before you give evidence of your imaginings...? regards

Unbelievable. You're making a Claim based on Pure Speculation then asking the challengers to Scientifically Invalidate the speculation via Experiment!! This is tantamount to claiming that: According to the "Accepted Interpretation", Invisible 3 Toed Gnomes are responsible for creating dark matter by throwing pixie dust in a black hole behind the Crab Nebula...THEN asking us to DISPROVE it OR...Therefore your claim is TRUE!! It's the Acme of Foolishness to even consider... much less attempt, to disprove complete Arguments from Ignorance Fallacies. Do you find it 'Scientific' or 'Logical' to imagine things THEN have other people attempt to disprove your imaginings before you give evidence of your imaginings...? ps. You can't form a VIABLE Scientific Hypothesis regarding your claim. Why? Well you don't have a VIABLE "Independent Variable"; Ergo...it's: Untestable!! Unfalsifiable!!! It's a "Just-So" Story!!!! 'evolution' doesn't and NEVER EXISTED !!! for goodness sakes. There is no "Scientific Establishment"!!! my word. All you have are Pseudo-Science Priests from the 'Religions': astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, paleontology, geology, anthropology, archaeology, evolutionary biology (lol), theoretical physics. Crocheting is more "Scientific" than ALL these Clowns... "COMBINED!!" Why?? Well neither of the masqueraders above can follow "The Scientific Method"... SCIENCE. The End. regards

1. Already been all over what? 2. Back to quoting my entire post without a whisper to it's content, eh? Why don't you read my posts in this thread...including the one you just Quoted , then take a Wild Guess on what my position on the Fairytale 'big bang' is. Really? To what are you referring to...? Then... show how it's "Redundant"? Then...before you show How/Why it's an Ipse Dixit, please define what an Ipse Dixit is...? (So we know you're not just throwing terms/phrases around without knowing what they mean.) Well I have to because you CONSTANTLY Quote my Entire Post ...without speaking to any of it. So I repeat it in the hopes of you finally "Dealing With It". Please Cite a Source with the Definition of a 'said it a thousand times Fallacy' ...? Loaded Question (Fallacy): is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html The presumption is the throwing of "Barbs" to begin with. Validate that first...? It's also a Red Herring Fallacy (Diversion) employed when the challenger has no coherent argument or position on the topic. regards

Well yea, it's one of the direct rebuttals to the Fairytale 'big bang'. (The other "Common Sense") 1. Key Phrase: "I Believe". 2. So it's 'so-called' and you still believe it? 3. Really? "big bang" --- Naturalistic Cause: singularity, quantum fluctuation, 'nothing' (lol) et al. (Also a 1LOT and Quantum Mechanics Violation) GOD'S WORD --- GOD caused it. "big bang" --- Billions of Years Ago. GOD'S WORD --- Thousands of Years. (Gen: 5, 10; Doctrine of Salvation) "big bang" --- Sun before the Earth. GOD'S WORD --- Earth before the Sun. "big bang" --- Earth: Molten Rock First. GOD'S WORD --- Earth: Water First. "big bang" --- Fish before Trees. GOD'S WORD --- Trees before Fish. "big bang" --- Dinosaurs before Birds. GOD'S WORD --- Birds before Dinosaurs. So that Begs The Question: Which 'god' are you talking about? 1. "theory" Where?? Are you using the Colloquial "theory" --- (Abject Speculation); THEN... attempting to Equivocate (Fallacy) between 'theory' and an Actual Scientific Theory? 2. It seems logical to you ? Please post the Syllogism to SUPPORT your Baseless Claim...? 3. Still Expanding? ... Horgan, J (Interview): Paul Steinhardt (Pioneer of Inflation Theory, Albert Einstein Professor in Science and Director of the Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton); Scientific American, 1 December 2014... "Since 1983, it has become clear that inflation is very flexible (parameters can be adjusted to give any result) and generically leads to a multiverse consisting of patches in which any outcome is possible. Imagine a scientific theory that was designed to explain and predict but ends up allowing literally any conceivable possibility without any rule about what is more likely. What good is it? It rules out nothing and can never be put to a real test." https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/ "That’s why I called it a cartoon of a theory – because we don’t understand how inflation works in any fundamental sense." Dr. George Efstathiou; Director of the Kavli Institute for Cosmology at the University of Cambridge. http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-resources/qa-planck-teach-us-universes-first-moments/ HE's already explained where we live and what HE created. THEN...Our senses CONFIRM that we live on a Flat Plane, Not Moving/Spinning, with the Sun, Moon, and Stars rotating about us....just like HE said. regards

For the 2678th Time: 'evolution'?? What's that...? Define evolution...? a. Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...? b. Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a *REAL* Scientific Theory...? c. Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...? d. Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...? It doesn't say anything! 1. It doesn't and NEVER Existed. 2. Even if it did exist, it wouldn't have Vocal Chords; Ergo...Reification Fallacy. regards

Clumsily False... In Biologic Systems, to build "Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity" (Cellular Structures) you need a SPECIFIC Energy Converter (i.e., Mitochondria/Chloroplasts/Metabolic Pathways) and INFORMATION Program (DNA) ALREADY EXISTING FIRST so as to capture, convert, and use the energy meaningfully. Extracellular Nucleo-Bases and Amino's are DESTROYED by Sunlight as is virtually everything on the planet without the Energy Converter/Information Program already existing. The Sun's energy without the aforementioned conditions existing FIRST is like a Bull in a China Shop. Real World Example: Mid Summer in Texas, the Sun is destructive. It will burn the tires clean off a tractor if left in the field long enough. And it will eventually do the same with the roof on your house and your car if not protected. Why? Because there is no "Pre-Existing" mechanism to capture the heat of the sun and an information program to direct its use. Now let's put solar panels on the roof, and add an information program (computer/software) to capture the sun's energy and direct it to produce electricity. Now the sun is no longer destructive. But--and this is important, the sun will NEVER build the solar panels or write a program to convert the heat to usable energy. See the "Specific" Energy Converter and Information Program in the above example? Or do you ascribe to the Sun sending Intelligent Messages or Instructions to "Stupid" Atoms so they can build it? Clumsily False: 1. If ancestry is not assumed from similarities, then there is no correlation between similarities and ancestry; Ergo, to make the argument you need to make that "assumption". i.e., Begging The Question Fallacy. All you have is a TEXTBOOK...Affirming The Consequent (Formal Logical Fallacy): If P then Q. Q. Therefore P. 1. IF evolution is true "P": then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag" Post-Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Similarity/Genetic Variation et al) "Q". 2. We observe (Post Hoc Observation) "Q". 3. Therefore, Evolution is true. "Therefore P". Or... If Common Descent is True "P" we will observe Genetic Similarities "Q". We Observe Genetic Similarities "Q". Therefore, Common Descent is True. "Therefore P". The logical fallacy is that "P" doesn't necessarily follow from "Q". e.g., 1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza "P", I would feel very full "Q" ; 2) I feel very full "Q"; 3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza. "Therefore P". Couldn't I have eaten a 20 ounce Ribeye with Fries or the ole 96'er (!!!) ? Let's put this quackery out of it's Misery QUICK!!! ... Dr. Craig Venter; The Grand Poobah of Geneticists, The Geneticists of Geneticists... "There is NO TREE OF LIFE ...it's an artifact from early scientific studies that aren't holding up... "So THERE IS NOT A TREE OF LIFE." Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics); Arizona State Origins Project; 12 February 2011 (TIME: 9:14) The Audience Gasped, Dawkins and Krauss turned different shades of GREEN. Ya hear that sound?? ...that's the "Common Descent" Fairytale TREE circling the drain @ Light Speed !!! ("as if" he actually needed to say it). 2. “For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee." Ebersberger, I. et al: Mapping human genetic ancestry, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Vol. 24(10):2266-2276 (2007) Down to 77% right quick!! That ='s 690 Million Base Pairs, roughly 227 Large Books! And, Bear in mind....Even if humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. 1. They're NOT "Scientists". 2. Appeal to Consensus/Majority (Fallacy). 3. This isn't Scientific Evidence (See Above)...it's a Logical Trainwreck of Epic Proportions. To refute, Scientifically Validate "Shared Ancestry"... a. What Phenomenon was Observed...? b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...? c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...? d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...? regards

Outstanding. This isn't "HIS" Work . This is 'wiki' PARROTED Pseudo-Science. He's quite confused. We're using his work in Biblical Scholarship to confirm what the Bible plainly says on the topic. His 'Opinions' or 'Beliefs' that stem from what Pseudo-Scientists tell him about: (Space flight (really, flight between hemispheres), satellite communications, space photography (any photography showing the earth’s curvature, etc.) is NOT Bible Scholarship; ERGO, Irrelevant to the topic. Unless Dr. Michael Heiser would like to come here and provide Scientific Evidence for his Mindless PARROTINGS, then his appeal is quite the Non-Sequitur Fallacy. regards

I was using his Expertise as a Bible Scholar as a Reference... not his "Beliefs"--(BIG difference). His 'beliefs' are Painfully Irrelevant. Post each Scripture and tell us what God "MEANT" (i.e., Context/Strong's Definitions, The Whole 9 Yards) for each...? 1.) Key Phrase: "I do not believe"; We're gonna need a "Tad" bit more...? When should a Scripture be taken Literally and when should a Scripture be taken Figuratively, Compare and Contrast...? Then show why these Specific Scriptures should be taken Figuratively....? 2.) Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy regards

Yep. And the 'big bang' is Not a Scientific Theory, it's a Colloquial 'theory'--- Abject Speculation. regards

Yes, "Believe" being the Key Word. So again... So who to Believe?? ... A. God's Word. or B. Dr. Michael Heiser's word that he's merely PARROTING from Pseudo-Science Priests. regards

1. It's against Forum Rules to post Videos in Threads. 2. Well Dr. Michael Heiser clearly states that Scripture clearly states: "a round, flat earth, complete with solid dome over the earth, and earth supported by pillars, with Sheol underneath, etc" in Both Testaments. But Dr. Michael Heiser doesn't believe that it's the case. So who to Believe?? ... A. God's Word. or B. Dr. Michael Heiser's word that he's merely PARROTING from Pseudo-Science Priests. Your Choice ... Choose Wisely . regards

That's the most important thing. Christianity doesn't "Insist", it's a World-View...not Animate. Inanimate objects/concepts don't "Insist"; it's a Reification Fallacy. Sure. I'd say there's a better chance of Liberace being resurrected sporting a purple tutu and jumping on a chartreuse hobbled unicorn and riding around the Sombrero Galaxy. Please, Persuade us...? Post these "Obvious Reasons", THEN...try something Novel and coherently SUPPORT them. 1. It's growing rapidly, DAILY. And converting atheists into Christians, Posthaste!! 2. Appeal to Consensus/Majority Fallacy. 3. Nobody is irrelevant. regards

From my observations, the majority of Christians think the earth is: "Sphere Like", "Orbits", and in a "Solar System" because they're NOT "thinking". They're just PARROTING Pseudo-Scientific Fairytales that they've been indoctrinated with since diapers and then feebly attempting to marry the Pseudo-Science "Just-So" Stories of the day with Scripture via Eisegesis and a heavy dose of Mental and Linguistic Gymnastics so as to keep the Fairytale Alive. Huh? Which "Word" might that be? The Main Issue is: 1. Roughly 65 Scriptures CLEARLY stating that the Earth is: Flat/Non-Spinning/Domed/Geocentric. 2. ZERO Scriptures even remotely implying: Sphericity/Moving-Rotating/Heliocentric. ps. Here's a New Testament word that settles the matter... (Revelation 20:9) "And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them." "Breadth" = "Platos" Strong's Greek Definition G4114 --- from G4116 (plat'-oos)..: Spread out "FLAT". The Passage (In English) should read: "And they went up on the Flat Earth and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them." Why didn't you mention "That Word" specifically? And then, show WHY/HOW it has a 'Range of Meaning'? Again, no mention of this mysterious "Word". It's not just the Old Testament (which should be good enough anyways), SEE above Rev 20:9 and... Dr. Michael S. Heiser (Renowned Bible Scholar)... "The issue is how “literal creationists” are actually only selective literalists (or, as I would call them, “inconsistent literalists”). If one was truly consistent in interpreting the creation description in Genesis 1 at face value (along with other creation descriptions in both testaments), you’d come out with a round, flat earth, complete with solid dome over the earth, and earth supported by pillars, with Sheol underneath, etc. But creationists who claim the literal mantel don’t do that, since the results are clearly non-scientific. My view, as readers know, is that we ought to simply let the text say what it says, and let it be what it is. It was God’s choice to prompt people living millennia ago to produce this thing we call the Bible, and so we dishonor it when we impose our own interpretive context on it. Our modern evangelical contexts are alien to the Bible. Frankly, any context other than the context in which the biblical writers were moved to write is foreign to the Bible. So, who’s the literalist now?" http://drmsh.com/interpreting-genesis-1-literalist/ It's very much "Open" for debate; however, there's not much of one. Just take a look at the few that have been held in this forum. regards

Yes, you (Everyone) need to be able to 'Cogently' provide SUPPORT for your 'beliefs', or else... your 'beliefs' are Baseless (aka: Fairytales). ps. Round and Flat aren't Mutually Exclusive. Pizzas are Round and Flat. LP's are Round...and Flat. regards

So arguments/positions based on Memes ? Very Compelling. regards