Welcome to WeAreSMRT.com. Click here to register

Symmetry in Creation

Discussion on things related to CSE, Kent & Eric Hovind, and Circular "dizzy" Sye

Re: Symmetry in Creation

Postby Photosynthesis » Mon Jan 11, 2016 9:13 pm

God-Prank wrote:"The consequence of pretty well understood laws.."

So you're saying symmetry in matter is produced by the prescriptive laws of Logic/Physics/Morality.
Bravo.


No idiot, he's saying they are the result of the physical phenomena described by those "laws." Are you going to say that the physical phenomena are "ethereal" you idiot? If so you're much more of an ass-hole than I thought, and you should stop pretending to be offended by such accurate descriptions of yourself. Well, I should not be surprised since you think that symmetry is due to laws of morality. Y*8-} :lol:

I didn't say individual genes dictate individual features, just that the genetic code, wherever it is, must produce symmetrical features.
So that specific code must be not only altered, but increased, by errors in duplication/mutation, winnowed by "natural selection" and happen to that genetic code so as to not throw those features out of symmetrical balance.


Which means that you're imagining the process as being one where each symmetrical feature "requires" genes acting independently on each side. But that's not how it works. You should admit, as you said you have before, that you have no idea. The same genes are involved in how both sides of a symmetrical feature develop. What makes the difference in making a right wing or a left wing is their relative positions, not the genes doing the work. The relative positions are established by just a few genes during early development. So a mutation that changes the developmental pattern towards a longer wing will have the same effect on both sides. As someone else said before: go read a good book instead of making such a fool of yourself.

That's hundreds of features in bilateral symmetry all being altered so that every single scale, (which has symmetry within) must move constantly towards adaptation, the hairs, then feathers of a bird.


Same idiocy on your part. Each scale does not require an independent gene.

Impossible.


This is why instead of imagining that each little feature in an organism requires an independent gene you should have asked if that was the case, rather than assume so and go by that kind of ignorant scenario.

Elad is a fundie evolutionary preacher, saying, "Evolution happened, period. Thou shalt not question the prophet Darwin."


Oh, but you shall question each and every scientist. Otherwise you might imagine that their models and the stuff they're modelling, are one and the same. Oh wait! That's what you think! You think that the abstractions scientists develop and then call laws are prescriptions for nature to follow! No wonder you would be this stupid. OK then, let's call evolution a law, then you will have to admit that it happens, and that it happens because your god said so. After all, you think that our abstractions about anything are divine commands for nature to follow.

Anyway, challenges to science should be done with knowledge you idiot, not with imaginary scenarios that do nothing but reflect your arrogant ignorance.
User avatar
Photosynthesis
 
Posts: 716
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 3:14 am

Re: Symmetry in Creation

Postby zilch » Tue Jan 12, 2016 8:39 am

Daniel- seriously: you need to read a book before you can make any pronouncements anyone is going to take seriously on the subject. Do you think I would debate the Bible without ever having read it, several times, with lots of concordances and secondary literature? Your position on symmetry in living things is, as Wolfang Pauli once said, not even wrong: it is so uninformed as to be incoherent. Have you googled Hox genes yet? If your God has built the world, then He can only encourage you to examine it closely.
You were born. And so you're free. So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson
User avatar
zilch
 
Posts: 15190
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:12 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

Re: Symmetry in Creation

Postby God-Prank » Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:44 am

God-Prank wrote:"The consequence of pretty well understood laws.."

So you're saying symmetry in matter is produced by the prescriptive laws of Logic/Physics/Morality.
Bravo.

I didn't say individual genes dictate individual features, just that the genetic code, wherever it is, must produce symmetrical features.
So that specific code must be not only altered, but increased, by errors in duplication/mutation, winnowed by "natural selection" and happen to that genetic code so as to not throw those features out of symmetrical balance.


That's hundreds of features in bilateral symmetry all being altered so that every single scale, (which has symmetry within) must move constantly towards adaptation, the hairs, then feathers of a bird.

Impossible.
Elad is a fundie evolutionary preacher, saying, "Evolution happened, period. Thou shalt not question the prophet Darwin."
God-Prank
 

Re: Symmetry in Creation

Postby God-Prank » Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:46 am

Showing that you guys are the ones who aren't doing the reading.
God-Prank
 

Re: Symmetry in Creation

Postby Photosynthesis » Tue Jan 12, 2016 12:41 pm

God-Prank wrote:Showing that you guys are the ones who aren't doing the reading.


Did you actually read what I wrote? Even when you denied it, you still assumed that it had to be separate genes for each scale, for each side even. If not, then you would not have insisted as if it took a lot of "keep" each side symmetrical, each "scale" developing into different kinds of scales, etc.

Did you actually read what I said? Do you really think that morality has anything to do with how physical phenomena work?

Did you actually read what I said? You mistake concepts for their referents. When you ask if the universe was "chaos" and got into shape when neanderthals arrived to the scene, you're talking nonsense. For one, the sun, for example, in the sun whether we're here to conceptualize about it or not. Not only that, the sun is the sun physically, not "ethereally." Noticing this little detail that seems to escape you, would help you understand your mistaking our abstractions for their referents. Our abstractions about the physical refer to the physical phenomena. The physical phenomena remain physical no matter how "ethereal" you might think that our descriptions about them might be. Your arguments remain equivocation fallacies. You move from the phenomena to the abstractions as if they were the same. They obviously aren't.

You're too obviously an idiot. When confronted with this easy to understand issue (your mistaking concepts for their referents), or any other issues, you quickly go for something else to distract from your obvious failures because you know that I've got you. You know that I devastated your "argument" so you rather try and distract everybody from it (I bet this is in Sye's manual for presuppositional bullshit "if confronted with something you cannot answer, don't even mention it and ask about something else"). You'll never acknowledge any of it, but we can see that you're an obviously desperate, characterless, integrityless, dishonest imbecile who has no courage to confront his own issues. You're a despicable coward.
User avatar
Photosynthesis
 
Posts: 716
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 3:14 am

Re: Symmetry in Creation

Postby God-Prank » Tue Jan 12, 2016 12:45 pm

God-Prank wrote:
God-Prank wrote:"The consequence of pretty well understood laws.."

So you're saying symmetry in matter is produced by the prescriptive laws of Logic/Physics/Morality.
Bravo.

I didn't say individual genes dictate individual features, just that the genetic code, wherever it is, must produce symmetrical features.
So that specific code must be not only altered, but increased, by errors in duplication/mutation, winnowed by "natural selection" and happen to that genetic code so as to not throw those features out of symmetrical balance.


That's hundreds of features in bilateral symmetry all being altered so that every single scale, (which has symmetry within) must move constantly towards adaptation, the hairs, then feathers of a bird.

Impossible.
Elad is a fundie evolutionary preacher, saying, "Evolution happened, period. Thou shalt not question the prophet Darwin."


No, I did not.
There's the proof.
And any and all scientific research is a quest for the Truth, which is morally superior to what is not true.
God-Prank
 

Re: Symmetry in Creation

Postby God-Prank » Tue Jan 12, 2016 12:49 pm

God-Prank wrote:Let me see if I can get this thread back on track.

Let's ignore the elephant in the room: the advent, causation, etc. of symmetry in biology, and all the more complex forms of symmetry: radial, biradial, spherical, et al. and stick with bilateral symmetry.

To say that bilateral symmetry is the simplest form isn't saying much, because we still need to consider that there can be hundreds, if not thousands of biological features in bilateral symmetry, and within those features is even more symmetry. Symmetry within symmetry.

Evolutionaists theorize that the scales of a fish, became the hairs of a mammal, became the feathers of a bird.

Meaning the genetic code had to be duplicated in bilateral symmetry for hundreds of features, and remain in balanced symmetry even though the genetic information is supposed to be altered, even increased, to every one of those duplicate features over and over, billions upon billions of times, over millions upon millions of years, always consistently upwards towards adaptation, without ever being thrown out of bilateral balance.

The odds of that happening to a single scale/hair/feather are astronomical, but for that to happen simultaneously to hundreds of scales/hairs/feathers, in bilateral symmetry, renders the odds of the big ToE being true into astronomical absurdity.


I said Genetic Code, which is contained within a gene or genes.
Not necessarily a single feature assigned to a specific gene.
You're the one making that failed assumption.
God-Prank
 

Re: Symmetry in Creation

Postby God-Prank » Tue Jan 12, 2016 1:22 pm

Photosynthesis, I'm not going to bother trying to read your posts.
It requires filtering out most of what you say - all that juvenile cursing and swearing.
You bury anything resembling an argument in so much crap, I'm not going to waste my time.
I learned long ago, in the schoolyard, that whenever a bully resorts to that stuff out of desperation, I can call it a victory.

Again, I call checkmate.

Elad, if you read this, take note of who's the one calling names, and breaking the rules about trolling.
God-Prank
 

Re: Symmetry in Creation

Postby Photosynthesis » Tue Jan 12, 2016 1:30 pm

God-Prank wrote:I said Genetic Code, which is contained within a gene or genes.
Not necessarily a single feature assigned to a specific gene.
You're the one making that failed assumption.


No you idiot. By changing "gene" to "genetic code" you're still assuming that you need a copy of "genetic codes" for each side, then one for each particular instance of a feature (like each scale or each feather). What I saying is that a single one suffices for both sides and each feature because the genes (or the genetic code), work on both sides, not just one. If you tried to understand the answer you would have noticed that it didn't matter if you wanted to call those things genes or "genetic codes," because "whatever they are" doesn't matter, what matters is that you're assuming a need for several copies, when that's not how it works. You're trying desperately not to understand by focusing on the names of the things behind the features (whether we call them genes of genetic codes), rather than on the fact that what's behind the features doesn't need to be duplicated or multiplicand on a per feature basis. We don't need one "genetic code" per scale. We don't need one "genetic code" per side.

So you're the one making the failed assumptions, and then the failed reading for comprehension. Not too surprising, since your bullshit of a system teaches you to ignore any attempts at educating you, teaches you to be intellectually lazy. Otherwise you might learn to think and thus notice that your beliefs about "God" and "jesus" are just fantasy.
User avatar
Photosynthesis
 
Posts: 716
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 3:14 am

Re: Symmetry in Creation

Postby Photosynthesis » Tue Jan 12, 2016 1:37 pm

God-Prank wrote:Photosynthesis, I'm not going to bother trying to read your posts.


Of course not. That would be devastating to your worldview. :lol:

It requires filtering out most of what you say - all that juvenile cursing and swearing.


Of course, you're too intellectually lazy, and thinking is too much of an effort for you.

You bury anything resembling an argument in so much crap, I'm not going to waste my time.


Meh, excuses. Your intellectual laziness is what's stoping you. Understanding would force you to notice your mistakes, and you cannot afford that. Your fantasies cannot afford that.

I learned long ago, in the schoolyard, that whenever a bully resorts to that stuff out of desperation, I can call it a victory.


What you learned in presuppositional bullshit school is that ignoring arguments that devastate your imbecilic arguments was your only option for your fantasies to survive your own intellect. You learned that you had to declare victory no matter how stupid you look, or how devastated your argument was.

Again, I call checkmate
.

Wishing doesn't make it so. Call it what you want. The fact remains that your arguments are mere crap, and that I demonstrated so.

Elad, if you read this, take note of who's the one calling names, and breaking the rules about trolling.


Yes. Take note. Poor "God-Prank"'s bullshit is being blown out of the water and he cannot stand it! :lol:
User avatar
Photosynthesis
 
Posts: 716
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 3:14 am

PreviousNext

Return to Creation Science Evangelism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron