tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10940784.post112985265214794435..comments2023-10-20T09:01:17.244-04:00Comments on Mudslinger's Musings: God Doesn't Make Junk!Craig Loweryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11346191066016028493noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10940784.post-1130288839010967332005-10-25T21:07:00.000-04:002005-10-25T21:07:00.000-04:00Blog this http://web.archive.org/web/2001081617370...Blog this http://web.archive.org/web/20010816173706/www.creationism.org/sthelens/wonders.htm , Butthead.Craig Loweryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11346191066016028493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10940784.post-1130010679654861052005-10-22T15:51:00.000-04:002005-10-22T15:51:00.000-04:00You win. Where do I sign up. Holy crap! I just saw...You win. Where do I sign up. Holy crap! I just saw a Dinosaur run past the window! No wait. It was just a big leaf. I guess I'm just getting delusional reading from the wacko sites. Ha ha. Or maybe it's my neurosis. <BR/> Thanks for the good laugh even if you didn't intend it to be funny I was ROFLMAO.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10940784.post-1130009650218386942005-10-22T15:34:00.000-04:002005-10-22T15:34:00.000-04:00Be SURE to read the howler monkeys' "rebuttal" at ...Be SURE to read the howler monkeys' "rebuttal" at the link at the top of the page, or here: http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/rebut/poly_rebut.shtml It's a hoot. Either the tree that didn't rot is millions of years old, or the fossils are NOT millions of years old. You can't have it both ways, and it is obvious that YOU CANNOT FACE REALITY. You just confirmed everything the site says about the methods of "argument" used by evolutionists. Nobody is whining about persecution except YOU, because you need to divert attention away from the question that you cannot answer in a way that agrees with your atheistic world view. You are a neurotic child.Craig Loweryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11346191066016028493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10940784.post-1130008184391161482005-10-22T15:09:00.000-04:002005-10-22T15:09:00.000-04:00You really need to see someone about your delusion...You really need to see someone about your delusions.<BR/><BR/>de·lu·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-lzhn)<BR/>The act or process of deluding. <BR/>The state of being deluded. <BR/>A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand. <BR/>Psychiatry. A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.<BR/><BR/>I'd say that's the perfect word to describe your mental state. Do you hear voices as well?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10940784.post-1130008028163562572005-10-22T15:07:00.000-04:002005-10-22T15:07:00.000-04:00If you're still having trouble with polystrate tre...If you're still having trouble with polystrate trees, try this: http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/polystrate.shtml It should debunk the vacuous inane scribbling you get at talk.origins when the topic is addressed.Craig Loweryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11346191066016028493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10940784.post-1130004185619752282005-10-22T14:03:00.000-04:002005-10-22T14:03:00.000-04:00You're not very good at parsing sentences, followi...You're not very good at parsing sentences, following a train of thought, or analyzing methods of reasoning, are you? If you spent a little time checking the links I have provided instead of running back to the Plywood Skinhead Shack of Howler Monkeys at talk.origins, you might have a prayer of escaping from the vicious circle of your assumptions. Try this page http://www.bearfabrique.org/evorants/evologic.html and then the links I've already posted, especially this one: http://www.s8int.com/boneyard3.html Note the photo of a fossilized tree penetrating "millions of years" of rock strata. There are gazillions of these in the fossil record. I have a picture of a fish whose head and tail are separated by "millions of years" of evo-time. HOW MUCH PROOF DOES IT TAKE? The dating system is bogus. The sediments were deposited RAPIDLY in a short time period. The evidence is OVERWHELMING. The mud in the Mississippi Delta is 40 feet deep. According to evo-time, it SHOULD be 40,000 feet deep. Hello?Craig Loweryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11346191066016028493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10940784.post-1129987271629997972005-10-22T09:21:00.000-04:002005-10-22T09:21:00.000-04:00http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB180.htmlCl...http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB180.html<BR/>Claim CB180:<BR/>The genetic code is a language in the normal sense of the term, since it assigns meaning to arbitrary symbols. Language is obviously a non-material category of reality; the symbolic information is distinct from matter and energy. Therefore, life is a manifestation of non-material reality. <BR/>Source:<BR/>Baumgardner, John, 1995. Six problems with evolution: a response to Graham Mark. The Los Alamos Monitor, 31 Mar. http://globalflood.org/letters/baumgardner310395.html <BR/>Baumgardner, John, 2001. Highlights of the Los Alamos origins debate. http://globalflood.org/papers/insixdays.html <BR/>Response:<BR/>The genetic code is not a true code; it is more of a cypher. DNA is a sequence of four different bases (denoted A, C, G, and T) along a backbone. When DNA gets translated to protein, triplets of bases (codons) get converted sequentially to the amino acids that make up the protein, with some codons acting as a "stop" marker. The mapping from codon to amino acid is arbitrary (not completely arbitrary, but close enough for purposes of argument). However, that one mapping step -- from 64 possible codons to 20 amino acids and a stop signal -- is the only arbitrariness in the genetic code. The protein itself is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, DNA gets used for more than making proteins. Much DNA is transcribed directly to functional RNA. Other DNA acts to regulate genetic processes. The physical properties of the DNA and RNA, not any arbitrary meanings, determine how they act. <BR/><BR/>An essential property of language is that any word can refer to any object. That is not true in genetics. The genetic code which maps codons to proteins could be changed, but doing so would change the meaning of all sequences that code for proteins, and it could not create arbitrary new meanings for all DNA sequences. Genetics is not true language. <BR/><BR/><BR/>The word frequencies of all natural languages follow a power law (Zipf's Law). DNA does not follow this pattern (Tsonis et al. 1997). <BR/><BR/><BR/>Language, although symbolic, is still material. For a word to have meaning, the link between the word and its meaning has to be recorded somewhere, usually in people's brains, books, and/or computer memories. Without this material manifestation, language cannot work. <BR/>References:<BR/>Tsonis, A. A., J. B. Elsner and P. A. Tsonis, 1997. Is DNA a language? Journal of Theoretical Biology 184: 25-29.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com