The Privileged Planet

[Jose Fly]

The kinds are much more broad than a species.

I'm sure that you understand that these abstractions are just that. A way of categorizing/classifying what we see in the world. And also that there are disagreements about exactly where the lines should be drawn at any level.

So you really don't have any idea what a "kind" is. Understood.

Through the variability of the ALREADY EXISTING genes that the ORIGINAL cat kind had (whew, that was a tough one).

What do you mean "variability"? Do you mean that the breeding pair of the "cat kind" had all the genes necessary for all the traits that we now see in all species of cats (e.g., they had the genes for traits necessary to survive in arid deserts as well as those for surviving in rain forests)? Or do you mean those traits came about via different combinations and alterations of the original "cat kind" genome?

No, it most emphatically does not.

Yes it does.

Go ahead, you define it any what that YOU want.

Once there was NONE and now there is LOTS. You're not going to weasel out of this by simply proclaiming how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is.

So you have no idea what "genetic information" is either?

 

[Right Divider]

So you really don't have any idea what a "kind" is. Understood.

Once again, oh wise one, I don't have to have a perfect definition of a 'kind' any more you have a perfect definition for a 'species' or 'family' or 'genus'.

This is just ANOTHER of your attempts to deflect the issue from your problem of WHERE genetic INFORMATION comes from (no matter what the EXACT definition of that information is).

What do you mean "variability"? Do you mean that the breeding pair of the "cat kind" had all the genes necessary for all the traits that we now see in all species of cats (e.g., they had the genes for traits necessary to survive in arid deserts as well as those for surviving in rain forests)? Or do you mean those traits came about via different combinations and alterations of the original "cat kind" genome?

BINGO, we have a winner!

And if it didn't come from the original kind, where DID it come from? That is the problem that YOU keep trying to fake your way out of.

Yes it does.

Well there you go. Jose Fly has solved the problem that has so long evaded every evolutionist since time began.

So you have no idea what "genetic information" is either?

It is the coded information that makes life possible. It is the DESIGN for life. It programs the vast array of machinery that is, for example, the human body.

Maybe some of these will help you:

NOVA | Cracking the Code of Life - PBS
DNA: Blueprint for Life - MicrobeWorld
DNA - The Code of Life - YouTube

P.S. The reason that it's called the genetic CODE is because it is INFORMATION. Go look it up: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=code+definition

 

[Jose Fly]

Once again, oh wise one, I don't have to have a perfect definition of a 'kind' any more you have a perfect definition for a 'species' or 'family' or 'genus'.

I never asked for a "perfect definition". If you can't say what it is, that's your problem, isn't it?

BINGO, we have a winner!

I gave you two scenarios. Which one is it?

It is the coded information that makes life possible. It is the DESIGN for life. It programs the vast array of machinery that is, for example, the human body.

So again, is "genetic information" strings of nucleotides, where if one genome has 1,000 nucleotides and another has 1,500, then the latter has more "genetic information"?

 

[Right Divider]

I never asked for a "perfect definition". If you can't say what it is, that's your problem, isn't it?

Red herring

I gave you two scenarios. Which one is it?

They are both true and clearly not mutually exclusive.

So again, is "genetic information" strings of nucleotides, where if one genome has 1,000 nucleotides and another has 1,500, then the latter has more "genetic information"?

The INFORMATION contained the genes is a bit more complex than just counting nucleotides. But you know that. Cuz you're a real smart guy.

 

[Jose Fly]

Red herring

Then so are all your claims about "kinds".

They are both true and clearly not mutually exclusive.

So same question in the other thread: How did those inactive genes manage to escape mutations prior to and after the flood? And how did Noah know which of the cats had all these unexpressed genes?

The INFORMATION contained the genes is a bit more complex than just counting nucleotides.

So we're back to square one. What is "genetic information" and how are you measuring it?

 

[Right Divider]

Then so are all your claims about "kinds".

Hogwash. You aren't the decider.

So same question in the other thread: How did those inactive genes manage to escape mutations prior to and after the flood? And how did Noah know which of the cats had all these unexpressed genes?

The conditions in the world were vastly differently before the flood. This is why the length of human life was much longer then.

So we're back to square one. What is "genetic information" and how are you measuring it?

You're so funny. The INFORMATION is there REGARDLESS of whether I can define it to your satisfaction. You know it, I know it. We all know it.

Just classic rhetoric as opposed to truth.

You believe in a fairy story where INFORMATION just appears out of nowhere. Whereas real scientists know that INFORMATION only comes for INTELLIGENT sources and not from random mutations. K:

 

[Jose Fly]

Hogwash. You aren't the decider.

Not sure how things work in your world, but in the real one, making arguments centered around meaningless terms renders those arguments equally meaningless.

The conditions in the world were vastly differently before the flood.

In what way that affected genetic mutations accumulating in unexpressed genes?

You're so funny. The INFORMATION is there REGARDLESS of whether I can define it to your satisfaction. You know it, I know it. We all know it.

So again, you really have no idea what "genetic information" is, or how to measure it. Why can't you just admit it? Are you afraid to just be honest and say "I don't really know what genetic information is or how to measure it"?

 

[Right Divider]

Not sure how things work in your world, but in the real one, making arguments centered around meaningless terms renders those arguments equally meaningless.

Anything to keep your faith!

Here is one example that I am completely sure of, MAN is a KIND distinct from other KINDS.

There you go.

In what way that affected genetic mutations accumulating in unexpressed genes?

The entire ecosystem of earth was radically changed. Mutations were far, far fewer then.

So again, you really have no idea what "genetic information" is, or how to measure it. Why can't you just admit it? Are you afraid to just be honest and say "I don't really know what genetic information is or how to measure it"?

Maybe this will help you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_expression#Measurement

I guess that you think that there is no way to quantify or qualify genetic INFORMATION. Evolutionists attempt this all of the time, using whatever aspect of the CODE that they feel meets there need.

And, ONCE AGAIN, your FUNDAMENTAL problem is that there is INFORMATION there in the first place. According to your "theory" there was ONCE NO SUCH INFORMATION in existence.

Or do I not understand your "theory"?

 

[Jose Fly]

Anything to keep your faith!

You know how I know creationism is false? Because of kleptch. Kleptch completely disproves creationism.

Here is one example that I am completely sure of, MAN is a KIND distinct from other KINDS.

And you know this, how?

The entire ecosystem of earth was radically changed. Mutations were far, far fewer then.

And you know this, how?

Maybe this will help you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_expression#Measurement

There's nothing in there that defines "genetic information" or gives a means of measuring it. The section is about measuring gene expression, which I already know quite a bit about.

How about you stop Googling, and just say right now, yes or no, whether you can define "genetic information" and provide a means of measuring it?

 

[Right Divider]

You know how I know creationism is false? Because of kleptch. Kleptch completely disproves creationism.

Well I gotta trust you cuz you're SOOOO smart and a really cool guy. :cigar:

And you know this, how?

It's self evident. You'd have to be pretty dumb to miss it.

And you know this, how?

Not the same way that you know what happened billions of years ago.

There's nothing in there that defines "genetic information" or gives a means of measuring it. The section is about measuring gene expression, which I already know quite a bit about.

How about you stop Googling, and just say right now, yes or no, whether you can define "genetic information" and provide a means of measuring it?

I'm not an expert on the definition of genetic information. I never said that I was. Does this mean that genetic INFORMATION doesn't exist?

My knowledge is not relevant to the definition nor existence of CODED INFORMATION in OUR DNA.

But your fixation on MY knowledge (or lack there of) is quite amusing. Why don't you bust out YOUR VAST KNOWLEDGE and impress us with HOW this INFORMATION came into being with God.

I'm love to learn from someone so awesome as you. :yawn:

 

[Jose Fly]

Well I gotta trust you cuz you're SOOOO smart and a really cool guy.

You can dodge all you like, but the fact remains...kleptch completely destroys creationism.

It's self evident. You'd have to be pretty dumb to miss it.

Not the same way that you know what happened billions of years ago.

I'm not an expert on the definition of genetic information. I never said that I was. Does this mean that genetic INFORMATION doesn't exist?

My knowledge is not relevant to the definition nor existence of CODED INFORMATION in OUR DNA.

So to sum this all up, your position is that cats, dogs, and humans are different "kinds", but you can't really say how you know that other than they just look that way.

Also, evolution can't explain genetic information, which never increases, but you can't really say what genetic information is or how to measure it.

Finally, all the members of each "kind" on the ark had all the necessary genetic information necessary to produce the diversity of species alive today, but you can't really say how you know that or how that managed to work.

Great job. :chuckle:

 

[Jose Fly]

One other question for you Right Divider: Do you agree with 6days that creationism is a belief, not science?

 

[Right Divider]

You can dodge all you like, but the fact remains...kleptch completely destroys creationism.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

So to sum this all up, your position is that cats, dogs, and humans are different "kinds", but you can't really say how you know that other than they just look that way.

I was not there when God created them all and neither were you.

You seem to think that all truth can be discerned from observing the material world. But what else would a atheist materialist believe?

Also, evolution can't explain genetic information, which never increases, but you can't really say what genetic information is or how to measure it.

Finally, all the members of each "kind" on the ark had all the necessary genetic information necessary to produce the diversity of species alive today, but you can't really say how you know that or how that managed to work.

Great job. :chuckle:

And you think that you know everything. Excellent job. :chuckle:K:

 

[Jose Fly]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

You just can't deal with the hard cold truth that kleptch completely negates creationism.

I was not there when God created them all and neither were you.

Well, according to the Bible, no one was.

And you may have missed this: Do you agree with 6days that creationism is a belief, not science?

 

[Right Divider]

You just can't deal with the hard cold truth that kleptch completely negates creationism.

You're lying. I have NO IDEA what you're talking about. Perhaps you should explain it instead of being a moron.

Well, according to the Bible, no one was.

Exactly and according to the ToE no one were there to see that start either.

And you may have missed this: Do you agree with 6days that creationism is a belief, not science?

The belief in creation and the belief in evolution (the atheistic origin story) are BOTH in the same boat in that regard.

Science is simply knowledge, nothing more (although atheists worship a materialist version of science).

Science is studied in the PRESENT. Origins is NOT the same kind of knowledge that is testable, repeatable and in the NOW.

 

[Jose Fly]

You're lying. I have NO IDEA what you're talking about. Perhaps you should explain it instead of being a moron.

What's to explain? Not only can't creationism account for kleptch, that kleptch exists directly and absolutely refutes it. That's just a fact.

Exactly and according to the ToE no one were there to see that start either.

That's right.

The belief in creation and the belief in evolution (the atheistic origin story) are BOTH in the same boat in that regard.

Thanks for clarifying that you agree with 6days in that creationism is a belief, not science.

 

[Right Divider]

What's to explain? Not only can't creationism account for kleptch, that kleptch exists directly and absolutely refutes it. That's just a fact.

What the HELL is kleptch? That's what to explain! (man you're dense sometimes)

That's right.

Thanks for clarifying that you agree with 6days in that creationism is a belief, not science.

And neither is evolutionism! I know you guys like to try to steal it from everyone else, but it just ain't so.

Science = Knowledge

No matter WHERE it comes from.

 

[Interplanner]

seattle creation conference starting:

http://cedarpark.churchonline.org/

 

[6days]

seattle creation conference starting:

http://cedarpark.churchonline.org/

Keep us posted as to anything interesting. .. wish I could have watched.

 

[Jose Fly]

What the HELL is kleptch? That's what to explain!

Well, it's not really my field of expertise, but from what I understand from my colleagues who do specialize in it, the fact that creationism cannot account for the presence of kleptch as it exists, definitively proves that creationism isn't true.