My Top 10 List

[JohnR7]

This is all you needed to say. Everything else is easily refuted by visiting talkorigins.org

Myth number one: everything a creationist has ever said, is saying or will ever say can be refuted at talk origin. Therefore, end of debate, I do not have to think, I do not have to do any research, I do not have to grow or learn. I just have to have confidence and blind faith in the man made theory of evolution.

Talkorigin does not refute anything. Never put your faith and trust in man or man made theories, always put your faith and trust in God.

 

[Chalnoth]

<Removed> Many people on these boards do do their own research. You have been repeatedly refuted by many of them.

 

[JohnR7]

We are witnessing a new synthesis between developmental biology and the modern synthesis of evolution with genetics.

This is double talk. Neo-darwinism is the "modern synthesis". If there is a new modern synthesis then it has not made it to market yet to be mass produced and sold to the unsuspecting evos that actually will buy anything that is labeled evolution.

I have no question in their ability to create and market this new theory. But so far they have failed to do that.

 

[[serious]]

I'm actually impressed supersport. You seem to be gaining a better grasp on some of this stuff.

A few comments/corrections though:

You know the theory of evolution is not only hard to believe logically, but it’s so incredibly unlikely in so many different ways. For example, random, beneficial mutations are said to not happen but once in half-a-billion creatures within a population. And if/when that miracle mutation happens, what are the odds that this creature won’t be gobbled up by a predator before he/she breeds? If indeed that creature dies before breeding, then that once-in-a-billion mutation goes to waste.

And this does happen. The thing is, it's less likely to happen to a more fit creature so in the long run more good changes get passed on than bad changes. The biggest jumps are when there is some sort of kill that selects for/against certain traits. We'll get to that though.

1) There is something called “epistasis,” which is a genetic phenomenon that’s been observed that shows even when an organism experiences a so-called “beneficial” mutation, surrounding nucleotides are negatively effected, which almost always has a negative effect on “fitness.” So in otherwords, even though a beneficial mutation happens, the fitness of an animal will decrease. This goes against everything darwinists have ever said because they claim the Natural Selection god will select only the “fittest,” – but if those who experience mutations are made less fit by the mutation, then we have a serious contradiction.

http://www.originaldissent.com/forum...p/t-15375.html

That isn't quite what epistasis is. Epistasis is a fancy word for gene interaction. There is no inherant link between epistatic genes and decreased fitness. The supression or amplification of a gene by epistasis can actaully increase the fitness just as easy.

2) Evolutionists claim that we all evolved upwards from a one-celled organism. But in order for this to happen, there would have to logically be numerous types of mutations that show that the increase information and/or add completely new informaton. This has yet to be shown. Instead, mutations are almost all deleterious and are harmful/deadly to the organism. Not only that but no new animals are being formed – all we see is extinction. Ultimately, the genome is being irreversibly eroded by mutations, which means life is headed downward….and if life is headed downward, there is no way we could have evolved upwards from one-celled organisms.

http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/Cool/evolution.htm

first off, not every evolutionary step is towards more complex. Now, as far as adding info. We see numerous examples of adding information in both humans and lower life forms. (Mostly in lower lifeforms since they are easier to study.) For example, the globin genes are highly repeated in the genome and are prone to both repititions and deletions during meiosis (these are also very well tolerated). Any time a repition happens and a mutation occurs you are adding information. (since you have everything you had before and a little more). One of the major things that allowed mammals to have long gestations (allowing live birth) was globin genes that produced a higher affinity hemoglobin which was able to more effectively capture O2 from the mother's bloodstream. This would be a bad thing to have post partum since it also makes it a bit harder for cells to grab the O2 from the hemoglobin but since it's just a spare copy anyway, mammals were able to just use that high affinity hemoglobin in the womb and then switch to the good old fashioned B/A chain hemoglobin. You can also note that a pseudo B chain has popped up. It doesn't currently have any real function, but since it's just a spare copy anyway it doesn't matter much. We may even find a use for it as we continue to evolve.

3) Evolutionary theory has a huge physical and intellectual hole in it. This hole is that there is no biological variation for rapid change in organisms...for the reason given above that mutations occur once every half-billion creatures. This is why rapid instances of evolution makes them very nervious. For instance, when finches beaks evolve in 2 years, their only defense is that all the “unfit” finches starved to death before breeding, while the small percentage of unfit finches who happen to reside in the population were lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time to be selected. Same with moths…..When the peppered moths quiclkly changed colors a century ago, evolutionists had to blame this physiological change on the death of unfit moths by saying they were devoured by birds….this supposedly left only the more fit moths of a different color. Death rules this theory.

Pretty much. During the drought you refered to, numbers of both big beak and little beak finches went down. The big beak finches just didn't go down as much. That is the way that organisms change rapidly. There is a period of genetic diversification followed by a kill that selects for certain traits.

4) There is no named hominid ancestor to humans. No bones have been found that are the supposed intermediate between monkey and man. Not only that, but modern human bones – or bones indecipherable from humans – have been dug up from the same debths as our supposed monkey ancestors. This makes us contemporaries, not ancestoral to these primates. Amazingly, evolutionists have constructed the whole theory on a platform of no fossil homind evidence.

H. erectus is a hominid and our ancestor. We've found fossilized remains as well.

5) No bones have every been found that link – or show descent from – one kind of animal to another. For instance, if a bat would have evolved from another mammal, there would logically need to be thousands of intermedicates between the orginal mammal and the completely evolved bat. These types of intermediate creatures have never been found.

"kind" is not a scientific term. there is no defined meaning to "kind" so it is impossible to determine what would qualify as a split of one kind into 2 kinds

6) There’s a huge population problem with Homo Sapiens. Since mutations are so incredibly rare, there would need to be huge numbers in a given population for the chance of a benefical mutation to happen. But can you guess how many total homind fossils have been unearthed as of 1980? This includes Neanderthals, Homo Erectus and all various Australopithecus bones:

Africa – about 1,400 total bones or fragments
Europe and Russia -- 1,500 bones/fragments
America/Austrailia – about 1,100 bones

This totals about 4000 bones. Now granted, not every person who ever lived could possibly be found….but people/monkeys most certainly lived in clans or communities….not spread out individually across the globe. So, how could man/monkey evolve via RM + NS with such small numbers of individuals!??? Where are all the bones? Remember, it takes half-a-billion creatures before a beneficial mutation can surface.

And since every human/monkey is certainly going to breed, this would quickly water down any mutations that did happen. And remember, according to the fact of epsistasis, if/when a mutation happens, it will instantly decrease fitness --- which would actually make it less likely that the creature would reproduce.

And why is it that of all the millions of creatures to roam the earth, ONLY humans are able to construct tall buildings, fly to the moon and solve calculus equations? Why are we the only ones who get married, wear clothing? Why are we the only creatures with written language? Why are we the only creatures who worship a creator? why are we the only creature who evolved to our level if existence and evolution is random? I mean it would be advantageous for all creatures to exhibit intelligence, would it not?

fossilization is a pretty rare occurance. Also, there are bigger factors in number of fossils found than population size. As far as the advantage of humans, I'd remind you that bacteria are the most successful organisms on the planet. They account for more biomass than anything else. Intelligence is how we solved the problem of how to perpetuate the species, it isn't the only (or even necessarily best) solution.

7) Humans and monkeys and mice and insects all share the same sets of genes. If you substitute the eye-forming gene of a fly and transplanted it to a blind cat, the cat will form a functioning round, blue eye, despite the fact that the gene came from a red-eyed fly. This proves that genes are universal and the need for new genes is not necessary for the evolution of new traits.

I'm not sure where you heard that, but it's completely wrong. There are many genes that control the formation of eyes. Very few are common between insects and mammals (I can't actually think of any). off the top of my head I can name 4 specific genes that code for pigmentation of the eye in drosophila (common fruit flies) none of which carry to mammals.

8) Monkeys cannot breed with humans. As much as evolutionists like to envision it, a creature with 23 chromosomes is not going to breed successfully with a creature that has 22 or 14.

bread wheat did it. Duram wheat (2n=28) bred with a 2n=14 strain of wheat. Due to the formation of a euploid, the resulting strain was 2n=42

9) Evolutionists have no logical origin for DNA. In fact, they don't have an origin for anything. They have no idea how sight, hearing, tasting, or smelling could have originated. They also have no origins for males and females or for sexual reproduction. They have no idea how life started. They have no idea how the world got here. They have no idea how time started or how space came to exist. They have no idea what formed the galaxies or holds them together in tight spirals, despite a supposedly expanding universe.

actaully, we do have explainations for all of that. As to the origins of sexes though, you would have to specify for what animal. There are at least 4 major types of sex determination with many variations within them.

10) Finally, the theory of evolution goes against what the Bible says. I believe the Bible is the beautiful truth. And I believe Adam and his descendants indeed lived to be near 1,000 years old….this makes sense in light of man’s degeneration. What is described in the Bible is the only way it could have happened.

this last one I won't argue with. If that is what you feel the bible says, I will not try to talk you out of it. It's a matter of your own personal faith.

 

[Asimis]

Myth number one: everything a creationist has ever said, is saying or will ever say can be refuted at talk origin. Therefore, end of debate, I do not have to think, I do not have to do any research, I do not have to grow or learn. I just have to have confidence and blind faith in the man made theory of evolution.

Talkorigin does not refute anything. Never put your faith and trust in man or man made theories, always put your faith and trust in God.

You trust "man made theories" everyday. So you are being inconsistent here.

 

[Ondoher]

This is double talk. Neo-darwinism is the "modern synthesis". If there is a new modern synthesis then it has not made it to market yet to be mass produced and sold to the unsuspecting evos that actually will buy anything that is labeled evolution.

It's called evolutionary development. You've been raving about it, although you don't seem to understand it.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

This is double talk. Neo-darwinism is the "modern synthesis". If there is a new modern synthesis then it has not made it to market yet to be mass produced and sold to the unsuspecting evos that actually will buy anything that is labeled evolution.

I have no question in their ability to create and market this new theory. But so far they have failed to do that.

Apparently you missed the anouncement but evolution has moved on, since you are the one who brought up Sean Carroll one of the leading lights, we assumed that you were paying attention. Our bad. Anyhow, here is a very nice PNAS article from about 6 years ago.
[SIZE=-1] Special Feature
Introduction
[/SIZE] The evolution of evo-devo biology


The whole article is free as well as the references, so here is your chance to catch up on what has been happening in the real world of Biology.

 

[Baggins]

Apparently you missed the anouncement but evolution has moved on, since you are the one who brought up Sean Carroll one of the leading lights, we assumed that you were paying attention. Our bad. Anyhow, here is a very nice PNAS article from about 6 years ago.
[SIZE=-1]Special Feature[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Introduction[/SIZE]
The evolution of evo-devo biology


The whole article is free as well as the references, so here is your chance to catch up on what has been happening in the real world of Biology.

Thank you so much for that link, a huge number of articles about late Pre-Cambrian/Cambrian evolution, I am in heaven.

Reps on the way if I can, this will keep me in reading material for weeks, and a Simon Conway Morris paper I haven't seen before, I'm sure it was covered in his book " The Crucible of Creation " but it is always nice to get back to the original papers.

 

[USincognito]

6) There’s a huge population problem with Homo Sapiens. Since mutations are so incredibly rare, there would need to be huge numbers in a given population for the chance of a benefical mutation to happen. But can you guess how many total homind fossils have been unearthed as of 1980? This includes Neanderthals, Homo Erectus and all various Australopithecus bones:

Africa – about 1,400 total bones or fragments
Europe and Russia -- 1,500 bones/fragments
America/Austrailia – about 1,100 bones

Where did you get these numbers because I'm going to call you out? The number of hominid (that aren't modern H. sapiens) fossils found in Australia and the Americas is zero.

 

[JohnR7]

Wow, John, you're sure good.

I am also known for "quote mining" Although I do not really quote mine, I just do not waste peoples time to quote the whole thing

 

[JohnR7]

There's no "eyeless" gene

Did you do a google search first before you decided to show us all how wrong you can be?

Biologists have learned about the genetics of the visual system in insects by studying mutations that affect eyes in Drosophila. Mutants of the eyeless gene in Drosophila have reduced eye size, with the extent of the reduction depending on the allele. The eyeless gene is normally expressed only in the tissues that become the eyes.http://www.learner.org/channel/courses/biology/textbook/gendev/gendev_11.html

 

[JohnR7]

He cannot see that he is causing his own pain.

Oh, I cause my own pain all right, by caring enough about people to try and get the truth through to them. I should have the same attitude that eveyone else has and figure if they are hell bent on destruction them let them have what they want and let them destory themselves.

But I do not think God has given up on them. He keeps trying to get though to them, so I keep trying also. If God were not a part of it, then I would be out of here, because there would be no reason for me to endure the abuse I put up with around here.

Hebrews 11:36-38
Still others had trial of mockings and scourgings, yes, and of chains and imprisonment. [37] They were stoned, they were sawn in two, were tempted, were slain with the sword. They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented-- [38] of whom the world was not worthy. They wandered in deserts and mountains, in dens and caves of the earth.

 

[RealSorceror]

You know the theory of evolution is not only hard to believe logically, but it’s so incredibly unlikely in so many different ways.

I have no trouble believing in it and I find it very logical and simple.

Here are just a few more things off the top of my head that would require astronomical odds to overcome or are just flat-out unexplainable by the given evidence.

Perhaps.

1) There is something called “epistasis,” which is a genetic phenomenon that’s been observed that shows even when an organism experiences a so-called “beneficial” mutation, surrounding nucleotides are negatively effected, which almost always has a negative effect on “fitness.” So in otherwords, even though a beneficial mutation happens, the fitness of an animal will decrease. This goes against everything darwinists have ever said because they claim the Natural Selection god will select only the “fittest,” – but if those who experience mutations are made less fit by the mutation, then we have a serious contradiction.

http://www.originaldissent.com/forum...p/t-15375.html

Natural selection god? Hmmm.
I don't really believe mutation plays a major role in evolution, at least not as I currently understand it. Most mutations are either benign or degenerate and do not help a creature survive and reproduce.
Also, mutations do not occur "once every half-billion creatures". They are much more random and unpredictable than that.

2) Evolutionists claim that we all evolved upwards from a one-celled organism. But in order for this to happen, there would have to logically be numerous types of mutations that show that the increase information and/or add completely new informaton. This has yet to be shown. Instead, mutations are almost all deleterious and are harmful/deadly to the organism. Not only that but no new animals are being formed – all we see is extinction. Ultimately, the genome is being irreversibly eroded by mutations, which means life is headed downward….and if life is headed downward, there is no way we could have evolved upwards from one-celled organisms.

How exactly would you witness macro-evolution? I suppose if you set up a tree stand and waited 4 million years....
Macro-evolution cannot truly be observed in living animals becuase nobody lives long enough to observe it. Even if scientists had started their observations when the theory was founded, they likely still wouldn't have any tangible evidence. Fossils are our best source for ideas about macro-evolution.

3) Evolutionary theory has a huge physical and intellectual hole in it. This hole is that there is no biological variation for rapid change in organisms...for the reason given above that mutations occur once every half-billion creatures. This is why rapid instances of evolution makes them very nervious. For instance, when finches beaks evolve in 2 years, their only defense is that all the “unfit” finches starved to death before breeding, while the small percentage of unfit finches who happen to reside in the population were lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time to be selected. Same with moths…..When the peppered moths quiclkly changed colors a century ago, evolutionists had to blame this physiological change on the death of unfit moths by saying they were devoured by birds….this supposedly left only the more fit moths of a different color. Death rules this theory.

You are really twisting people's words here, but yes, "survival of the fittest" aka natural selection are cornerstones of evolution. Those moths had two variations: a peppered white and solid black. The local trees used to be white, so the white moth was common and dominant. The black variety was easy for predators to spot. Smoke from nearby factories stained the trees black. This made black a favorable trait. The white moths then stood out and where eaten. This is an example of micro-evolution. It is just a variation within a species and not a complete change to a new species.

4) There is no named hominid ancestor to humans. No bones have been found that are the supposed intermediate between monkey and man. Not only that, but modern human bones – or bones indecipherable from humans – have been dug up from the same debths as our supposed monkey ancestors. This makes us contemporaries, not ancestoral to these primates. Amazingly, evolutionists have constructed the whole theory on a platform of no fossil homind evidence.

You are correct in that there is no link between man and monkey. Humans didn't evolve from monkies. They evolved from apes. There are a dozen species linking man to ape. You may be using incomplete or outdated information. Also, it is no surpise that humans, apes, and monkies coexisted. There are dozens of different kinds of apes. Only one species of ape evolved into homonids. The other species of apes evolved into other kinds of apes.

5) No bones have every been found that link – or show descent from – one kind of animal to another. For instance, if a bat would have evolved from another mammal, there would logically need to be thousands of intermedicates between the orginal mammal and the completely evolved bat. These types of intermediate creatures have never been found.

Thousands? Doubtful. Bats likely evolved from gliding mammals such as flying squirrels and suger gliders. To say that there are no links between species is false. Agian, I think your source of information is either outdated or biased.

6) There’s a huge population problem with Homo Sapiens. Since mutations are so incredibly rare, there would need to be huge numbers in a given population for the chance of a benefical mutation to happen. But can you guess how many total homind fossils have been unearthed as of 1980? This includes Neanderthals, Homo Erectus and all various Australopithecus bones:

Africa – about 1,400 total bones or fragments
Europe and Russia -- 1,500 bones/fragments
America/Austrailia – about 1,100 bones

This totals about 4000 bones. Now granted, not every person who ever lived could possibly be found….but people/monkeys most certainly lived in clans or communities….not spread out individually across the globe. So, how could man/monkey evolve via RM + NS with such small numbers of individuals!??? Where are all the bones? Remember, it takes half-a-billion creatures before a beneficial mutation can surface.

I don't think you understand how fossilization works. It is incredibly rare that bones become fossilized. Most of the time they just biodegrate and turn into dirt. If all bones where fossilized, the Earth would be covered in skeletons.

And why is it that of all the millions of creatures to roam the earth, ONLY humans are able to construct tall buildings, fly to the moon and solve calculus equations? Why are we the only ones who get married, wear clothing? Why are we the only creatures with written language? Why are we the only creatures who worship a creator? why are we the only creature who evolved to our level if existence and evolution is random? I mean it would be advantageous for all creatures to exhibit intelligence, would it not?

True sentience is not an easy feat. If events hadn't infolded the way they did, we might not exist. Only a small handful of animals even come close to sentience. Our intelligence did not come from some random mutations. It came from a very long and specific process of changes. In our evolutionary line, intelligence is a very recent occurance.

7) Humans and monkeys and mice and insects all share the same sets of genes. If you substitute the eye-forming gene of a fly and transplanted it to a blind cat, the cat will form a functioning round, blue eye, despite the fact that the gene came from a red-eyed fly. This proves that genes are universal and the need for new genes is not necessary for the evolution of new traits.

Do you know why we all have certian genes in common? Its becuase everything on the planet shares a common ancester. If you go back far enough, there is a place on the "family tree" where animals are related to plants.

8) Monkeys cannot breed with humans. As much as evolutionists like to envision it, a creature with 23 chromosomes is not going to breed successfully with a creature that has 22 or 14.

No duh. Thats one of the ways to identify a seperate species. Nobody is arguing that point.

9) Evolutionists have no logical origin for DNA. In fact, they don't have an origin for anything. They have no idea how sight, hearing, tasting, or smelling could have originated. They also have no origins for males and females or for sexual reproduction. They have no idea how life started. They have no idea how the world got here. They have no idea how time started or how space came to exist. They have no idea what formed the galaxies or holds them together in tight spirals, despite a supposedly expanding universe.

I know the answer. God did it. Yup, I'm a theistic evolutionist.
Btw, we have a pretty good idea of how eyes and ears evolved. Eyes likely evolved from primitive "eyespots". This is a patch of skin that can sense light. Ears probably evolved from a primitive organ that is sensitive to vibration.

10) Finally, the theory of evolution goes against what the Bible says. I believe the Bible is the beautiful truth. And I believe Adam and his descendants indeed lived to be near 1,000 years old….this makes sense in light of man’s degeneration. What is described in the Bible is the only way it could have happened.

That is your opinion and it is not supported by tangible evidence.

 

[JohnR7]

You trust "man made theories" everyday. So you are being inconsistent here.

We do not need man to teach us about God. We have the Holy Spirit of God to guide us and to lead us into all righteous and true knowledge. But it takes time, dedication and in some cases fasting. Sometimes it takes me two or three hours to receive what God has for me. That is time some people do not want to spend seeking after God. In some of the monasterys, they spend up to 5 hours a day praying and seeking to hear from God, what He wants to teach them that day.

Jeremiah 31:34
No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

 

[JohnR7]

And yet no 2 Christians can agree on what the bible actually says and what God wants from them.

We agree. The Bible says we will all have the mind of Christ and we will all be of one mind and one accord. Some people are just more mature than others. We are all growing and learning. As living stones we are being fitted and joined together.

Philip. 3:15
Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you.

Philip. 2:2
fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.

 

[Nathan Poe]

We agree. The Bible says we will all have the mind of Christ and we will all be of one mind and one accord. Some people are just more mature than others. We are all growing and learning. As living stones we are being fitted and joined together.

And 10,000 sects of Christians each think that they got it right, and the other 9,999 don't.

 

[JohnR7]

And 10,000 sects of Christians each think that they got it right, and the other 9,999 don't.

That is your story, not mine. There is only one true church. Just like there is only one counterfeit church. So all of your 9,999 are going to fit into one of the two churches, the real one or the fake one. Which one did you grow up in?

 

[Nathan Poe]

That is your story, not mine. There is only one true church.

Which you will say is your own -- just like every other Christian says.

And you're right and they're wrong because...?

Just like there is only one counterfeit church.

And which one is that, Johnny?

So all of your 9,999 are going to fit into one of the two churches, the real one or the fake one. Which one did you grow up in?

10,000 = 2? <Removed>

 

[JohnR7]

And you're right and they're wrong because...?

The Buzz word of the week Nathan is that Godless liberal atheism is wrong. Do you want to know what a Godless liberal is? Anyone that denys Calvery.

Some people would say there is no difference between a moderate and a liberal. But moderates at least accept Calvery and accept the sacrifice that Jesus made for them. Even if they buy into some of the Godless liberal beliefs.

So what are you Nathan a moderate or a full blown liberal?

 

[JohnR7]

10,000 = 2? <Removed>

Six billion people will either be saved or not saved. So they will all fall into one of those two groups.

Which group do you fall into Nathan? Are you saved or are you lost?