Evolution Denies - Please Refute this

[dad]

You made a statement - you must prove it, or else it will just be ignored as an assertion. Of course your unwillingness to do so speaks volumes for the foundation of your argument.

No need to prove what is self evident in history and the world we live in. The bible has impact, even the village idiot would know that.

 

[OllieFranz]

So arguing that "God created" vs. "nature evolved" has nothing to do with theism vs. atheism?

There is no "vs" in the juxtaposition of "God created" and "nature evolved" except in the minds of "Capital-C Creationists" (believers in Special Creation) and some hard-core atheists (who wouldn't care, except for all the efforts of the Creationists to "water down science with superstition").

Wouldn't the statement, "God loves everybody" be an argument against atheism?

Only if God's love made a measurable impact on the atheists' perceptions. Otherwise its just meaningless words to them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wouldn't the statement, "God loves everybody" be an argument against atheism?

Only if God's love made a measurable impact on the atheists' perceptions. Otherwise its just meaningless words to them.

I disagree.

That means that the atheist makes the determination what is against them or not.

If Joe says, "Houses don't exist," and Tom says, "My house is pretty;" is Tom's statement a statement against Joe's?

You seem to be saying: Only if Tom's house made a measurable impact on Joe's perception.

What if Joe is blind? or mentally handicapped? or believes Tom's house is a movie prop?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I disagree.

That means that the atheist makes the determination what is against them or not.

If Joe says, "Houses don't exist," and Tom says, "My house is pretty;" is Tom's statement a statement against Joe's?

You seem to be saying: Only if Tom's house made a measurable impact on Joe's perception.

What if Joe is blind? or mentally handicapped? or believes Tom's house is a movie prop?

Does Dionysus have a measurable impact on your perceptions?

 

[Belk]

The laws of physics are going to be changed again -- after the millennial reign of Christ.

According to Peter, God is going to suspend the strong nuclear force and the sub-atomic particles are going to fly apart.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Note that it's not a "big bang" we believe in, but a "great noise."

Gravity, of course, will be suspended, as we traverse back and forth from Earth2 to a 1500 cubed-mile city (New Jerusalem) hovering above, via the King's Highway.

Photosynthesis and the sun will take a backseat to Christ, Himself.

Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

You know, for a guy who claims to be a biblical literalist You have some rather... interesting non literal interpretations.

 

[OllieFranz]

I disagree.

That means that the atheist makes the determination what is against them or not.

Whether or not a statement impacts him determines whether or not that statement impacts him.

If Joe says, "Houses don't exist," and Tom says, "My house is pretty;" is Tom's statement a statement against Joe's?

To Tom, yes. To Joe, probably not.

You seem to be saying: Only if Tom's house made a measurable impact on Joe's perception.

Yes. As far as Joe knows, Tom could be lying, or saying nonsense because he "knows" houses don't exist.

What if Joe is blind? or mentally handicapped? or believes Tom's house is a movie prop?

I said it is meaningless to them. I did not say it has no meaning.

You asked if A was an argument against B, where Joe (already) affirmatively believes B, and A presupposes ~B. To Joe A is meaningless until you (or the facts [or Person] behind A) first at least breaks down his assurance of the truth of B. The mere statement of A has no impact on Joe's intrenched beliefs.

And no, it does not matter if B is false. It does not matter if Joe is blind, or deluded or mentally handicapped.

Telling Joe that God loves him when Joe does not believe that God exists will do nothing to convince him either that God loves him or thay God even exists.

That is one of the problem with hard-core believers (and sometimes with hard-core non-believers). They are so certain that B (or ~B) is, was, and always will be obviously true that they can't concieve of anyone believing it false. So instead of coming up with arguments that support B(or ~B), they come up with arguments that presuppose B (or ~B).

 

[StormanNorman]

And what is that?

The Theory of Evolution.

By the way tell us how chromosomes fuse?

I have no idea.

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

.


Originally Posted by loktai
You made a statement - you must prove it, or else it will just be ignored as an assertion. Of course your unwillingness to do so speaks volumes for the foundation of your argument.

No need to prove what is self evident in history and the world we live in. The bible has impact, even the village idiot would know that.

Anyone who can't develop at least a half dozen fitting punch lines from that one lead-in has absolutely no sense of humor.






.

 

[dad]

The Theory of Evolution.

To be disproved, it would need to first be proved. Work on that. It is a foolish fable.

I have no idea.

So you support the OP not by knowledge but faith? OK.

 

[dad]

.


Originally Posted by loktai
You made a statement - you must prove it, or else it will just be ignored as an assertion. Of course your unwillingness to do so speaks volumes for the foundation of your argument.



Anyone who can't develop at least a half dozen fitting punch lines from that one lead-in has absolutely no sense of humor.






.

Glad it was clear enough for you to understand it well.

 

[Loudmouth]

To be disproved, it would need to first be proved. Work on that. It is a foolish fable.

Already proven.

First, the distribution of provirus-containing loci among taxa dates the insertion. Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14).
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences

​

We share 200,000 of these orthologous ERV's with chimps. This is irrefutable proof that we evolved from a common ancestor.

​

 

[dad]

Already proven.

Pretty lame. You offer ratios as if they are a result of one particular state. Worthless. You were asked to prove there was decay even...you failed.

First, the distribution of provirus-containing loci among taxa dates the insertion. Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14).
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences

​

We share 200,000 of these orthologous ERV's with chimps. This is irrefutable proof that we evolved from a common ancestor.

False. It is evidence that the former state allowed transfer of stuff in ways that the present state does not. Whoopee do. The chimp knows better than science.

 

[StormanNorman]

To be disproved, it would need to first be proved. Work on that. It is a foolish fable.

It can't be proven beyond all doubt especially for someone like you... at least, not until we invent a time machine. In the meantime, we'll continue to gather physical evidence and gain more confidence in our understanding of the past ... but, as always, with a little scientific wonderment and friendly disagreement sprinkled in.

So you support the OP not by knowledge but faith? OK.

Via faith in my fellow human beings who have far more knowledge in genetics than I do.

 

[Loudmouth]

Pretty lame. You offer ratios as if they are a result of one particular state. Worthless. You were asked to prove there was decay even...you failed.

You have offered nothing to refute the evidence.

False. It is evidence that the former state allowed transfer of stuff in ways that the present state does not. Whoopee do. The chimp knows better than science.

So what would a comparison of ERV's look like if they really were the result of common ancestry between humans and chimps?

 

[dad]

It can't be proven beyond all doubt especially for someone like you... at least, not until we invent a time machine.

Great so you admit not knowing or being able to know. Nice. The thing is any and all actual evolving that can be shown is explained by rapid evolution in the different past that started from the created creatures.

In the meantime, we'll continue to gather physical evidence and gain more confidence in our understanding of the past ... but, as always, with a little scientific wonderment and friendly disagreement sprinkled in.

Since you are willingly only dealing in part of the picture and information, don't blame me.

Via faith in my fellow human beings who have far more knowledge in genetics than I do.

Well, hurray for blind faith then...in man no less!

 

[dad]

You have offered nothing to refute the evidence.

The ratios do not need refuting. You have not proven a same state past just tried to use one to explain stuff. You did not even address the issue of proving there was decay as YOU claim in the far past. Gong!

So what would a comparison of ERV's look like if they really were the result of common ancestry between humans and chimps?

Have you any reason to suggest they would not look like what we see if transfer was different?? Your 'what would a real old tooth fairy look like' type questions are intellectually insulting and dishonest.

 

[StormanNorman]

Great so you admit not knowing or being able to know. Nice.

Not with absolute certainty. But, we can make strong theories based on the evidence at hand.

The thing is any and all actual evolving that can be shown is explained by rapid evolution in the different past that started from the created creatures.

One of the underlying assumptions in science is that its laws are constant independent of time and location. I believe that it's a very solid assumption unless there is reason to think otherwise.

Since you are willingly only dealing in part of the picture and information, don't blame me.
Well, hurray for blind faith then...in man no less!

Well, at least, I can question people, study what they study, observe what they observe, test what they test, etc. ... if I'm so inclined and motivated ...and have the time. Of course, I have my own life. But, it's all right there, tangible to all who have questions and doubts.

 

[dad]

Not with absolute certainty. But, we can make strong theories based on the evidence at hand.

So can I! So?

One of the underlying assumptions in science is that its laws are constant independent of time and location.

Bingo. That is where they bit it.

I believe that it's a very solid assumption unless there is reason to think otherwise.

Great so you believe that an assumption is cool. Wow. That clinches it I guess.

Well, at least, I can question people, study what they study, observe what they observe, test what they test, etc. ...

So does that include scripture and the record of the apostles and Israel? Or do you mean that out of some little godless noninclusive cultish criteria, you can observe certain things?

if I'm so inclined and motivated ...and have the time. Of course, I have my own life. But, it's all right there, tangible to all who have questions and doubts.

That is not saying a whole heck of a lot!

 

[StormanNorman]

So can I! So?
Bingo. That is where they bit it.

Great so you believe that an assumption is cool. Wow. That clinches it I guess.

Is there a reason to assume something else?

So does that include scripture and the record of the apostles and Israel? Or do you mean that out of some little godless noninclusive cultish criteria, you can observe certain things?

No, because the people that wrote those scriptures are long gone. I can't ask them anything.

That is not saying a whole heck of a lot!

It does for me.

 

[dad]

Is there a reason to assume something else?

The ancient records of scripture tell of a different past. That is reason. There is no reason from science either way.

No, because the people that wrote those scriptures are long gone. I can't ask them anything.

Why ask, they wrote it down.

It does for me.

Then bob apetit.