Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[Speedwell]

I didn't say it was detailed.

Then it is not going to do you much good in this discussion.

 

[DogmaHunter]

When they can prove it, get back to me. They can't even explain how the elements came into existence.

How elements came into existance, is not within the scope of explanation of biology.

 

[tas8831]

They can't even explain how the elements came into existence.

Can you?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I haven't forgotten what evolution preaches.

Given that what you post about it is seriously mistaken, either you've forgotten, or you weren't taught the fundamentals of evolution correctly; the latter seems unlikely if you took quality courses at an accredited college or university - as I did.

Thanks for offering an example that is not part of the doctrine of natural selection.

Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype, thus involves the majority of deaths from natural causes.

It seems if you ever learned the "evidence" for natural selection offered by evolutionists,, you have forgotten it. I know more about what evoution offers as evidence for natural selection than you do.

Nah. I learned about evolution & genetics in my Human Biology degree, and then used that in my environmental physiology research career. Since then I've kept up to date with developments in the field, including evolution.

What I've learned tells me you are seriously mistaken.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

When they can prove it, get back to me. They can't even explain how the elements came into existence.

As it happens, they can explain how the elements came into existence. From big bang nucleosynthesis to stars and supernovae, they're all accounted for.

 

[omega2xx]

LIAR


Remember this....

Evidence shown to Omega

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-just-a-theory.8028023/page-275#post-72084203

Where Did ERVs Come From?
Evolutionists will say that shared ERVs prove evolution to be true because of common ancestry and that common ancestry assumes that there will be shared ERVs. Making such a claim is silly because this kind of circular reasoning is unsupported by any outside information. In fact, there are several characteristics of ERVs that strongly support a biblical worldview.

1. ERVs Are Not Junk
The fact that any ERVs . . . exist among primates at all strongly argues against common ancestry by itself.
Assuming the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, ERVs would have inserted into the genome and remained there for millions of years. This is why evolutionists say they see shared ERVs in many organisms today that shared a common ancestor millions of years ago. Josh Dubnau at Cold Spring Harbor Labs said, “We’ve had these things in our genomes for millions of years. Anything that can be used by evolution will be used by evolution.”7 Dubnau’s statement can easily be turned into the following assertion: evolution eliminates what will be eliminated by evolution. It is important to realize that evolution works based on a “use it or lose it” basis. The fact that any ERVs (which are “leftover, useless” pieces of DNA) exist among primates at all strongly argues against common ancestry by itself.

But why should so-called junk DNA be conserved for millions (even billions) of years of evolution when it supposedly has no purpose? The argument of junk DNA simply perpetuates the problems with the vestigial organs argument, but at the molecular level. If the genome has no purpose for such elements by evolutionists’ reasoning, then it should have been eliminated millions of years ago. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

2. Saying “ERV” Does Not Prove Evolution
Another problem with the idea that ERVs support common ancestry is the logical fallacy known as the “argument from ignorance.” Simply finding ERVs in a genome is not sufficient proof common ancestry occurred. ERVs do not come with a birth or death certificate. Therefore, there is no way to know beyond a shadow of a doubt (as many evolutionists claim) that this somehow proves evolution. Moreover, evolutionists are not willing to imbibe arguments suggesting alternative explanations for why we find ERVs where we do. Surely some evolutionists could retort saying that we are holding to a “God of the gaps” to rescue our position, but that simply is not the case. For one, evolutionists have their own version of a “God of the gaps.” It’s called “Evolution of the Gaps.”

Further, scientists are finding actual functions for a number of ERVs, which declassifies them as junk and demotes the argument that they are evolutionary proof for common ancestry to just wishful thinking. “Absence of proof is not proof of absence”—attributed to William Cowper.

Your science knowledge does not rise to the level to undersrand your own examples. I will not call you a liar like you did me. I will label you ignorant.


Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega[/QUOTE]

The others you posted only reveal your lack not only of science ,but what constitutes scientific evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Where Did ERVs Come From?
Evolutionists will say that shared ERVs prove evolution to be true because of common ancestry and that common ancestry assumes that there will be shared ERVs. Making such a claim is silly because this kind of circular reasoning is unsupported by any outside information. In fact, there are several characteristics of ERVs that strongly support a biblical worldview.

1. ERVs Are Not Junk
The fact that any ERVs . . . exist among primates at all strongly argues against common ancestry by itself.
Assuming the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, ERVs would have inserted into the genome and remained there for millions of years. This is why evolutionists say they see shared ERVs in many organisms today that shared a common ancestor millions of years ago. Josh Dubnau at Cold Spring Harbor Labs said, “We’ve had these things in our genomes for millions of years. Anything that can be used by evolution will be used by evolution.”7 Dubnau’s statement can easily be turned into the following assertion: evolution eliminates what will be eliminated by evolution. It is important to realize that evolution works based on a “use it or lose it” basis. The fact that any ERVs (which are “leftover, useless” pieces of DNA) exist among primates at all strongly argues against common ancestry by itself.

But why should so-called junk DNA be conserved for millions (even billions) of years of evolution when it supposedly has no purpose? The argument of junk DNA simply perpetuates the problems with the vestigial organs argument, but at the molecular level. If the genome has no purpose for such elements by evolutionists’ reasoning, then it should have been eliminated millions of years ago. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

2. Saying “ERV” Does Not Prove Evolution
Another problem with the idea that ERVs support common ancestry is the logical fallacy known as the “argument from ignorance.” Simply finding ERVs in a genome is not sufficient proof common ancestry occurred. ERVs do not come with a birth or death certificate. Therefore, there is no way to know beyond a shadow of a doubt (as many evolutionists claim) that this somehow proves evolution. Moreover, evolutionists are not willing to imbibe arguments suggesting alternative explanations for why we find ERVs where we do. Surely some evolutionists could retort saying that we are holding to a “God of the gaps” to rescue our position, but that simply is not the case. For one, evolutionists have their own version of a “God of the gaps.” It’s called “Evolution of the Gaps.”

Further, scientists are finding actual functions for a number of ERVs, which declassifies them as junk and demotes the argument that they are evolutionary proof for common ancestry to just wishful thinking. “Absence of proof is not proof of absence”—attributed to William Cowper.

Your science knowledge does not rise to the level to undersrand your own examples. I will not call you a liar like you did me. I will label you ignorant.


Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

Brought to you straight from exposed liars and frauds at "answers in genesis" through blatant copy/paste.

Do Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) Support Common Ancestry?

The others you posted only reveal your lack not only of science ,but what constitutes scientific evidence

Says the guy who just addressed a scientific subject by copy - pasting dishonest religiously motivated nonsense from a know anti-science establishment who's "statement of faith" blatantly says the equivalent of "the bible says it, that settles it".

And you feel like you can lecture anyone on what constitutes scientific evidence?

Give me a break!

 

[omega2xx]

It is, if you realise that every newborn comes with a set of mutations that potentially increases or decreases fitness, which natural selection then "selects" for or against.

First of all that simply is not true. If you knew anything about mutations, you would know that most of them are harmful. You can't cite one example of a mutation being the mechanism for a change of species. Also the traitthatt is altered may or may not be passed on to the next generation.

irony.

In reverse.

 

[omega2xx]

"after their kind", supports evolution.
It is the opposite that would refute evolution.

Mammals produce more mammals.
Primates produce more primates.
Cats produce more cats.

Ok then somemthing other than a cat must have produced the first cat. That is not after their kind.

Mammals don't produce reptiles.
Cats don't produce dogs.

Every organism stays within the "bloodline" of its ancestry.

Right. So where does the change of species fit in.

Yes, we can.
Just like we can demonstrate that your sibling, is your actual sibling and thus that you share biological ancestry. Without having access to that ancestry.

That is after their kind for goodness sake . You really don't understand evolution.

DNA allows us to establish kinship and the level thereof.

Only withon a spwecies. It DOES NOT link differing species to another different species.

Scientific theories don't "preach", instead they explain.

Right but evolution is not based on science. It preaches and you must accept it by faith alone.

Which is not relevant to the facts of evolution, which existing life is subject to.



Which again is not relevant to the facts of evolution.

Then post some facts.

Evolution explains bio-diversity.



Scientific theory isn't theology, it's science.
And there is no guessing involved either.[/QUOTE]

 

[Jimmy D]

Where Did ERVs Come From?
Evolutionists will say that shared ERVs prove evolution to be true because of common ancestry and that common ancestry assumes that there will be shared ERVs. Making such a claim is silly because this kind of circular reasoning is unsupported by any outside information. In fact, there are several characteristics of ERVs that strongly support a biblical worldview.

1. ERVs Are Not Junk
The fact that any ERVs . . . exist among primates at all strongly argues against common ancestry by itself.
Assuming the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, ERVs would have inserted into the genome and remained there for millions of years. This is why evolutionists say they see shared ERVs in many organisms today that shared a common ancestor millions of years ago. Josh Dubnau at Cold Spring Harbor Labs said, “We’ve had these things in our genomes for millions of years. Anything that can be used by evolution will be used by evolution.”7 Dubnau’s statement can easily be turned into the following assertion: evolution eliminates what will be eliminated by evolution. It is important to realize that evolution works based on a “use it or lose it” basis. The fact that any ERVs (which are “leftover, useless” pieces of DNA) exist among primates at all strongly argues against common ancestry by itself.

But why should so-called junk DNA be conserved for millions (even billions) of years of evolution when it supposedly has no purpose? The argument of junk DNA simply perpetuates the problems with the vestigial organs argument, but at the molecular level. If the genome has no purpose for such elements by evolutionists’ reasoning, then it should have been eliminated millions of years ago. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

2. Saying “ERV” Does Not Prove Evolution
Another problem with the idea that ERVs support common ancestry is the logical fallacy known as the “argument from ignorance.” Simply finding ERVs in a genome is not sufficient proof common ancestry occurred. ERVs do not come with a birth or death certificate. Therefore, there is no way to know beyond a shadow of a doubt (as many evolutionists claim) that this somehow proves evolution. Moreover, evolutionists are not willing to imbibe arguments suggesting alternative explanations for why we find ERVs where we do. Surely some evolutionists could retort saying that we are holding to a “God of the gaps” to rescue our position, but that simply is not the case. For one, evolutionists have their own version of a “God of the gaps.” It’s called “Evolution of the Gaps.”

Further, scientists are finding actual functions for a number of ERVs, which declassifies them as junk and demotes the argument that they are evolutionary proof for common ancestry to just wishful thinking. “Absence of proof is not proof of absence”—attributed to William Cowper.

Your science knowledge does not rise to the level to undersrand your own examples. I will not call you a liar like you did me. I will label you ignorant.


Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

The others you posted only reveal your lack not only of science ,but what constitutes scientific evidence.[/QUOTE]

You don't get to tell scientists what scientific evidence is.

You have been presented with evidence, you may not deem it to be evidence but who cares, your knowledge on the topic is laughable.

You said....

"No one, including you has presented the evidence for natural selection."

Which is clearly a lie - as the examples I posted demonstrate.

You are clearly a troll and a liar, have you no shame?

Edit: and a plagiarist, as Dogmahunter just pointed out.

 

[omega2xx]

So what? The theory of evolution is not about physical chemistry, it's about how God brought about the diversity of life.

The TOE is not about God at all.

So, how much math do you know?

Enough to know you can't prove evolution with math. How much biology do you know?

 

[omega2xx]

Can you?

I can't prove it and you can't disprove it. Do you really not know that lifeless elements can not be the origin of life? So the most logical answer is God did it.

 

[omega2xx]

Given that what you post about it is seriously mistaken, either you've forgotten, or you weren't taught the fundamentals of evolution correctly; the latter seems unlikely if you took quality courses at an accredited college or university - as I did.

Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype, thus involves the majority of deaths from natural causes.

Nah. I learned about evolution & genetics in my Human Biology degree, and then used that in my environmental physiology research career. Since then I've kept up to date with developments in the field, including evolution.

What I've learned tells me you are seriously mistaken.

You learned from evolutionists who did not prove what they said.

Tell me how it genetically possible for the offspring of parents with no bones, no gene for bones, no need for bones produced a kid with bones.

 

[Speedwell]

The TOE is not about God at all.

Finally, you've got something right. The theory of evolution is entirely compatible with belief in God and our salvation in Christ.

Enough to know you can't prove evolution with math. How much biology do you know?

Not much. But evolution is a stochastic process and the math behind that is rock-solid.

 

[omega2xx]

As it happens, they can explain how the elements came into existence. From big bang nucleosynthesis to stars and supernovae, they're all accounted for.

For something to go bang it is necessary to have matter and energy. How did they originate?

 

[omega2xx]

Brought to you straight from exposed liars and frauds at "answers in genesis" through blatant copy/paste.

Do Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) Support Common Ancestry?




Says the guy who just addressed a scientific subject by copy - pasting dishonest religiously motivated nonsense from a know anti-science establishment who's "statement of faith" blatantly says the equivalent of "the bible says it, that settles it".

And you feel like you can lecture anyone on what constitutes scientific evidence?

Give me a break!

They were scientists far more qualified than you are.

You still think pictures are evidence.

Think again, as I told you before.

 

[omega2xx]

Finally, you've got something right. The theory of evolution is entirely compatible with belief in God and our salvation in Christ.

Evolution is neutral about God., and it certainly has noting to do with our salvation.

Not much. But evolution is a stochastic process and the math behind that is rock-solid.

Evolution claims to be a biological process and nothing in math supports it.

Do Anglicans not believe the Bible?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Tell me how it genetically possible for the offspring of parents with no bones, no gene for bones, no need for bones produced a kid with bones.

If you knew as much about evolution as you claim, you'd know bones don't evolve in that fashion.

Bones evolved in populations over thousands of generations as certain tissues produced increasing amounts of calcite minerals, for protection, reinforcement, etc.; starting with odontodes, the tooth-like structures found in the throats and skin of the earliest vertebrates (conodonts).

 

[Speedwell]

Evolution is neutral about God., and it certainly has noting to do with our salvation.

Again, you are correct. God made us, and it doesn't matter whether He made us from a handful of dust or through evolution from a precursor hominid.

Evolution claims to be a biological process and nothing in math supports it.

Evolution proceeds by random phenotypic variation and natural selection. It is a stochastic process which can be described mathematically.

Do Anglicans not believe the Bible?

You mean, am I required to believe that the creation stories of Genesis are 100% accurate literal history? No. I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, and that is sufficient.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If evolution says an A eventually became a B, they do indeed have to explain such a phenomena. The can't just say it happened, they must give the science that makes it possible.

-_- evolution is the theory as to how that occurs. Mutation, natural selection, etc., result in populations changing over time. Mutation and natural selection, among others, are "the science that makes it possible".

But, evolution doesn't say that an A will eventually become a B. We can look back on evolutionary history and get a general idea of what has already happened, but we cannot determine what changes will occur in the future. Certainly, if I change an environment in a specific way (such as making it colder), the organisms there are either going to change in accordance with it, adopt new behaviors, or die. And while I can safely assume that any general changes are going to be ones that benefit surviving those changes, there's no way to be sure about what those changes will be. Will the population trend towards having thicker fur or larger fat deposits or something else entirely? It is what changes occur that are at the mercy of the variation already within the population and unpredictable future mutations. I know that A will inevitably change, but I know not how much in a given amount of time nor into what. Only that the changes will trend toward benefiting survival and reproduction.