Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

No-one knows what preceded the big bang, or if that is even a meaningful question.

However, we have good models for the origin of the elements.

The standard model tells us that there was no matter at the earliest times after the big bang. The three fundamental forces - electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force (and, probably, gravity also), were unified. It was not until the universe had expanded and cooled slightly that the symmetry unifying those forces was broken (a kind of phase change), and the quantum fields of the fundamental matter particles emerged, producing quarks and electrons. Once the temperature had reduced enough that electrons could associate with protons, hydrogen formed; followed by helium, deuterium, and small amounts of lithium. All the other natural elements formed subsequently, either in the nuclear fusion at the core of stars, or in supernovae and similarly energetic cosmic events.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

If you'd spent any time on evolutionary & population genetics, you'd know that is false. The maths involved used to drive me up the wall... but it is, as Speedwell said, rock-solid.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

Did you not read the quote you are responding to, or did you simply not understand it?
Cats are mammals.
Mammals speciated into cats.
Cats are still mammals.

Cats are also vertebrates. The ancestor of a cat (which wasn't a cat), was a vertebrate.
Cats are still vertebrates.

Speciation is a vertical process. Mammals produce mammals and when it speciates, it becomes a sub-species of mammal.

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

For crying out loud.....................................
If population A speciates into population B, then B is a subspecies of A.

Consider development of languages.
Consider Italian, French, Spanish and Portugese. All of them, Roman languages.
The ancestors of italian, french, spanish,.. speaking folks, all spoke Latin.
These extant languages all gradually evolved from Latin over the past 2000 years.

Now consider this:
At no point in history, did a Latin speaking parent, raise a french speaking child.
Every child that was ever raised, spoke THE SAME language as the people that raised it.

And yet, Latin turned into spanish, french, italian,....

Biological evolution isn't any different.
Every creature ever born, was of the same species as its direct parents.

Ever new generation, small changes are introduced which are inherited by off spring.
These changes accumulate over generations.

It is that accumulation that makes mammals speciate into cats, dogs, primates,...
It is that accumulation that makes Latin "speciate" into Spanish, Italian, French,...

Do you understand now?
If not, feel free to ask questions.

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

You really are not in a position to lecture anyone about their understanding of evolution...
Considering the misunderstandings you are showing above here and which I hopefully clarified.

Only withon a spwecies

Nope. DNA works the same in every organism.

It DOES NOT link differing species to another different species.

It does, as just about any phylogenetic tree (=family trees) demonstrates.

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

In reality, evolution theory is among the most solid, best established theories in all of science. We know more about evolution then we know about gravity.

It is the very backbone of the biological sciences. It can even be said to be the "unified field theory of biology".

Then post some facts.

You have been given plenty of such examples already.
Before we get into that again, let's first make sure that you actually understand the theory itself and the mechanisms at play. I'll refer you back to the paragraphes above, where I give the analogous examples of the development of languages.

Before we move on to anything else, you really need to comprehend the gradual nature of evolution, which is obtained through the accumulation of micro-changes in every new generation, filtered by natural selection.

Until you properly grasp this concept, it is an exercise in futility to start discussing the facts that support it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

They were scientists far more qualified than you are.

Not a single one of the people who write that garbage, has any papers published about any of these subjects. It's just creationist propaganda posted on their own channels.

 

[omega2xx]

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

If you knew anything about genetics, you would know bones do not evolve.

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).

Then present the evidence , not the usual evo talking points.

 

[omega2xx]

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.

It does make a difference. That statement denies "after their kind". If any part of the
Bible is wrong, then we can't know what parts to trust.

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

Don't tell me, provide the scientific evidence that supports it.

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.

Do you really not realize that if something is divinely inspired it is 100% accurate. Try studying it instead of just reading. Start by asking od o show you the truth.

 

[omega2xx]

-_- 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".

Do you evos not understand EVIDENCE is necessary, not the usual evo talking points for which there is no evidence?

But, evolution doesn't say that an A will eventually become a B.

It certainly does. That is the basic idea behind common descent.

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.

You can't look back except in the fossil record and it spports after their kind.

 

[omega2xx]

No-one knows what preceded the big bang, or if that is even a meaningful question. I do

However, we have good models for the origin of the elements.]
The standard model tells us that there was no matter at the earliest times after the big bang. The three fundamental forces - electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force (and, probably, gravity also), were unified. It was not until the universe had expanded and cooled slightly that the symmetry unifying those forces was broken (a kind of phase change), and the quantum fields of the fundamental matter particles emerged, producing quarks and electrons. Once the temperature had reduced enough that electrons could associate with protons, hydrogen formed; followed by helium, deuterium, and small amounts of lithium. All the other natural elements formed subsequently, either in the nuclear fusion at the core of stars, or in supernovae and similarly energetic cosmic events.

pass the mustard. It makes the bolony taste better. You have absolutely no evidence for anything you just said.

 

[omega2xx]

If you'd spent any time on evolutionary & population genetics, you'd know that is false. The maths involved used to drive me up the wall... but it is, as Speedwell said, rock-solid.

Rock solid requires evidence. All any or you evos offer is rhetoric.

 

[Speedwell]

It does make a difference. That statement denies "after their kind". If any part of the
Bible is wrong, then we can't know what parts to trust.

the term is used in a relative way. There is no evidence that it was intended to establish some kind of immutable divine taxonomy.

Don't tell me, provide the scientific evidence that supports it.

That is why I asked you how much math you knew, to know where to begin.

Do you really not realize that if something is divinely inspired it is 100% accurate. Try studying it instead of just reading. Start by asking od o show you the truth.

If something is divinely inspired, it is 100% what God intended it to be. Accurate literal history is only one possibility.

 

[omega2xx]

Did you not read the quote you are responding to, or did you simply not understand it?
Cats are mammals.
Mammals speciated into cats.
Cats are still mammals.

Cats are also vertebrates. The ancestor of a cat (which wasn't a cat), was a vertebrate.
Cats are still vertebrates.

Speciation is a vertical process. Mammals produce mammals and when it speciates, it becomes a sub-species of mammal.



For crying out loud.....................................
If population A speciates into population B, then B is a subspecies of A.

Consider development of languages.
Consider Italian, French, Spanish and Portugese. All of them, Roman languages.
The ancestors of italian, french, spanish,.. speaking folks, all spoke Latin.
These extant languages all gradually evolved from Latin over the past 2000 years.

Now consider this:
At no point in history, did a Latin speaking parent, raise a french speaking child.
Every child that was ever raised, spoke THE SAME language as the people that raised it.

And yet, Latin turned into spanish, french, italian,....

Biological evolution isn't any different.
Every creature ever born, was of the same species as its direct parents.

Ever new generation, small changes are introduced which are inherited by off spring.
These changes accumulate over generations.

It is that accumulation that makes mammals speciate into cats, dogs, primates,...
It is that accumulation that makes Latin "speciate" into Spanish, Italian, French,...

Do you understand now?
If not, feel free to ask questions.



You really are not in a position to lecture anyone about their understanding of evolution...
Considering the misunderstandings you are showing above here and which I hopefully clarified.



Nope. DNA works the same in every organism.




It does, as just about any phylogenetic tree (=family trees) demonstrates.



In reality, evolution theory is among the most solid, best established theories in all of science. We know more about evolution then we know about gravity.

It is the very backbone of the biological sciences. It can even be said to be the "unified field theory of biology".




You have been given plenty of such examples already.
Before we get into that again, let's first make sure that you actually understand the theory itself and the mechanisms at play. I'll refer you back to the paragraphes above, where I give the analogous examples of the development of languages.

Before we move on to anything else, you really need to comprehend the gradual nature of evolution, which is obtained through the accumulation of micro-changes in every new generation, filtered by natural selection.

Until you properly grasp this concept, it is an exercise in futility to start discussing the facts that support it.

Until you provide some evidence instead of parroting the usual evo rhetoric, this is a wast of time. My last response until you tell HOW it is possible.

 

[omega2xx]

the term is used in a relative way. There is no evidence that it was intended to establish some kind of immutable divine taxonomy.



That is why I asked you how much math you knew, to know where to begin.




If something is divinely inspired, it is 100% what God intended it to be. Accurate literal history is only one possibility.

 

[Jimmy D]

It does make a difference. That statement denies "after their kind". If any part of the
Bible is wrong, then we can't know what parts to trust.

Seriously, how many times do you have to be told that evolution does not deny "after their kind"?

EVOLUTION DOES NOT CLAIM THAT AN OFFSPRING WILL BE OF A DIFFERENT SPECIES TO IT'S PARENT.

It is only your strawman version that proposes such a stupid thing.

I'm starting to think that you either don't even bother reading responses to your posts (or you just aren't the sharpest tool in the box).

 

[Jimmy D]

You have absolutely no evidence for anything you just said.

LOL, Is that all you can say?

Your trolling is getting old now so you're going on ignore.

 

[tas8831]

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

Does math support creation?

The generation of more than 350,000 'sub-baramina' of beetle in 4000 years?

More than half the ark would have been filled with food JUST for the 'elephant kind' - where's the math that rescues the ark tale?

Let's see the numbers.

If you claim Miracle, you lose.

 

[tas8831]

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.

False dichotomy.

Let's pretend that Robert Hazen has not produced dozens of papers on Origin of Life research, and (for the sake of discussion) there is no evidence whatsoever for a natural origin of life.

This does NOT mean Jehovah wins.

It means there is no evidence for a natural origin of life.

In order for Jehovah-creation to be the answer, it has to be demonstrated by at the very least there being some kind of empirical evidence.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If you knew anything about genetics, you would know bones do not evolve.

Then present the evidence , not the usual evo talking points.

Go check your study notes (as if!).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

pass the mustard. It makes the bolony taste better. You have absolutely no evidence for anything you just said.

It's a model that predicts the physical universe we observe better than any other; i.e. the evidence is its remarkable fit with reality. That's good enough.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Rock solid requires evidence. All any or you evos offer is rhetoric.

I sympathise with your lack of understanding.

 

[USincognito]

LOL, Is that all you can say?

Your trolling is getting old now so you're going on ignore.

My blood pressure didn't need it so I hit that switch a week ago.