Why Do Evolutionists Always Battle the Theist and Not the Discussion?

[DogmaHunter]

I wasn't challenging your post.

I'm legitimately curious as to how DNA sites do that.

My wife always says, "How can they tell you're from [whatever line] if they don't have [that line's] DNA?"

I think it's a good question.

If I sent my DNA in, and they came back and said I came from Genghis Khan ... how did they determine that?

Do they have Genghis Khan's DNA stored somewhere?

I don't see how that would be possible without having some kind of red thread to match DNA against.

However, what could be determined is the rough geographic wherabouts of your ancestors. It's the basis of the genographic project.

National Geographic Geno DNA Ancestry Kit | Human Migration, Population Genetics

It works by looking for specific DNA markers that are associated with geographic locations around the world in terms of origins of those markers.

I've been wanting to participate for some time in that project... But the wife thinks its too pricey for, albeit cool, information that doesn't serve any real practical purpose in our lives. "so what if your long dead ancestors came from X or Y? Like...who cares?".

She's right off course. But I think knowing is its own reward

Maybe I should ask for a kit for my birthday or something

 

[AV1611VET]

*

My wife has a birthmark on her lower back called the "Star of Mongolia."

Interesting.

 

[Ophiolite]

Those are suppositions not evidence.

Bones are just bones...

Have you made a study of comparative anatomy? If not, you are not in a position to make the statement that "bones are just bones".

I have yet to meet anyone who has studied anatomy who would make such a trite statement. If you have made such a study would you offer me a reasoned justification for your assertion. In the absence of such a reasoned justification, or some other evidence that you have the requisite knowledge to express an opinion on the matter, your view on this can be ignored as uninformed personal belief.

Environment is just a location...

I see. Do you have any qualifications in biogeography? Ecology? Palaeogeography? Any reasonable amount of study in any scientific discipline that would qualify you to make such a superficial statement? Have you studied this matter at all, or are you simply parroting what you have been told, or expressing what you know must be true? It certainly seems to be the latter.

DNA shows nothing but the similarity that most animals have in common and doesn't show the evolution of species, genus, family, order, class, etc...

I won't bother asking if you have any experience in this field. Your silly assertion tells me all I need to know on that score. However, if you ever wake up then try a year studying the concept of nested heirarchies.

Behavioral patterns are grasping at straws to create a narrative, not evidence...

Yes, it seems you don't understand ethology. You don't understand evidence. You don't understand science. Nevertheless, I appreciate you taking the time to respond and thank you for that.

 

[Clint Edwards]

Abiogenesis is a separate field of science from Evolution just as geology isn’t biology. You don’t need to understand geology to do biology but it helps if you’re studying something that involves both like paleontology . So you don’t NEED to understand Abiogenesis to understand evolution


I’d rather look at odd costumes and clothing. More fun that way!
you can date fossils by the igneous layers they’re sandwiched between if they’re in sedimentary rocks. If the organisms died in an ash fall the layers can probably be dated directly .not sure why you didn’t know this . This is middle school stuff

Yes, abiogenisis is always preached as a separate discipline. Of course that begs the question, how can evolution be discussed thoroughly without discussing the alleged beginning of the process ? Can a comprehensive discussion on cancer exist without discussing the pre cancer changes in the cells ? My own OPINION is that abiogenisis is so obviously questionable and nebulous, it must be separated to maintain the facade that macro evolution is a slam dunk fact. Understandable.

 

[pitabread]

Of course that begs the question, how can evolution be discussed thoroughly without discussing the alleged beginning of the process ?

Because life exists and reproduces.

 

[AV1611VET]

*

Wow ... check out all the science jazz!

• comparative anatomy
• biogeography
• ecology
• palaeogeography [sic]
• nested heirarchies [sic]
  
• ethology

And for all that ... you're an agnostic.

Science is truly myopic, isn't it?

 

[Clint Edwards]

Indeed. The real issue here is the shameless, systemic lying that the creationists are forced to use since the scientific evidence is devastating to the creationist view.

The obedient Christian is called to seek truth, not to bear false witness ro support a naive Literalist interpretation of Genesis.

Once again, a self righteous evolutionist condemns all creationists as liars. Further, he preaches to all Christians, and tells those who accept the theological position on the book of Genesis that has existed for 4,000 years that they are naive and by inference, stupidly ignorant. What hubris

 

[Clint Edwards]

Because life exists and reproduces.

So,the alleged precursor organism, which began the process, and it's origin, are irrelevent to the study of the process. This far, no further. As I said, I understand

 

[DogmaHunter]

Of course that begs the question, how can evolution be discussed thoroughly without discussing the alleged beginning of the process ?

In the same way that you can discuss solar flares without knowing how stars form.

In the same way that you can discuss the behaviour of atoms without knowing the origins of matter.

In the same way that you can study the symptoms, development and eventual treatment of viral desease, without knowing how the strain originated.

In the same way that you can discuss the development of the rules and tactics of soccer, without knowing when and where soccer was invented and played for the first time.

My own OPINION is that abiogenisis is so obviously questionable and nebulous, it must be separated to maintain the facade that macro evolution is a slam dunk fact. Understandable.

Unfortunatly for you, your OPINION is irrelevant when it comes to science.

 

[Clint Edwards]

In the same way that you can discuss solar flares without knowing how stars form.

In the same way that you can discuss the behaviour of atoms without knowing the origins of matter.

In the same way that you can study the symptoms, development and eventual treatment of viral desease, without knowing how the strain originated.

In the same way that you can discuss the development of the rules and tactics of soccer, without knowing when and where soccer was invented and played for the first time.



Unfortunatly for you, your OPINION is irrelevant when it comes to science.

Exactly as is your opinion is irrelevant. why do you think I emphasized OPINION ??

 

[DogmaHunter]

Once again, a self righteous evolutionist condemns all creationists as liars. Further, he preaches to all Christians, and tells those who accept the theological position on the book of Genesis that has existed for 4,000 years that they are naive and by inference, stupidly ignorant. What hubris

Sorry, but the things that YECs like to believe, can't be called anything other then stupidly ignorant.

The magnitude of their error is comparable to believing that the US from coast to coast measures only 2 miles.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So,the alleged precursor organism, which began the process, and it's origin, are irrelevent to the study of the process.

The origins of that "first" organism, are irrelevant to the processes that existing living things are subject to, yes.

Finding out how exactly life came into being some 3.8 billion years ago, won't change one thing about what happened in the next 3.8 billion years.

As a matter of fact, if tomorrow you can prove, like really prove-prove, that the god of the bible created that first life, then evolution theory would remain completely unchanged.

Because once more: finding out what exactly happened 3.8 billion years ago, will not change the course of events that followed, nore will it change anything about the biological process that made that happen.

This far, no further. As I said, I understand

You don't. Clearly, you don't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Exactly as is your opinion is irrelevant. why do you think I emphasized OPINION ??

I'm not expressing my mere opinions.

I also notice that you didn't bother to respond to the actual relevant points I raised and instead chose to focus on this.

Very telling again.
Do you disagree with what I said?

Do we need to know, for example, when and where soccer was invented and played for the very first time, in order to be able to make an analysis of how it developed from its earliest forms that we do know of till today?

If you find out later on when and where it was invented, do you think it would have any kind of impact on the evolution of soccer since, let's say the early 1900s?

Will discovering its "true origins", change anything about what happened in the game in the last 100 years? Or will it only tell you something about how it got started initially?

 

[Clint Edwards]

The origins of that "first" organism, are irrelevant to the processes that existing living things are subject to, yes.

Finding out how exactly life came into being some 3.8 billion years ago, won't change one thing about what happened in the next 3.8 billion years.

As a matter of fact, if tomorrow you can prove, like really prove-prove, that the god of the bible created that first life, then evolution theory would remain completely unchanged.

Because once more: finding out what exactly happened 3.8 billion years ago, will not change the course of events that followed, nore will it change anything about the biological process that made that happen.



You don't. Clearly, you don't.

No, I REALLY do.

 

[Clint Edwards]

The origins of that "first" organism, are irrelevant to the processes that existing living things are subject to, yes.

Finding out how exactly life came into being some 3.8 billion years ago, won't change one thing about what happened in the next 3.8 billion years.

As a matter of fact, if tomorrow you can prove, like really prove-prove, that the god of the bible created that first life, then evolution theory would remain completely unchanged.

Because once more: finding out what exactly happened 3.8 billion years ago, will not change the course of events that followed, nore will it change anything about the biological process that made that happen.



You don't. Clearly, you don't.

I notice that you did not capitalize the word GOD in what you wrote. Most Christians and Jews, and in Arabic, Muslims do. Was that an oversight, or general practice ?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I'm not talking about similarities.
I'm talking about DNA matches and the pattern they exist in.
It's how we determine ancestral and familial relationships.




Overwhelming evidence.
Again, it's how we determine ancestral and familial relationships when doing DNA testing.



No. "common creator" doesn't predict these DNA patterns. The existance of such patterns isn't required at all for the "creator" hypothesis.

Common ancestry, does require such patterns. To the point that is those patterns aren't there, then common ancestry is wrong.

But these patterns ARE there.
So yes, they most definatly are (very strong) evidence for common ancestry. And not at all for "common design".



You have nothing to present, because as I said already, the "creator" hypothesis doesn't predict these patterns at all.

Can you explain how random chance created the DNA code from nothing? The complexity of just one cell of the living organism has no basis in a random evolutionary process. It like stating that randomly hitting keys on my keyboard for millions of years will produce the coding necessary to run my computer.... absurd.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

The Aztecs weren't alone in human sacrifice - just like Abraham all too willing to sacrifice his Son, or Jeptha sacrificing his Daughter, or for that matter, anyone observing Exodus 22:28 yet not the Second set of the Ten Commandments offered forth by an unchanging God, who for some reason decided to change the Ten Commandments.

Only the Creator is able to not only give life but to take it... as far as Abraham goes, you will remember that God stopped him from the killing of his son. It was an object lesson of the Son that was to be sacrificed for mankind.

God didn't change the ten Commandments, man did.

lol! Strawman much? Every fossil will be dated several different ways before its age is settled on. Index fossils are nothing more than a starting point - the fossil will still have to be dated in a number of other ways before it will be declared to be a certain age. Do you ever read any other book beside the Bible??

Can you name just a couple of other reliable ways that fossils get aged then?

 

[Silmarien]

Here is a perfect example of the sort of nonsense that riles "evolutionists". Nobody is "brainwashed to believe in the evolutionary theory", and you know it. If you can't be honest in your arguments expect to be attacked for your dishonesty.

Depends on the evolutionist. I was absolutely socially conditioned as a child to favor a particular materialistic paradigm of evolutionary theory (one that I've since rejected as historically contingent bad metaphysics rather than science), so I happen to agree with Creationists that there's a bit of indoctrination going on here. I suspect it's unavoidable, since you can't really eliminate cultural context, but I do think we'd be better off if the major popularizers were not dogmatic anti-theistic hard materialists.

That said, the social conditioning taking place on the evolutionary side is far less extreme than what you see amongst Creationists and even ID theorists, so pot-kettle and all that.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Have you made a study of comparative anatomy? If not, you are not in a position to make the statement that "bones are just bones".

I have yet to meet anyone who has studied anatomy who would make such a trite statement. If you have made such a study would you offer me a reasoned justification for your assertion. In the absence of such a reasoned justification, or some other evidence that you have the requisite knowledge to express an opinion on the matter, your view on this can be ignored as uninformed personal belief.

I see. Do you have any qualifications in biogeography? Ecology? Palaeogeography? Any reasonable amount of study in any scientific discipline that would qualify you to make such a superficial statement? Have you studied this matter at all, or are you simply parroting what you have been told, or expressing what you know must be true? It certainly seems to be the latter.

I won't bother asking if you have any experience in this field. Your silly assertion tells me all I need to know on that score. However, if you ever wake up then try a year studying the concept of nested heirarchies.

Yes, it seems you don't understand ethology. You don't understand evidence. You don't understand science. Nevertheless, I appreciate you taking the time to respond and thank you for that.

The next time you read through a published article on whatever branch of evolution you desire, take note of the "qualifiers" that are in every one of them. Words such as "possible, believe, think, supposedly, points to, seems to, etc"... there are dozens of these "qualifiers" that are found in these papers. The amount of conjecture and supposition disqualifies them from being taken as fact.

 

[Speedwell]

Once again, a self righteous evolutionist condemns all creationists as liars.

No, he just branded your statement as a lie.

Further, he preaches to all Christians...

Is that a definition of "Christian" or just a mistake?

...and tells those who accept the theological position on the book of Genesis that has existed for 4,000 years that they are naive and by inference, stupidly ignorant.

Or just victims of revisionist Christian history.