Subduction Zone
Regular Member
How is my pointing out Hovind's obvious lies digging myself deeper?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Keep talking ... you're digging yourself deeper.
You started this at 0:30:01.
What's that picture on the screen at 0:26:40?
He already showed what the professor is telling him.
For debate purposes I have decided that kinds are the three domains of life.
Yes, I could see AV using an argument like that. However, that is how science works. Science evolves and is self-correcting, which is why it works. Conversely, the Bible allegedly contains Truths that never change. So while our understanding of reality changes with new information, the Bible will remain largely unchanged. And with each new refinement of knowledge, the Bible is subject to be proven wrong again and again (or proven correct). That's why I made the tongue in cheek remark that eventually the Bible will contain nothing but metaphor.
NICE! A lifetime of believing something for which is no evidence and that you won't actually get until after you're dead! In fact, there's pretty much no good reason to believe it at all, but please, just take your word and live a happy life believing in one of the 100,000 gods humans created! And by the way, you don't actually deserve it so feel a bit unworthy too. (atheist quiz, Bible contradictions)
Please if Yahweh is real, then why Zeus isn't?
Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukaryotes? So you're saying that in the beginning, there were only one species of each?
This is an ID site, a creationist site by another name.
You have been duped and you don't realize it, they are taking you for a mug.
Thats why the new area of genetics is so important as this cannot be fudged as it is there in black and white. That is why some of the information that evolutionist went around saying was true and correct and was definitely the case is being proven wrong or at the very least questionable.
At the end of the day my faith isn't based on evidence. If you were able to prove God by evidence then it would not be faith and thats the way God designed it. It is only through faith in Jesus Christ that we can understand the love and true nature of god. This will give us the insights into seeing that this whole universe and the incredible life and nature around us can only be by God and from God.
I did a quick scan of the posts in the threads and I can't find what you are talking about. Would you mind finding it and posting it so I know what you are referring to?
Please give an example.....ANY example....
Ive posted that info 20 times by now, surely you've seen it. But here is a couple of examples.
They said that gorillas were our 2nd closest relative because the anatomy and bones matched as they do with the chimps. They said it was for sure and definite and now genetics have shown they aren't our 2nd closet relative. It is actually the Macuaques which look completely different. This now puts a spanner in their trying to claim connections through the fossils and skeleton matching. If they got this wrong, which is a main connection to us, then how many others have they got wrong.
Genetics has found violations in links that they said were definite lines that showed transitions and how species evolved. So now species are having to be pulled out of the ancestry lines and some that dont seem to match are being put into ancestry lines which are contradicting what evolutionists have said in the past.
Molecular systematics has surmounted the confusion stemming from comparisons of morphologically disparate species to reveal unexpected evolutionary relationships such as the Afrotheria, a clade composed of strikingly different mammals including elephants, aardvarks, manatees, and golden moles. So before genetics they were lumping groups together because of the fossil records and anatomy and building these branches in the tree of life. They were using examples of how the features looked similar so this is proof that they evolved from each other. Now it is throwing up odd matches that dont blend so well and bringing into question the how or if species evolved from each other. Remember they produced books and taught this in schools as fact and made up all sorts of stories about this animal coming from that animal.
Taxonomic nested hierarchies don’t support Darwinism or common descent, actually the opposite. Nested hierarchies can be used to argue against macro evolution. If the fish are always fish, then they will never be birds, reptiles, apes, or humans. Indeed, we can see the nested hierarchy more clearly if we disregard evolution. Why? To illustrate, if we invoke Darwinian evolution we would have to say the nesting goes like this:
FISH are the common ancestors of humans, birds, and frogs. Ergo birds nest within fish, and so do humans, and so do frogs. That is what Theobald’s Markov chain would “predict” in terms of nesting. But the actual anatomical/taxonomic nesting tells a different story: fish are fish, humans are not fish, birds are not fish, frogs are not fish. Are you going to believe Theobald’s Markov chains that you are a fish or are you going to believe you’re a human and not a fish?
To try to nest humans with fish because we supposedly descended from them is at variance with the nested hierarchy we would build by simply looking and comparing traits instead of fabricating Darwinian stories.
One can, just by looking at traits, assemble creatures into nice nested hierarchies. They look at first like they descended conceptually from a common ancestor, but the problem is they all look like siblings with no real ancestor. In fact, many times a common ancestor doesn’t seem possible in principle.
For example, what is the common ancestor of vertebrates and invertebrates? Err, crash…hard to conceive of even in principle. It’s like looking for a square circle. Those gene sequence worshipers argue the genes show there was a common ancestor of vertebrates and invertebrates, but they seem to have problem describing anatomically what it would look like. Google “common ancestor of vertebrates and invertebrates” and try to find even a hypothetical description of what the common ancestor could look like even in principle. Maybe the lack of transitionals suggest there weren’t any.
In sum, the nested hierarchies in taxonomy don’t need Darwinism, in fact, Darwinism distorts the ability actually see the nested hierarchies, and finally nested hierarchies based on taxonomy are evidence against Darwinism.
Other examples are. This shows why the nesting resists a common ancestor.
"Problems with Characterizing the Protostome-Deuterostome Ancestor" by Marcus R. Ross and Paul A. Nelson
Or how about the transitionals between unicellular and multicellular. Darwinists once hoped that we could demonstrate the notion of transitionals by finding living transitionals. The absence of living transitionals is also evidence that maybe they never existed, just like functioning 2.3-wheeled cars. It would appear functioning biological systems, like man-made machines, must make leaps per saltum rather than slow gradual steps. Biological systems tend to polarize and group, they don’t seem to like gradual transitions for certain major architectures or body plans. It’s not that the fossils can’t be found, they can’t exist even in principle.
The list is endless of problems of finding transitionals even in principle, the nesting and very distinct gaps in the nesting are evidence against Darwinian evolution and common ancestry.
So, how does a nested hierarchy present evidence for evolution? Well, the short answer is, It Doesn't. A close look at actual genetic evidence shows a substantial amount of data against the idea of nested hierarchies being evidence for evolutionary common descent when you compare protein coding genes and the proteins they produce across mammalian genomes. Why? Because individual organisms which are more closely related by common descent (or 'supposedly' more closely related) should be genetically more similar to each other than they would be to organisms to which they are more distantly related. More closely related means more genetically similar.
This is certainly true in the case that you are more closely related to and therefore more genetically similar to your parents and sibling(s) than you are to a person living on a different continent or of different parental lineages. Say for example if you were an African-American born and raised by your parents who were sharecroppers somewhere in Mississippi. Then one day you wonder about your heritage and go for a DNA test and upon getting the results you found that you were genetically more similar to Caucasians you Might at least Wonder if maybe, just maybe you had been adopted.
What predictions are generated by the hypothesis that Humans are more closely related to Chimpanzees, our purported next of kin, than to other species? Well, if Humans and Chimps share a common ancestor more recently than Humans and any other species then Human genes should be more similar to Chimpanzee genes than to any other species because, by evolution theory, we would have had to originate from the same exact gene pool. So, all the genes in the Human genome should be more similar to those of the Chimpanzee genome than to Gorilla, with maybe a couple of exceptions but even these possible exceptions should be very closely similar to each other. By the Nested Hierarchy Humans should be genetically more similar to the great apes such as Chimps, Gorillas and Orangutans than we are to other mammals such as Pigs, Horses or Dolphins. We should be more similar gene for gene to mammals than we are to birds and/or lizards.
Now, how does this prediction measure up to the genetic data? Well, it doesn't measure up very well at all really. For an example within the primate hierarchy, while the Human TAAR1 gene actually is most similar to that in Chimp BUT it is Less similar to Gorilla than it is in Macaque, Orangutan, Gibbon and Marmoset. This is one of many examples that contradicts the hypothesis that Gorillas are our evolutionary 'next of kin' after Chimpanzees.
[FONT='Luxi Sans', Helvetica, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif]Gene: TAAR1 ENSG00000146399
[/font]
[FONT='Luxi Sans', Helvetica, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif]
Descriptiontrace amine associated receptor 1 [Source:HGNC Symbol;Acc:17734]LocationChromosome 6: 132,966,123-132,967,142 reverse strand.
[/font]
Now, of course it could be argued that the primates are all together, more similar to each other. But it should be noticed that Because this gene in Humans is less similar to Gorilla than it is to Monkeys then the Nested Hierarchy is violated between the Great Ape Gorilla which should be more similar to Humans than Humans are to Marmosets, Gibbons and Macuaques.Evolutionists were going around showing how the Gorilla was our close 2nd of kin. They produced skeletons showing the links and transitions trying to put it in a nice step be step progression. They said this was definite and it was in books and taught at school and now its all wrong. To have the Macaque as our and closet relative now changes the whole anatomy and link and shows how they painted a false picture. If this happens with a main link in the lines of evolution how many more are there with the rest of the tree of life they have invented. As i said genetics is already throwing up many and you cant argue with the genetics.
Other links that also talk about how the genetics are showing the theory of evolution/common ancestor and nested hierarchy is in question.
National academy of science of the United States of America.
Pegasoferae, an unexpected mammalian clade revealed by tracking ancient retroposon insertions
Plos is a biological and science site.
PLOS Biology: Bushes in the Tree of Life
Liberty university.
"Problems with Characterizing the Protostome-Deuterostome Ancestor" by Marcus R. Ross and Paul A. Nelson
Had to slip one site with some religious connection. But hey the science sites back them up and they have links to science sites that support what they say.
CEH: Darwin’s Tree of Life is a Tangled Bramble Bush
Nature.com one of the best science sites.
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution : Nature News & Comment
Nature.com
http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.10885!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/486460a.pdf
With startling candor. Oxford scientists admit gaping hole in Evolutionary theory.
See more at: With a Startling Candor, Oxford Scientist Admits a Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory - Evolution News & Views
I have plenty more if you need them. Also have some on individual animals which are now being reclassified through genetics like the bat, platypus,fish, rhese monkey and whale.
Why did you feel it necessary to lie about your religious beliefs when you first posted, if they are so important to you...?
That's where you're wrong it is the most important thing in the world, religion affects more people than anything else,We are only debating and its not the most important thing in the world.
That's where you're wrong it is the most important thing in the world, religion affects more people than anything else,
it causes more stress and anxiety than money, if there was less religion there would be more love, religion is divisive.
Are you meaning me as i was the poster or are you meaning Satan who is known as a sheep in wolves clothing.
Hear is a song i wrote about Satan.
The 2nd verse goes
Preacher, deceiver and cool cat, sheep in wolves clothing with a purple hat
dont be fooled by his idol chat because you'll be caught out and you wont come back, you better watch out when he attacks.
Sorry, been offline for a couple days...I quoted what I was talking about in post 113. You said science is not about knowing or proving anything...which is correct, of course.
Later in the thread, you claimed to know that God exists. When I queried you about how you gained this knowledge, you were very vague, and the few tidbits you did reveal amounted to little more than studying the Bible, and other religions, and praying. Essentially, becoming convinced in much the same manner that a scientist would become convinced about the topic he is studying (apart from the praying, of course). Yet, you claim a definitive knowledge in a way that scientists would shy away from.
I would simply like to know, what makes God THAT tangible to you?
I apologize if you have already answered this, I have not caught up on the thread, yet.
That's where you're wrong it is the most important thing in the world, religion affects more people than anything else,
it causes more stress and anxiety than money, if there was less religion there would be more love, religion is divisive.
That's where you're wrong it is the most important thing in the world, religion affects more people than anything else,
it causes more stress and anxiety than money, if there was less religion there would be more love, religion is divisive.
I have never said anyone was lying I make a point of it, they lie through their teeth but I never tell them.IF you were talking about my post to Steve being the reason you said he was lying, you should know I was warning Steve about Etheri lying.
I have never said anyone was lying I make a point of it, they lie through their teeth but I never tell them.
Oncedeceived your beliefs will never let you see anything wrong with them you have been well and truly captured.
Christianity is a bad thing and the sooner it is forgotten [and it will be just not in our life times] the better.
Children today will not fall for the same rubbish their parents fell for because they have so much information and so many ideas at their fingertips, belief in the supernatural will not be maintained because ignorance will not be tolerated in the future, don't get me wrong, there will always be gullible people around who will believe anything but Christianity as it is today will drop sharply away, believing because you are told to believe will stop and laughter will eventually kill it dead..
That's where you're wrong it is the most important thing in the world, religion affects more people than anything else,
it causes more stress and anxiety than money, if there was less religion there would be more love, religion is divisive.
Is that why so many Christians in the US are in prison? before you deny it check on it.I agree. There would be much more love of sin and toleration of sin.
Is that why so many Christians in the US are in prison? before you deny it check on it.
During 10 years in Sing-Sing, those executed for murder were 65% Catholics,
26% Protestants, 6% Hebrew, 2% Pagan, and less than 1/3 of 1% non-religious.
Is that why so many Christians in the US are in prison? before you deny it check on it.
During 10 years in Sing-Sing, those executed for murder were 65% Catholics,
26% Protestants, 6% Hebrew, 2% Pagan, and less than 1/3 of 1% non-religious.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?