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.
I have most definitely not acknowledged that artificial wombs are on the horizon. They are quite far from it. There is no artificial womb on the horizon at all. There are crazy ideas out there that maybe someday far in the future we might do it. But there are no serious proposals for doing it any time soon. We don't even yet know all of the details of the environment that are required!
--The fact remains that a developing fetus requires a very specific environment to develop properly.
--This means that much of the information that makes up a fully-grown adult comes from the environment.
Not relevant.Um, not even close. For one, clones are typically much larger than naturally-conceived young, and usually have to be delivered by c-section as a result. Most of them also tend to die prematurely. A healthy clone is quite a rare thing.
Damage caused by the environment is not new information and is not transferred or available to the next generation. Irrelevant to your defense of environmental input to DNA coding. There is none.There are also a large number of birth defects that are largely determined by environment. Though genetics do play a role here, they don't determine whether or not the person has the defect. Examples include a cleft palate, spina bifida, conjoined twins, and many others.
A strawman is when I take a twisted version of your position that you do not actually hold and claim this is your actual position.
Proceed to refute that twisted position with whichever arguement. Then act as though my arguements against the twisted position refuted you.
I do not think Chal tried to act like you really believe water isnt wet. Which is a rather important part of strawmanning.
Nor that by proving water is wet he refuted you.
Instead it was an analogy where he tried to convey how silly the course of the discussion was from his point of view. Not a strawman.
You are free to feel that it was insulting that he considers you to be blind to the obvious and thickheaded though.(Disclaimer, I do not know if that is actually how he feels or if he meant it that way.)
Chalnoth,
I have spent a great deal of my time with several posts that counter your claims and you are ignoring them. I find that this is really annoying. I know that sometimes we lose track of posts when we are discussing things with a group of people rather than just one. But this has happened more than once and I would like you to rectify the situation. I really want to know how you answer the questions I've asked you.
Every burning element emits a characteristic set of frequencies, like a fingerprint. Astronomers discovered some stars emitting a new 'fingerprint', implying a new element. Then scientists discovered that this was red-shifted light. An equation was derived to try to decipher the amount of shift... unfortunately that one equation had 2 unknowns. Dr. Arp assumed that one unknown, the speed of the star as it sped away from the Earth, was near the speed of light. Thus he could solve for the other unknown... the distance of that star from Earth, and by inference, the size of the universe. The world of Science heralded his find!Until he realized that he had assumed the answer. He retracted his finding and was fired. If Science is driven by truth and logic, why do they behave this way? Because for many scientists, survival of evolution is paramont... not truth. See Dr. Arp's proof that red-shifted light is not related to the size of the universe: haltonarp.com
Yes I agree. I would also like a response to my questions.Chalnoth posted skulls as an example of there being 'good' evidence for the transition from ape to mankind, yet is unable to answer some reasonable questions posed to him.Many of these skulls in his post are not in the human line. Homo erectus in Africa and Asia disappeared 500,000 years ago. Modern man appeared 200,000ya in Africa, according to current dating methods. Note the complications in dating relating to Homo erectus in Indonesia.Human ancestor older than previously thought; Finding offers new insights into evolutionModern man has also been placed in Isreal up to 400,000 years ago.Was Israel the birthplace of modern humans?Ancient teeth raise new questions about origins of modern humansChalnoth..please also address my 3 questions. Otherwise there is no point trying to maintain that evolution is a science, rather than a philosophy. Quite clearly many creationists here are alleging creation is based on more robust science than evolution.
Wow.
Just wow....
It's not up for debate as science is based on gathering empirical evidence. Neither God nor miracles could be empirically tested due to their nature, so they cannot be included in science.About 150 years ago they forbade God. They forbade miracles. That sounds strangely religious and unscientific. Since when is it the provence of Science to assume away debate?
While I am sure you would like your questions answered.Yes I agree. I would also like a response to my questions.
----
Chalnoth..please also address my 3 questions. Otherwise there is no point trying to maintain that evolution is a science, rather than a philosophy. Quite clearly many creationists here are alleging creation is based on more robust science than evolution.
Every burning element emits a characteristic set of frequencies, like a fingerprint. Astronomers discovered some stars emitting a new 'fingerprint', implying a new element. Then scientists discovered that this was red-shifted light. An equation was derived to try to decipher the amount of shift... unfortunately that one equation had 2 unknowns. Dr. Arp assumed that one unknown, the speed of the star as it sped away from the Earth, was near the speed of light. Thus he could solve for the other unknown... the distance of that star from Earth, and by inference, the size of the universe. The world of Science heralded his find!
Until he realized that he had assumed the answer. He retracted his finding and was fired. If Science is driven by truth and logic, why do they behave this way? Because for many scientists, survival of evolution is paramont... not truth.
See Dr. Arp's proof that red-shifted light is not related to the size of the universe: haltonarp.com
Yes I agree. I would also like a response to my questions.
Chalnoth posted skulls as an example of there being 'good' evidence for the transition from ape to mankind, yet is unable to answer some reasonable questions posed to him.[\quote]
I'd sure like answers.
Many of these skulls in his post are not in the human line. Homo erectus in Africa and Asia disappeared 500,000 years ago. Modern man appeared 200,000ya in Africa, according to current dating methods.
Actually, there is a new discovery of a homo sapien in Israel that is dated 400,000 years ago. This discovery challenges not only the out of Africa theory but sets back the date for human's which in itself will have some interesting shuffling to the family "tree".
Note the complications in dating relating to Homo erectus in Indonesia.
Human ancestor older than previously thought; Finding offers new insights into evolution
Another ancestor older once again.
Modern man has also been placed in Isreal up to 400,000 years ago.
Was Israel the birthplace of modern humans?
Ancient teeth raise new questions about origins of modern humans
lOl sorry, I did't read the whole post...obviously.
I am also trying to find the reference in the Bible about mankind's birthplace as Israel. I just can't remember the book, chapter or verse. Hate when that happens.
Every burning element emits a characteristic set of frequencies, like a fingerprint. Astronomers discovered some stars emitting a new 'fingerprint', implying a new element. Then scientists discovered that this was red-shifted light. An equation was derived to try to decipher the amount of shift... unfortunately that one equation had 2 unknowns. Dr. Arp assumed that one unknown, the speed of the star as it sped away from the Earth, was near the speed of light. Thus he could solve for the other unknown... the distance of that star from Earth, and by inference, the size of the universe. The world of Science heralded his find!
Until he realized that he had assumed the answer. He retracted his finding and was fired. If Science is driven by truth and logic, why do they behave this way? Because for many scientists, survival of evolution is paramont... not truth.
See Dr. Arp's proof that red-shifted light is not related to the size of the universe: haltonarp.com
Hi there
Good point!
There are quite a few creationist researchers that have been sacked and have law suits pending. The link below cites some of them.
Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says - The Boston Globe
article said:"In a 2004 letter to Abraham, his boss, Woods Hole senior scien tist Mark E. Hahn, wrote that Abraham said he did not want to work on "evolutionary aspects" of the National Institutes of Health grant for which he was hired, even though the project clearly required scientists touse the principles of evolution in their analyses and writing."
.................
"My supervisor and I had a follow up meeting during which my supervisor informed me that if I do not believe in evolution, then he was paying me for only 7 to 10 percent of the work I was doing under the grant."
................
But on Nov. 17, Hahn asked him to resign, pointing out in the letter that Abraham should have known of evolution's centrality to the project because it was evident from the job advertisement and grant proposal.
Yes I agree. I would also like a response to my questions.
Chalnoth posted skulls as an example of there being 'good' evidence for the transition from ape to mankind, yet is unable to answer some reasonable questions posed to him.[\quote]
I'd sure like answers.
Actually, there is a new discovery of a homo sapien in Israel that is dated 400,000 years ago. This discovery challenges not only the out of Africa theory but sets back the date for human's which in itself will have some interesting shuffling to the family "tree".
Another ancestor older once again.
lOl sorry, I did't read the whole post...obviously.
I am also trying to find the reference in the Bible about mankind's birthplace as Israel. I just can't remember the book, chapter or verse. Hate when that happens.
Hi there
I know that it is believed that the Garden of Eden was likely near the Persian Gulf. So to find the oldest humans in Isreal or around that area, rather than Africa, correlates to biblical text, as usual.
Garden of Eden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I see the only response to either of our questions is Exiledoomsayer, who has chosen to take up an aside of no consequence to any of the questions posed nor the discrepencies.
You know...the silence and lack of serious responses to our challenges is sufficient to get any creationist thinking we have shown how Creation=Science, Evolution=Philosophy.
I see the only response to either of our questions is Exiledoomsayer, who has chosen to take up an aside of no consequence to any of the questions posed nor the discrepencies.
You know...the silence and lack of serious responses to our challenges is sufficient to get any creationist thinking we have shown how Creation=Science, Evolution=Philosophy.
Gotta love how you creationists, when confronted with evidence that specifically refutes your arguments, just put you fingers in your ears and keep saying, "la la la la la".
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?