how is evolution NOT possible?

[atrijez]

creationists already agree with us that natural selection exists and does what we claim it does. but then they argue that natural selection cannot add any "new information" (which we agree with them on) and also that mutations cannot add any new information for two reasons.

1. they're always large and harmful.
2. mutations can't be passed on to offspring.

isn't this really more of an argument against the science of genetics though?

also, we can prove this wrong so fast. if everyone were descended from noah, and if it were true that all mutations were harmful and unable to be passed on to descendants, then shouldn't that mean that all of the male humans on earth should share the exact same Y chromosome? Y chromosomes are not subject to recombination, so the only explanation for the many different Y chromosomes we find is that mutations have been occurring and getting passed down through the generations.

so on what grounds do creationists deny the addition of "new information" as they call it if they wish to respect genetics as a science?


edit: sorry if the title doesn't seem relvant. i changed ideas midstream while i was writing the post and forgot to change the title. a better title for this would have been "isn't the creationist argument actually against genetics?"

 

[Avatar]

You are aware that Noah wasn't the only fella on the ark, right? Go on back to Adam and you've got a solid point.

 

[atrijez]

You are aware that Noah wasn't the only fella on the ark, right?

right. he had three sons. shouldn't they have all had the exact same Y chromosome as him?

 

[Avatar]

right. he had three sons. shouldn't they have all had the exact same Y chromosome as him?

No sons-in-law?

Edit: you're right, I had to look it up - what a good Christian I am.

 

[JohnR7]

if everyone were descended from noah, and if it were true that all mutations were harmful and unable to be passed on to descendants, then shouldn't that mean that all of the male humans on earth should share the exact same Y chromosome? Y chromosomes are not subject to recombination

It is not that easy, but from what is currently known about science Noah could not be a common ancestor for all living people today. For one reason it is believed that Noah lived about 4,300 years ago. He could be a common ancestor for the people from the Middle east that we read about in our Bible. Abraham is said to be their common ancestor and he came along at a later date. Science does not falsify the Bible here, but it sure does falsify some of the traditional and popular interpretations and understandings of the Bible.

Francis Collins in his book "The Language of God" says on pg 207: "the Bible texts themselves seem to suggest that there were other humans present at the same time that Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden. Otherwise, where did Cain's wife, mentioned only after he left Eden to live in the land of Nod (Genesis 1:16-17) come from?"

The scientific evidence would tend to suggest that the gentiles, or what Jesus called "dogs" are not Jewish and not a descendant of Noah.

 

[flatworm]

It is not that easy, but from what is currently known about science Noah could not be a common ancestor for all living people today. For one reason it is believed that Noah lived about 4,300 years ago. He could be a common ancestor for the people from the Middle east that we read about in our Bible.

The research you cited shows the most recent common ancestor for the semitic peoples as having lived more than 5000 years ago.

Moreover the Bible requires that the most recent common ancestor for the semitic peoples be Abraham, who lived some time later.

You fail. Again. Please stop repeating lies.

 

[JohnR7]

Please stop repeating lies.

Stop calling me a liar or I am going either report you or put you on ignore. There are rules here and you agreed to them when you signed up. If you want to have a conversation with me, then we are going to do it according to the rules. Otherwise I have no problem with it, because you do ask interesting questions.

 

[flatworm]

Stop calling me a liar or I am going either report you or put you on ignore. There are rules here and you agreed to them when you signed up. If you want to have a conversation with me, then we are going to do it according to the rules. Otherwise I have no problem with it, because you do ask interesting questions.

Very well, I will no longer call you a liar. I shall simply continue exposing your false statements everywhere you put them and let others arrive at their own conclusions.

 

[JohnR7]

I shall simply continue exposing your false statements everywhere you put them and let others arrive at their own conclusions.

By all means expose whatever false statement you think you can find.

 

[atrijez]

It is not that easy, but from what is currently known about science Noah could not be a common ancestor for all living people today. For one reason it is believed that Noah lived about 4,300 years ago. He could be a common ancestor for the people from the Middle east that we read about in our Bible. Abraham is said to be their common ancestor and he came along at a later date. Science does not falsify the Bible here, but it sure does falsify some of the traditional and popular interpretations and understandings of the Bible.

Francis Collins in his book "The Language of God" says on pg 207: "the Bible texts themselves seem to suggest that there were other humans present at the same time that Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden. Otherwise, where did Cain's wife, mentioned only after he left Eden to live in the land of Nod (Genesis 1:16-17) come from?"

The scientific evidence would tend to suggest that the gentiles, or what Jesus called "dogs" are not Jewish and not a descendant of Noah.

so let me see if i understand what you're saying. do you mean to tell me that there were some people (other than noah and his family) who survived the flood?????

 

[XTE]

By all means expose whatever false statement you think you can find.

This man is hardly qualified to talk on science. He always does this template:

"Science today proves the Bible and we know this" without ever stating what Science did to prove the Bible. He writes it down like it's a given for everyone and it always rubs off on me the wrong way. He isn't a liar, he is disingenuous.

 

[Avatar]

This man is hardly qualified to talk on science. He always does this template:

"Science today proves the Bible and we know this" without ever stating what Science did to prove the Bible. He writes it down like it's a given for everyone and it always rubs off on me the wrong way. He isn't a liar, he is disingenous.

Synonyms. You've really got to stop that. Don't attack the person attack the argument. Please.

 

[XTE]

Synonyms. You've really got to stop that. Don't attack the person attack the argument. Please.

Did you read the post? There is nothing to argue against. It's just "Science proves the Bible and we know this..."

His posts clearly read for themselves the same thing.

Also, look up Disingenuous and then edit your last post.

 

[Avatar]

Did you read the post? There is nothing to argue against. It's just "Science proves the Bible and we know this..."

His posts clearly read for themselves the same thing.

Also, look up Disingenuous and then edit your last post.

lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.

No edit necessary. Calling someone disingenuous is calling them a liar.

And this isn't something you need to convince me of, if you don't stop it I'll get staff involved.

 

[XTE]

lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.

No edit necessary. Calling someone disingenuous is calling them a liar.

And this isn't something you need to convince me of, if you don't stop it I'll get staff involved.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/disingenuous

You have to use a Thesaurus for synonyms my friend.

It is not a synonym and if you repeat that it is, then you are a liar, which means KNOWINGLY deceitful.

The admins you threatened me with can click on the Thesaurus link above to see who is right.

 

[XTE]

Up until then, you were just confused, ignorant, unknowing.

This is an actual debate, using definitions(like Science does) to illustrate our arguments. That is formal.

Dictionaries get their meanings from "common usage," so clearly liar is not commonly used as a synonym for disingenuous.

Edit?

 

[Dannager]

lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.

No edit necessary. Calling someone disingenuous is calling them a liar.

And this isn't something you need to convince me of, if you don't stop it I'll get staff involved.

And you'll kindly stop making threats like this. I shouldn't need to remind you that you've just violated a rule as well, and now so have I.

Calling someone a liar is not prohibited by the rules, Avatar. JohnR7, this goes for you, too. If it can be demonstrated that an individual is lying, or is disingenuous, it should be made clear that such is the case. Calling someone a liar when it is true and relevant to the discussion (which, in this case, it is) can not possibly be considered flaming, but rather is the natural course that a debate must take when a participant decides to start espousing falsehood as truth.

Please don't try to smother your opponent's position by unjustly accusing them of rules violations. You can do much better than this.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

Stop calling me a liar or I am going either report you or put you on ignore. There are rules here and you agreed to them when you signed up. If you want to have a conversation with me, then we are going to do it according to the rules. Otherwise I have no problem with it, because you do ask interesting questions.

in fairness he is not calling you a liar, but that you are being disingenuous and your statements lack sincerity.

 

[Avatar]

And you'll kindly stop making threats like this. I shouldn't need to remind you that you've just violated a rule as well, and now so have I.

You are correct. I wasn't aware of the rule against telling people they violated a rule. Mea culpa.

calling someone a liar is not prohibited by the rules, Avatar. JohnR7, this goes for you, too. If it can be demonstrated that an individual is lying, or is disingenuous, it should be made clear that such is the case.

And it was not, which violates 2.1.

Calling someone a liar when it is true and relevant to the discussion (which, in this case, it is) can not possibly be considered flaming, but rather is the natural course that a debate must take when a participant decides to start espousing falsehood as truth.

To suggest willful espuosal of falsehoods by someone to support their position suggests that they know it is a fraud and for some reason want to convince you of it. Come on. Maybe if there were an audience of thousands viewing this thread.

Please don't try to smother your opponent's position by unjustly accusing them of rules violations. You can do much better than this.

My opponent? I disagree with John's position. I just think he needs to be treated with respect. He's not someone with an agenda to deceive, he's someone who genuinely believes his position to be true. To call him a liar or disengenuous is untrue and unfair.

 

[Dannager]

He's not someone with an agenda to deceive, he's someone who genuinely believes his position to be true. To call him a liar or disengenuous is untrue and unfair.

Perhaps you have not had adequate experience with JohnR7. He does genuinely believe his position is true, to such an extent that he is willing to use deceptive arguments to defend it.