how is evolution NOT possible?

[Avatar]

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.

If you say so. Then wreck the arguments. Like I said I think he's wrong too. and even if he is a liar or being disengenuous, I think the focus needs to be on what he says, not his motives.

 

[atrijez]

ok, so is this argument over then?? it doesn't seem like the creationists can provide any justification for this idea they hold that new information can't be added to genomes. so then, they have no good reason to believe that evolution is impossible., or else they'll have to attack it from another angle that doesn't misrepresent genetics.

also,, i'm really interested in hearing a creationist answer for why there are several types of Y chromosomes. which of the following is it?

1. harmless mutations are possible and can be inherited.
2. only some people are descended from noah's family. the others are descended from other people who also survived the flood.

 

[XTE]

And it was not, which violates 2.1.

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.

On 2.1, I'd say that being told repeatedly that an unjustified assertion, such as "Science proves the Bible and WE KNOW IT," and then continuing to do it is disingenuous to a T. Does anyone disagree, and why? I like reasons.

I'd love to treat John with respect, but when I hear him say things that I KNOW he knows better on then it is all too easy to say he isn't treating us with respect by being disingenuous. More important than that, he is being disrespectful to the human species by not following the rules we lay down. I'd also say the same about stretching definitions to fit a purpose.

 

[XTE]

If you say so. Then wreck the arguments. Like I said I think he's wrong too. and even if he is a liar or being disengenuous, I think the focus needs to be on what he says, not his motives.

Please Avatar, go back and read the first post of mine you replied to. He hasn't said anything. He hardly ever says anything. He makes an assertion and uses filler. There is no cohesive chain.

I tell you what, John proposed that we find and call him on a post where he is being "false." I'll do one better, I'll record his posts so that he can falsify himself one day.

Is that OK with you John?

By the way, I say this knowing that John sincerely believes that what he thinks, is true.

 

[XTE]

I'd also like to add:

that I think that you may think Avatar, that I'm getting some thrill out of this. Please, after 6 posts, let me say this:

I get no thrill, it does my heart no good to think this of John. It has come after a long time knowing him and seeing repeated arguments from him that have not only been refuted, but have been REPLACED! There is a huge difference there and it has a lot to do with why he praises "Creation Science."

They are only in the business of refuting, but as far as finding a theory that can explain so much in this world, they are hard pressed to replace it. I'd dare say, that if propositioned to do so in person, none anywhere would know what to say. That's just an assertion however, and rightfully claimed....

 

[Avatar]

By the way, I say this knowing that John sincerely believes that what he thinks, is true.

Look, that's all I was asking. I wasn't looking for a fight I wanted only to diffuse one.

 

[Avatar]

I'd also like to add:

that I think that you may think Avatar, that I'm getting some thrill out of this. Please, after 6 posts, let me say this:

I get no thrill, it does my heart no good to think this of John. It has come after a long time knowing him and seeing repeated arguments from him that have not only been refuted, but have been REPLACED! There is a huge difference there and it has a lot to do with why he praises "Creation Science."

They are only in the business of refuting, but as far as finding a theory that can explain so much in this world, they are hard pressed to replace it. I'd dare say, that if propositioned to do so in person, none anywhere would know what to say. That's just an assertion however, and rightfully claimed....

Okay. Peace.

 

[XTE]

Look, that's all I was asking. I wasn't looking for a fight I wanted only to diffuse one.

I can understand that Avatar.

I needed to make clear however after your post that I wasn't calling John a liar, I was calling him disingenuous.

I WANT TO THINK THAT JOHN IS NOT THAT. However, I can't at this moment because something pulls at me.

as I'm sure it does others too........

John, help us out here man....

 

[atrijez]

yeah, and help me out too, john. i posted up some questions, but i think they might get buried rather easily under this side argument. don't get me wrong, i think it's important to clarify what the rules are and to call out anybody who is violating those rules or being disingenuous, but now that that's been resolved, i'd be fascinated in hearing some creationist responses regarding the original topic.

 

[AV1611VET]

also,, i'm really interested in hearing a creationist answer for why there are several types of Y chromosomes.

What are Y chromosomes?

 

[corvus_corax]

What are Y chromosomes?

Why does that matter to you?
You have already stated that you dont care what "scientific" terms mean.
You have already stated that any physical evidences (or even any non-KJV versions of the Bible, including the original Hebrew) dont matter (or arent correct) if they contradict the 1611 AV

So, why do you care what the Y chromosome is?

I mean, if you really wanted to know, a simple google or wiki search would have saved you the time

 

[AV1611VET]

Why does that matter to you?
You have already stated that you dont care what "scientific" terms mean.
You have already stated that any physical evidences (or even any non-KJV versions of the Bible, including the original Hebrew) dont matter (or arent correct) if they contradict the 1611 AV

Look at it this way, Corvus --- what's the difference in a Christian going to ScienceForums.com and saying he doesn't care for science, and an Atheist going to ChristianForums.com and saying he doesn't care for Scripture?

Can you answer that?

So, why do you care what the Y chromosome is?

I mean, if you really wanted to know, a simple google or wiki search would have saved you the time

Thanks for the info.

 

[corvus_corax]

Look at it this way, Corvus --- what's the difference in a Christian going to ScienceForums.com and saying he doesn't care for science, and an Atheist going to ChristianForums.com and saying he doesn't care for Scripture?

Can you answer that?

An atheist going to the Creation and Evolution forum on Christian forums is at least backed up by the actual point of the forum in question-
A forum for the scientific discussion of Creation and Evolution

Thanks for the info.

You are quite welcome

 

[XTE]

Look at it this way, Corvus --- what's the difference in a Christian going to ScienceForums.com and saying he doesn't care for science, and an Atheist going to ChristianForums.com and saying he doesn't care for Scripture?

Can you answer that?



Thanks for the info.

You expected your signature to be cute, but it's apparently pompous. So get rid of it and ask your questions, but don't do both.

By the way, the argument you presented above is very valid. Once we examine that argument however we tend to arrive at this answer:

One theory presented real world evidence that explains a lot and will live up to future predictions. The other is a blanket argument for anything and yields no help in the future. The first being ours, the latter being yours....

Science grows stronger telling you it was wrong, the Bible doesn't afford itself this opportunity so it's followers have to be opportunistic in the face of every shift we throw their way. You are fighting a losing war.

The same process demands that Christianity adapt or die. Which is it?

 

[atrijez]

What are Y chromosomes?

here's the short of it. a Y-chromosome is a type of chromosome in mammals. only males have them though. now, normally, chromosomes are composites of genes taken from both parents. since only men have Y-chromosomes though, that means that a son must inherit it solely from his father, who would have inherited it solely from HIS father.

for this reason, noah's three sons must have had the same Y-chromosome as noah. and so if every one on earth is descended from noah's family, then shouldn't all men on earth have the same Y-chromosome?? they don't though. there are many different Y-chromosomes throughout the human population.

i'm not trying to suggest by this that humans do not come from a common ancestor. instead, i'm trying to provide proof that chromosomes and genes can in fact mutate (without becoming harmful) and be passed down. the creationist argument that evolution is impossible rests pretty much entirely on the fallacy that "no new information can ever be added to a genome".

so now i'm posing the question, if harmless inheritable mutations never happen, then what is the creationist's explanation for why there are so many various Y-chromosomes?

 

[AV1611VET]

You expected your signature to be cute, but it's apparently pompous. So get rid of it and ask your questions, but don't do both.

My signature stands as written, thank you. I paid good blessings for it, and it is in fact a paraphrase of our motto: God said it - that settles it. (You should have seen my previous signature.)

One theory presented real world evidence that explains a lot and will live up to future predictions.

This "real world theory" does not factor God into the equation; which is a very dangerous thing not to do. You can predict the future all you want, but I guarantee you, if your predictions are different from what God says, they'll fail.

The other is a blanket argument for anything and yields no help in the future.

There's coming a time in the near future when your science (along with its predictions) is going to stand aside and watch God's prophecies come rolling through --- totally helpless to stop it.

Science grows stronger telling you it was wrong...

Take a person that is constantly wrong. Whenever he says "I'm wrong", it makes him sound right, and gives him a modicum of credibility. Get what I'm saying?

...the Bible doesn't afford itself this opportunity...

That's because the Bible writes about Truth, and even challenges its readers to disprove it. It's the nature of the Word.

You are fighting a losing war.

We'll see.

 

[XTE]

My signature stands as written, thank you. I paid good blessings for it, and it is in fact a paraphrase of our motto: God said it - that settles it. (You should have seen my previous signature.)

This "real world theory" does not factor God into the equation; which is a very dangerous thing not to do. You can predict the future all you want, but I guarantee you, if your predictions are different from what God says, they'll fail.

There's coming a time in the near future when your science (along with its predictions) is going to stand aside and watch God's prophecies come rolling through --- totally helpless to stop it.

Take a person that is constantly wrong. Whenever he says "I'm wrong", it makes him sound right, and gives him a modicum of credibility. Get what I'm saying?

That's because the Bible writes about Truth, and even challenges its readers to disprove it. It's the nature of the Word.

We'll see.

...and when you revert to poetry, you only lose credibility. Enough of the verses, justify them. It's the point of this post.

"It makes him sound like he is right." You know better than to say that. You just discreditted everything in existence and probably don't know it.

As far as the war goes, you'll see, that we'll win. You know it now.

 

[AV1611VET]

Good night, guys Tomorrow's another day

 

[XTE]

That's because the Bible writes about Truth, and even challenges its readers to disprove it. It's the nature of the Word.

I forgot to address this statement:

This argument was made and defeated in rapid succession. Nothing points to a World-Wide Flood. Nothing points towards the Bible except for a little historical evidence and I dare you to bring historical evidence into this, because I have a slew of Science books that are ALL HISTORICAL EVIDENCE and build off REASON.

Instead of ISSUING commands, they GIVE you REASONS. I wish it weren't so simple, but it is.

 

[ReverendDG]

My signature stands as written, thank you. I paid good blessings for it, and it is in fact a paraphrase of our motto: God said it - that settles it. (You should have seen my previous signature.)
You should get your money back on it then


This "real world theory" does not factor God into the equation; which is a very dangerous thing not to do. You can predict the future all you want, but I guarantee you, if your predictions are different from what God says, they'll fail.
How would you know this? how do you know that what science finds out about the world isn't what god did? oh wait this isn't about god this is about the bible! sorry but the bible is a book not god, please try to understand the difference, it makes you look confused otherwise


There's coming a time in the near future when your science (along with its predictions) is going to stand aside and watch God's prophecies come rolling through --- totally helpless to stop it.
guess what? they've been saying that for hmm nearly two thousand years about and not one thing has come true, by the way all the prophecies were suposed to happen close to the writers life time not hundreds of years later and not when someone read them wrong again and moved the timing


Take a person that is constantly wrong. Whenever he says "I'm wrong", it makes him sound right, and gives him a modicum of credibility. Get what I'm saying?
first it depends on if the person is wrong all the time or not, science saying "this is what we think is the truth at this time using the tools we have, with the evidence and data we have, but it may not be all of the data, so we reserve the chance of revision if further data says the earlier is wrong"
this is not remotely what you mean, imo like a lot of people you think that scienctists consider themselves to always be right, no matter what.
what science says is, using science this is our answer, until someone using science comes up with a better one this is what we have, so this is the answer.

That's because the Bible writes about Truth, and even challenges its readers to disprove it. It's the nature of the Word.
It has been disproven, 200 years ago it was disproven, 150 years ago it was disproven, from then to now it has been.

pieces and parts have been shown also with evidence of the bible containing factual data, such as history in small parts, but the stories have not been, i mean if you consider the fact that cities existed, that well known people are spoke of in the text and details on how the people lived is proof that jesus is god or that the flood happened...

it just scares me..


We'll see.

No i think not, when 60% of christians and a lot more people of other religions accept evolution dispite the absurdity in the US, then you are fighting an uphill battle that you can't win