"If ENCODE is right then Evolution is wrong"

[Subduction Zone]

Also typical of evolutionists and atheists.

No, there is massive evidence for the theory of evolution. Why do you think that there isn't?

And where is the evidence for a god that would convince an atheist? Or are you trying to make false claims about what atheists believe?

 

[pat34lee]

No, none of those are religions.

Of course they are; I just said so.

The BBC agrees on humanism, though they don't know the difference
between atheism and agnosticism.
BBC - Religions - Atheism: Humanism

Connections to Atheism and Humanism | Naturalism.org

 

[pat34lee]

No, there is massive evidence for the theory of evolution. Why do you think that there isn't?

And where is the evidence for a god that would convince an atheist? Or are you trying to make false claims about what atheists believe?

Everything you hold as evidence for evolution is evidence for God,
and everything that isn't evidence for evolution is evidence for God.
The list includes all of creation, seen and unseen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Everything you hold as evidence for evolution is evidence for God,
and everything that isn't evidence for evolution is evidence for God.
The list includes all of creation, seen and unseen.

Nope, you simply do not understand the nature of evidence.

If you want to claim that your God exists the burden of proof is upon you. I am not going to try to argue against the concept, I am merely pointing out that hand waving and falsely claiming evidence does you no good.

By the way, you do realize that most Christians accept the fact that life evolved, don't you? The creation myth belief is mostly a U.S. tendency.

 

[pat34lee]

Did not. See how easy it is to make unbacked assertions?

Come back when you want to discuss facts. Not until then.

 

[Non sequitur]

Come back when you want to discuss facts. Not until then.

Have there been facts discussed?

 

[pat34lee]

Nope, you simply do not understand the nature of evidence.

If you want to claim that your God exists the burden of proof is upon you. I am not going to try to argue against the concept, I am merely pointing out that hand waving and falsely claiming evidence does you no good.

By the way, you do realize that most Christians accept the fact that life evolved, don't you? The creation myth belief is mostly a U.S. tendency.

If I didn't know better, I would think many people aren't
much more evolved than apes. The problem though, isn't
that they haven't evolved, it is that they degenerate, and by
choice for the most part.

 

[sfs]

Come back when you want to discuss facts. Not until then.

You introduced no facts. You said a bunch of things about DNA that were false. That doesn't really put you in a position to be condescending.

 

[pat34lee]

Have there been facts discussed?

I gave a list of facts. Asserting that they are facts not doesn't change them.

Note: Second fact should have been dino soft tissue, not DNA.
That was carried over from fact one.

Going back to one, though and junk DNA.

" As Dr. John Sanford demonstrated a while ago, the “gold standard” digital simulation of evolution (Avida), requires at least 85% of the starting genome to be junk in order to produce any significant evolution. "
Junk DNA and Evolution – Proslogion

Otherwise, the harmful 99% of mutations build up and cause genetic failures
and ultimately, extinction.

Of course, some began creating new stories when ENCODE's work was published.
You cannot falsify a theory that transforms to fit any new facts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I didn't know better, I would think many people aren't
much more evolved than apes. The problem though, isn't
that they haven't evolved, it is that they degenerate, and by
choice for the most part.

All of the evidence disagrees with you. And though you may not realize it you are an ape.

 

[pat34lee]

All of the evidence disagrees with you. And though you may not realize it you are an ape.

Nope. I was created in the image of Adam, who was created in the image of Yahweh.

 

[Tanj]

Also typical of evolutionists and atheists.

...he says without evidence.

Do love me some irony.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope. I was created in the image of Adam, who was created in the image of Yahweh.

Nope, Adam is a myth, but you are an ape.

 

[sfs]

I gave a list of facts. Asserting that they are facts not doesn't change them.

Asserting that they are facts doesn't make them facts.

Note: Second fact should have been dino soft tissue, not DNA.
That was carried over from fact one.

Fine. Soft tissue also doesn't falsify evolution. The scientist who found the tissue (or rather, the remains of tissue) -- and who is a Christian, by the way -- also uncovered the mechanism by which it can be preserved. Who do you think knows more about the soft tissue, you or her?

Going back to one, though and junk DNA.

" As Dr. John Sanford demonstrated a while ago, the “gold standard” digital simulation of evolution (Avida), requires at least 85% of the starting genome to be junk in order to produce any significant evolution. "
Junk DNA and Evolution – Proslogion

Otherwise, the harmful 99% of mutations build up and cause genetic failures
and ultimately, extinction.

Which doesn't mean that junk DNA was a prediction of evolution -- wasn't. What's true is that the observed mutation rate is inconsistent with all of the genome being functional. Since no one has presented even a shred of evidence that mutations in most of the genome harm humans, there's nothing troubling about that fact. The best estimate we have of the fraction of the genome that would give rise to harmful mutations is around 10%; it comes from the ENCODE project.

Of course, some began creating new stories when ENCODE's work was published.

No, some of us actually read the ENCODE papers and understood what they said.

Sorry, but it continues to be the case that none of your "facts" was actually true.

 

[dmmesdale]

Come back when you want to discuss facts. Not until then.

Facts from folks who believe their Gramdma's are 99% Chimp and have a common ancestor with an onion?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Facts from folks who believe their Gramdma's are 99% Chimp and have a common ancestor with an onion?

Why do you have such a big problem with reality? Actually not "99" more like 98. But you are related to an onion.

 

[pitabread]

Facts from folks who believe their Gramdma's are 99% Chimp and have a common ancestor with an onion?

Y'know along those lines, since all life is related via common ancestry, this means all the food we eat is technically a really distant relative.

 

[pat34lee]

Asserting that they are facts doesn't make them facts.

Fine. Soft tissue also doesn't falsify evolution. The scientist who found the tissue (or rather, the remains of tissue) -- and who is a Christian, by the way -- also uncovered the mechanism by which it can be preserved. Who do you think knows more about the soft tissue, you or her?

Which doesn't mean that junk DNA was a prediction of evolution -- wasn't. What's true is that the observed mutation rate is inconsistent with all of the genome being functional. Since no one has presented even a shred of evidence that mutations in most of the genome harm humans, there's nothing troubling about that fact. The best estimate we have of the fraction of the genome that would give rise to harmful mutations is around 10%; it comes from the ENCODE project.

No, some of us actually read the ENCODE papers and understood what they said.

If my facts are wrong, then it should be easy enough to prove,
but not with fairy tales or "because I said it".

She came up with pixie dust, I mean iron. Not even a decent fairy tale.
Keeping something for 2 years does not prove anything about eons.

Ever actually looked up studies on mutations? They have only been doing
them for about 100 years now on fruit flies. No evolution shown, but plenty
of mutants and dead flies. They also proved how efficient DNA is of correcting
itself over a few generations, unless the mutations are too severe and cause
death or sterility.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If my facts are wrong, then it should be easy enough to prove,
but not with fairy tales or "because I said it".

She came up with pixie dust, I mean iron. Not even a decent fairy tale.
Keeping something for 2 years does not prove anything about eons.

Ever actually looked up studies on mutations? They have only been doing
them for about 100 years now on fruit flies. No evolution shown, but plenty
of mutants and dead flies. They also proved how efficient DNA is of correcting
itself over a few generations, unless the mutations are too severe and cause
death or sterility.

PRATT's.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

If my facts are wrong, then it should be easy enough to prove,
but not with fairy tales or "because I said it".

She came up with pixie dust, I mean iron. Not even a decent fairy tale.
Keeping something for 2 years does not prove anything about eons.

Ever actually looked up studies on mutations? They have only been doing
them for about 100 years now on fruit flies. No evolution shown, but plenty
of mutants and dead flies. They also proved how efficient DNA is of correcting
itself over a few generations, unless the mutations are too severe and cause
death or sterility.

ROFLOL! Part there in bold italics - Does he even know he's talking to @sfs??