Is this for real?

[USincognito]

A you have said it is a change in the allele regulating the amount produced. It is not new information

You need to quantify information before can make such an assertion.

 

[Astrophile]

It is not the evidence that is the problem, but the presuppositions that govern how that evidence is viewed.
For example the current scientific view is that the universe has a beginning.
But if something has a beginning it also has a cause.
The presupposition of evolution believing atheists is there is no God.
So any suggestion that a 'supernatural entity' cause the universe to begin is ruled out without even considering the idea.

This post is so incoherent as to be almost meaningless.

Answer me this question: in what way would the different presuppositions of a Christian cosmologist and an atheist cosmologist affect their interpretation of the redshifts of the galaxies, the structure of the cosmic microwave background, and the cosmic He/H, D/H, He-3/H and Li-7/H ratios?

Another question: if a 'supernatural entity' caused the universe to begin, how would that affect the observations that we make of it (of the universe, I mean, not of the 'supernatural entity')? To put it another way, how would the universe be different if it was or was not created by a God?

 

[USincognito]

I guess if these things are only in my imagination, you needn't reply?

No, false statements and accusations need to be pointed out.

Your support for Evolutionism is akin to the support I would expect from one sincerely satirising the absurd belief.

Since "Evolutionism" doesn't exist and evolution isn't a belief this is another false statement.

 

[USincognito]

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.
Dr Colin Patterson, who was at the time the senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History.

This is a well known and long debunked quote mine that Patterson himself addressed 25 years ago.
Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites'

I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."​

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Your contribution started with an accusation, and has consisted of nothing else since then.

Anyway, here is one place among many, many such that offers evidence for evolution. Your claim is that the page I linked to doesn't exist. That seems like a pretty silly claim to make.

You say the link information is evidence of common ancestry. I say evidence of common design. Given the absence of missing links, I would say that the former (i.e. the scientific theory of evolution) is falsified on this basis.

Further insistence on evolution in spite of the evidence transforms it into Evolutionism (a non-scientific, ever evolving dogma to deny, reinterpret or otherwise disregard any evidence disproving it).

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You say the link information is evidence of common ancestry. I say evidence of common design. Given the absence of missing links, I would say that the former (i.e. the scientific theory of evolution) is falsified on this basis.

Absence of evidence = evidence of absence?

You're really struggling here, aren't you?

Further insistence on evolution in spite of the evidence transforms it into Evolutionism (a non-scientific, ever evolving dogma to deny, reinterpret or otherwise disregard any evidence disproving it).

Ignoring what others have explained to you is really the height of bad manners. Such dishonesty is not to be commended, especially for somebody who claims to represent "truth".

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Absence of evidence = evidence of absence?

Usually, no. In a court of law especially. Why should science be different? Very difficult to prove a murder (and fraught with the danger of injustice) if there is no body.

You're really struggling here, aren't you?

Lol. Only a truly devout Evolutionist or Poe would argue that the absence of evidence for his theory is actually more evidence for it's certainty.

Ignoring what others have explained to you is really the height of bad manners. Such dishonesty is not to be commended, especially for somebody who claims to represent "truth".

Matthew 7:6. With due respect, true Evolutionists can seldom be converted with facts, as Evolutionism is a belief, not a science. I'll trust you understand why I don't waste my time replying to every little whine, some already addressed, others easily resolved by a simple Google search.

 

[xianghua]

Your contribution started with an accusation, and has consisted of nothing else since then.

Anyway, here is one place among many, many such that offers evidence for evolution. Your claim is that the page I linked to doesn't exist. That seems like a pretty silly claim to make.

is this your only evidence for evolution? because its seems to be.

 

[xianghua]

You say the link information is evidence of common ancestry. I say evidence of common design

see here why evolution isnt scientific: Why evolution isn't scientific

 

[sfs]

You say the link information is evidence of common ancestry.

No, I said it was evidence that "evolutionists" present evidence for evolution. You said they'd abandoned evidence. Did you forget your own claim? Would you care to defend it, rather than changing the subject?

I say evidence of common design.

Great. I'm glad there's a creationist who can explain these genetic data as the result of common design. Now please do so. Tell us why the genetic differences between species look exactly like lots of mutations if they result from common design.

Given the absence of missing links, I would say that the former (i.e. the scientific theory of evolution) is falsified on this basis.

Since the evidence I pointed to (which you no doubt read in detail before dismissing, right?) was from genetics and your response is about fossils, I can only assume you meant to say this in another post -- because it sure doesn't make sense as a response here.

 

[sfs]

is this your only evidence for evolution? because its seems to be.

Of course not. As I said, it's one set of evidence among many, many. But since you've already demonstrated your inability to explain this set, why should I offer more?

 

[Tolworth John]

This post is so incoherent as to be almost meaningless.

Answer me this question: in what way would the different presuppositions of a Christian cosmologist and an atheist cosmologist affect their interpretation of the redshifts of the galaxies, the structure of the cosmic microwave background, and the cosmic He/H, D/H, He-3/H and Li-7/H ratios?


From my biased position the universe would not exist if it had not been created.
Another question: if a 'supernatural entity' caused the universe to begin, how would that affect the observations that we make of it (of the universe, I mean, not of the 'supernatural entity')? To put it another way, how would the universe be different if it was or was not created by a God?

 

[Tolworth John]

You need to quantify information before can make such an assertion.

Only if dealing with scientists.
As a non scientist I use unscientific language.

Your problem is to explain how information/instructions to make something appears in a creature. e.g.
The proto-bird did not have the genetic information that taught it how to form wings, feathers, hollow bones andthe specialised lungs birdshave.
How did that information appear?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Classification of Living Things:

Classification of Living Things

Species

"Species are as specific as you can get. It is the lowest and most strict level of classification of living things. The main criterion for an organism to be placed in a particular species is the ability to breed with other organisms of that same species. The species of an organism determines the second part of its two-part name."

What God says about living things:

He made them male and female ... with the ability to reproduce after their kind ....

I don't care what your god supposedly said. I care about facts and observable phenomena.
I note you didn't actually respond to the contents of the post you are quoting.
Your post here seems as random as it is meaningless.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And atheists are being appointed as chaplins means athism is being recognised as a 'faith'.

Ask any atheist to prove that there is no God and the question is dodged so a belief that there is no God is just that a faith based belief.

Atheism is not the belief that there is no god.
It is a disbelief of the claim that there is one.

I'm sorry if you can't understand the difference.

 

[DogmaHunter]

within it's own species

That won't work as shown by ring species.

If "they can breed" is what defines a "kind", then ring species are problematic to that definition.

In ring species:

- A can mate with B​

- B can mate with C
- C can mate with D
- D can mate with E.
- But E can NOT mate with A.

If a "kind" is defined by "they can breed", then it follows that A, B, C, D and E should be the same kind. Yet E can not breed with A.

So your definition is either lacking or just wrong.

 

[Tolworth John]

Atheism is not the belief that there is no god.
It is a disbelief of the claim that there is one.

I'm sorry if you can't understand the difference.

So you accept that it is a faith and as such should be bound by the separation of 'church' and state and not taught by the education system.

 

[DogmaHunter]

A taxonomist decides whether to recognize a subspecies or not. A common criterion for a subspecies is its ability of interbreeding with a different subspecies of the same species and producing fertile offspring. In the wild, subspecies do not interbreed due to their geographic isolation and sexual selection.

biogeography - the branch of biology that deals with the geographical distribution of plants and animals.

I love how you are trying to school a professional geneticist.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So you accept that it is a faith

No. Faith is what you need to believe something for which there is no evidence.

As an atheist, I am not believing something.
In fact, my atheism is literally defined by NOT having faith, by NOT believing without evidence.

My atheism is the exact opposite of what you are saying that it is.

and as such should be bound by the separation of 'church' and state and not taught by the education system.

Nobody teaches "atheism" in schools.

 

[Tolworth John]

No. Faith is what you need to believe something for which there is no evidence.

As an atheist, I am not believing something.
In fact, my atheism is literally defined by NOT having faith, by NOT believing without evidence.

My atheism is the exact opposite of what you are saying that it is.

Nobody teaches "atheism" in schools.

Christian faith is what one believes because there is evidence for it.

While you believe without evidence.

As for schools if Christianityis not being taught and ideas that are contrary to Christianity are taught then Atheism is being taught.