Is this for real?

[tas8831]

within it's own species

So you have sunk your ark.

Cool, thanks!

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

No, the entire reason you need to appeal to "faith", is exactly because there is no evidence.
But that's not the point.

The point is that atheism is precisely not having faith. It is not believing a claim.
Which is the opposite of what you are claiming.

While you believe without evidence.

What do I believe again?
How can you still get this wrong about me, after I just told you?

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

LOL!

I guess islamic, jewish, hindu,... schools teach atheism then.

You seem seriously confused.

 

[tas8831]

Funny you mention that - you see, it is a parody of a creationist claim that I saw on this very forum, written by a creationist that boasts of having a high IQ. He had written that 'creation is the evidence for creationism'.


Do you agree with that standard of evidence?

Regarding my acceptance of 'real evidence', what is your real evidence that supports the quote in the OP?

thanks

It is not the evidence that is the problem, but the presupositions 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 begining it also has a cause.
The presuposition of evolution believing atheists is there is no God.
So any suggestion that a 'supernatural enterty' cause the universe to beging is ruled out without even concidering the idea.

You are not very good at 'logic.'

For you see, in order for the conclusions of logical arguments to be sound, then the premises must be true.

Plus, I suggest heeding the warnings you get from spellcheck (squiggly red lines under words that are spelled incorrectly) - so many spelling errors makes it look as though you are not up to the challenge of understanding, much less making, logical arguments.

And by the way - great dodging of the issue.

 

[tas8831]

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

And thus the "no new information via mutation" argument is falsified, since that change in gene expression yielded a fitness advantage, i.e., a benefit.

You lose.

 

[tas8831]

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book.

What book? What are you referring to?

If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.

So, no "Then surely you can provide some clear-cut quotes that support your assertion?"

OK - you should have ended there, because now...

Dr Colin Patterson, who was at the time the senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History.
went on to say:-Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils.

... you've made yourself look alike a fool for believing YEC propagandist lies and misrepresentations.


You support un-supported assertions with more unsupported assertions apparently premised on YEC out-of-context quotes (lies).

Bravo!

It is (not) OK - even professional creationists keep repeating these lies. Your biggest mistake is in believing what you read on creationist websites.

 

[tas8831]

For gullible creationist types:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

 

[tas8831]

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

Weird that you seem incapable of presenting any of this evidence.

 

[tas8831]

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?

So you admit you are a non-scientist.

But then you present yourself as having the ability and knowledge to trump all scientific claims that do not fit into your religious beliefs.

Are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect?

 

[eleos1954]

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

Wasn't trying to "school" anyone, thought we were having conversation.

So, what is your purpose for participating in this forum? Like to argue? Interested in learning about God? What is your objective?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Wasn't trying to "school" anyone, thought we were having conversation.

Ow yes you did. The condescension is dripping of that post you made. You even felt the need to define biology jargon as if writing a dictionary, implying that sfs apparantly doesn't know what is meant by the word.

It's incredibly arrogant.
But perhaps you didn't know that he's a professional geneticist.

So, what is your purpose for participating in this forum?

Entertainment.

Like to argue?

Yes, actually.

Interested in learning about God?

Not really.
More interested in learning why people believe what they believe, instead of "what" they actually believe, actually.

What is your objective?

To have fun.

 

[eleos1954]

Ow yes you did. The condescension is dripping of that post you made. You even felt the need to define biology jargon as if writing a dictionary, implying that sfs apparantly doesn't know what is meant by the word.

It's incredibly arrogant.
But perhaps you didn't know that he's a professional geneticist.



Entertainment.



Yes, actually.



Not really.
More interested in learning why people believe what they believe, instead of "what" they actually believe, actually.

To have fun.

ok, thank you for your honest answers, have fun arguing with someone else then for your entertainment. Perhaps someday some of your motives will change.

James 4:3

You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures.

Proverbs 16:2

All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight, But the LORD weighs the motives.

Have a good life.

 

[tas8831]

Evolutionists are adherents to the belief in Evolutionism. Evolutionism is the belief that all living things share a common ancestory. Lol. I really don't know where you Evolutionists get some of your facts, but Evolutionism certainly isn't one of them.

You were entertaining for a while, but now you are just annoying. Back on ignore...

 

[Astrophile]

From my biased position the universe would not exist if it had not been created.

In that case you are begging the question; you are assuming, or presupposing, the very thing that needs to be proved. Of course there is no way of proving that the universe was not created by a god. However, so far as I know, there is no evidence of a supernatural origin for the universe, and by the principle of parsimony (also known as Occam's razor), we do not need to invoke a supernatural creator unless there is evidence for such a being.

So any suggestion that a 'supernatural entity' caused the universe to begin is ruled out without even considering the idea.

If scientists found evidence of a 'supernatural entity' that caused the universe to begin, they would certainly consider the idea. About 50 years ago, cosmologists didn't imagine that there was any sort of matter or energy in the universe besides the familiar kinds. However, when the rotation curves of galaxies and the dynamics of clusters of galaxies provided evidence of 'missing mass' and the brightness of supernovae provided evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, cosmologists accepted the existence of a previously unknown dark matter and dark energy. The same principle applies to supernatural entities; what we need is evidence of their existence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

ok, thank you for your honest answers, have fun arguing with someone else then for your entertainment. Perhaps someday some of your motives will change.

I understand you like having an excuse to not engage topics that threaten your beliefs.
But honestly, motivations aren't relevant to content of arguments and posts.

Wheter I make those arguments because I like to argue or because I'm depressed or because I realy want to convince you or because I want to convince lurkers,.....

None of it is relevant to the argument itself.

You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures.

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

 

[USincognito]

What book? What are you referring to?


So, no "Then surely you can provide some clear-cut quotes that support your assertion?"

OK - you should have ended there, because now...

That's from the Patterson quote mine. Tolworth wasn't saying that, he was citing the mined quote.

 

[tas8831]

That's from the Patterson quote mine. Tolworth wasn't saying that, he was citing the mined quote.

I discovered that later - it would be nice if creationists were competent to at least present mined quotes in a proper format!

 

[Petros2015]

"[re: alleles] NEVER has a new gene or alleles been produced, merely the sequence of what already existed copied in a new format, almost always consisting of loss of function and weakening of the overall viability.

This would seem to imply that there is one Master-Creature with all the genes from which all the species have devolved rather than evolved.

Cool. I bet it's really big and at the bottom of the ocean.

 

[xianghua]

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?

i actually did explained it by neutral mutations over time. what is the problem with this scenario actually?

 

[sfs]

i actually did explained it by neutral mutations over time. what is the problem with this scenario actually?

No, you never explained it. You never explained how humans and baboons could have five times as many neutral mutational differences between them as humans and chimps have and as baboons and macaques have.

 

[xianghua]

No, you never explained it. You never explained how humans and baboons could have five times as many neutral mutational differences between them as humans and chimps have and as baboons and macaques have.

actually i gave you 2 different explanations without evolution:

1) baboon was a bit more different in its original creation.
2) babbon is older than both chimp and human so its more different (since it get more mutations over time).