Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It appears you also missed this post.
How does the above post of yours answer the question?
An extremely thorough refuting:
One thing I am confident of, you didn't watch this or any of the videos.
Talk about embarrassing. "destroyed the Kalam" you said. Not so much.
And then you call me a jerk.
You guys seem to mostly be graduated from Madelines school of debate. Except for hogshead and maybe sfs.
You guys have a good life. I think I have decided I have better things to do.
How many are beneficial?The human genome is 3 billion bases large and the mutation rate is about 50 mutations per person per generation. It only requires 180 million births to get that one mutation, assuming that there is only one possible mutation.
I highlighted it for you this time. Please try to read it.
One thing I am confident of, you didn't watch this or any of the videos.
Talk about embarrassing. "destroyed the Kalam" you said. Not so much.
And then you call me a jerk.
You guys seem to mostly be graduated from Madelines school of debate. Except for hogshead and maybe sfs.
You guys have a good life. I think I have decided I have better things to do.
How many are beneficial?
An another example of the Kalam being refuted.
In short they all point out that the Kalam Cosmological argument is quite often uses and equivocation fallacy and arguments from ignorance.
Yes, that is called an argument from ignorance. Your problem is that you have no understanding of quantum physics at all and you are discussing a more advanced topic in it. Didn't we go over virtual particles or was that another poster?I find it rather difficult to believe something can self create from nothing......kinda like being and not being at the same time.
The answer...there has to be a being that always existed and never didn't exist...or there would still be nothing.
Yes, that is called an argument from ignorance. Your problem is that you have no understanding of quantum physics at all and you are discussing a more advanced topic in it. Didn't we go over virtual particles or was that another poster?
Virtual particles are real particles that appear and disappear out of "nothing". Of course now we are going to have to define "nothing". I have seen creationists try to redefine it after they realized that the old definition "no matter in a space" no longer works. By that definition something can come from nothing and has been observed.
It's William Lane Craig. But you were close. Watch his debate with Sam Harris if you get a chance. He (Sam) talks at the beginning about all the emails he got from colleagues prior to the debate begging him "please brother, don't blow this" ha ha. WLC is the most feared debater out there. Dawkins won't chance it. But Sam held his own sort of and is extremely articulate.
Unfortunately for him he is a thorough-going determinist (so is Coyne by the way) who attempts to argue for objective morality based on intuitions. So a subjectivist who believes we are all 100% determined (though most of us don't know it) and that we can by consensus determine objective morality. Go figure. Anyway it's a good debate.
I've watched all his (Craigs) debates and he hasn't lost any, so I don't know why you would say all his arguments are debunked. But the beauty of a debate is that often there isn't a "winner" or a "loser". You just have an opportunity to make your best arguments and the listeners can decide who made the best case. Obviously there will be differing opinions.
You're always asking me for citations, could you please give me an example of the dishonest Christian debaters?
And you do have google. You can watch the Krauss debates, but I think they end up being 6 hours long total. A big time investment. Also the name of the Krauss/Dawkins movie is "The Unbelievers" I think. It's on YouTube.
For me what is funny....is how all the evos banter around these forums and still there isn't a single evolutionist who can explain how a so-called extremely rare beneficial mutations have the ability to accumulate in an animals progeny to the point that a new trait developes and is observed.
The evolutionist are calling the creationist liars...yet they can't explain how evolutionism works.
The human DNA has like 3.5 Billion base pairs and so-called beneficial mutations are a small fraction of a percent.
I am. Go ahead. Teach us how the eye evolved.
I think the way that Billy was bashed so thoroughly may have been a bit too much for Pater. He thought that atheists trembled at his name and he just found out that he is a laughing stock whose claims are no more valid than Kent Hovind's.Come on now. He is Willie Craig, everything he says is proven fact. Didn't you know that?
I never said mutations don't occur.
My point was that for so-called beneficial mutations to occur to the point that the information in the DNA attributed for a particular trait increases to the vast sophistication seen today in the animal kingdom...is impossible.
YOUR problem....what are the odds that the second beneficial mutation will effect the coded DNA information that the previous beneficial mutation changed somewhere down the line of the species progeny?
So? They identified the genes that make a bat wing.Not that we expect you to read or understand a word of it, but this paper breaks down, gene by gene, the changes that occurred during bat wing evolution.
http://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-11-619
I would cite that as an assumption, and probably a wrong assumption, based on your world view.Wow. That is some weapons grade irony.
The article is about the evolution of the wing of the bat. The article is about a specific event in evolution. How often does a paper that deals with the a single event in the history of the U.S. need to remind you that the topic fits under the category "The history of the U.S."?So? They identified the genes that make a bat wing.
Evolution is barely mentioned in the article.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?