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.
Good job, you just judged yourself.
Thanks you for saving me the time and trouble by admitting that your faith-based system of beliefs does not have a basis in reality. Those are your own words.
Yes I did, he is defending evolutionary theory and I am not presenting a argument against the theory. Just the defunct corruption of the infidels in their attempt to hijack the theory.
Most mutations are neutral or harmful. Few mutations are anything that even YOU could consider to be beneficial and very simple math shows that the mutation theory does not have a leg to stand on in your effort to try to use it for your driving force behind evolutionary theory.
Most are considered to be harmful or neutral. Your theory makes as much sense as a screen door on a submarine. Have you heard of Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium? Darwin's theory requires gradualism in order to work in the way you suggest.And no, most mutations are NOT harmfull.
Oh no, I have faith in you that you can go lower.This has just hit a new low.
I gotta get my son to do the math. He can handle all of the advanced stuff, not me. Although I was amazed at how many people do construction work that have never even had a simple geometry or algebra class. Kind of makes me wonder what they were doing back when they were suppose to study that stuff to prepare for their future.I look forward to your Math, or is this just more unsubstantiated rhetoric?
I gotta get my son to do the math. He can handle all of the advanced stuff, not me.
But why? After all, a designer doesn't *have* to use similar materials. Could not a creative designer use whatever they wanted? What is your basis for assuming the designer would use these 'common materials'?
You may feel that way. There is, however, a fundamental difference in the positions.
On the one hand, you have people advocating in the defense of science and science education. And on the other hand you have those trying to dismantle it.
It's tough given that for creationists you're forced into a position of denying aspects of mainstream science, without anything substantial to counter it. And especially tough for Young-Earth creationists that are basically denying every branch of the natural sciences and a number of the social sciences on top of that.
It's not a position I find envious.
On top of that, a lot of what creationists keep proposing is demonstrably false. For example, you keep going on about evolution being just a "belief" or "assumptions" or "not testable", etc. And yet these are demonstrably incorrect positions. Just the fact that evolution including common descent has real world application means it's clearly not a mere belief. The fact that I can point to thousands of papers testing documenting the testing of various aspects of common descent demonstrates it testable.
Of course in doing so, you'll just respond by claiming that's just evidence of "common design" or some other repetitive mantra. But if I was to ask you to present the testable, scientific model of "common design", you'd never be able to do it. Because it doesn't actually exist.
Thus, from where I sit you're stuck in a position to deny, deny, deny. At the end of the day, that's all you've got.
I'm usually here out of boredom. Half the time I'm responding to something is in line at a grocery store or something.
I don't even consider this debate. It's mostly just noise.
I don't really see you as defending your belief though. From where I sit you can believe whatever you want. People have the freedom to do that (at least in free countries).
But what do you think you're defending it against though? Legitimate science is a search for understanding our universe and isn't going to change just because some people don't like the results. Reality isn't pliable in that regard.
This is why I find the creationist mindset so strange. It's basically reality denial. And I don't see where creationists think they are going with that.
You don't show evolution in a single creature, but across a number of related species over a period of time. So, if you mean, "Do we have fossils that show the evolution of the forelimb into the modern wing?" then the answer is yes:
Mutations are variable in frequency, depending on where the gene is in the DNA. For example, mutations in eye color genes are extremely rare compared to mutations in many blood related genes, which is why hemophilia isn't always inherited (though, it is much more common for it to be inherited than the result of a new mutation). However, only 1 individual needs to have a mutation for it to eventually spread through a population; particularly if said population is small. People often forget that for the majority of the existence of our species, we lived in groups of less than 100 people and our population wasn't nearly so large as it is now.And when this random mutation occurred that changed this mythical common ancestor into man and chimp, just how many did this random mutation effect at the same time?
We are talking about evolution specifically and not science in general. The vast majority of beneficial science is observable, testable and reproducible, such as medical science. Evolution from a common ancestor is not able to produce any if those thingsAnd yet, you enjoy the benefits from science, every hour of every day of your life.
Then participate in my evolution experiment "Creationists, Choose their Fate!" and watch some observable, testable, and reproducible evolution. Or watch it crash and burn, whichever.We are talking about evolution specifically and not science in general. The vast majority of beneficial science is observable, testable and reproducible, such as medical science. Evolution from a common ancestor is not able to produce any if those things
No evolution is false because birds have always produced birds. They have never produced something that wasn't a bird.If a species evolves into something completely different, instead of a sub-species, then evolution theory is falsified.
It seems you have no idea how evolution works.
If birds produce non-birds, then evolution theory is false.
What's your experiment?Then participate in my evolution experiment "Creationists, Choose their Fate!" and watch some observable, testable, and reproducible evolution. Or watch it crash and burn, whichever.
I have offered so many people the chance to have me run an experiment for them, and no one takes me up on the offer. Why?
We are talking about evolution specifically and not science in general. The vast majority of beneficial science is observable, testable and reproducible, such as medical science. Evolution from a common ancestor is not able to produce any if those things
I gotta get my son to do the math. He can handle all of the advanced stuff, not me. Although I was amazed at how many people do construction work that have never even had a simple geometry or algebra class. Kind of makes me wonder what they were doing back when they were suppose to study that stuff to prepare for their future.
He has done the math on this and I think the power would require 200 zeros. Him and his friends were laughing about it. The one that got a full ride scholarship to a top shelf university. My son is taking Analytic Geometry and Calculus II. They are teaching him how to make the formulas.
I do not have a problem with natural selection, bottleneck thoery, founder effect and a lot of what they call evolutionary theory. I have a problem with your denial of God and your claim that mankind is a product of mistakes & errors called mutations. God does not make mistakes and errors. His pencil does not need an eraser. There are no erasers in Heaven.
you seem to be confusing "running from this" with "trying to explain to you how you are arguing a strawman".
No, not into "something else".
Birds, monkeys, spiders, worms are a sub-set of that common ancestor.
Wolves and dogs come from a common ancestor that wasn't a wolf or a dog, true.
You know what it was? a canine. Both wolves and dogs are canines.
Humans and chimps share an ancestor that wasn't a human or a chimp. But it WAS a primate. It was also a mammal. And a tetrapod.
Newsflash: humans and chimps... both primates, mammals, tetrapods.
Evolution is a vertical process towards ever-more specialisation.
Species don't turn into completely different species. Species turn into sub-species.
i'm so sorry that you can't seem to wrap your head around that.
It's no surprise though, it seems you have real trouble in understanding what a pattern of nested hierarchies is as well.
Ever hear of antibiotic resistant bacteria? They arose due to evolution (a change in the frequency of traits in a population). Evolution is not merely speciation.
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?