Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

[lasthero]

Yes, we can worship the God of our choosing as long as we keep in the privacy of our homes...

You can worship God anywhere you like. Who has ever stopped you from worshipping God where you want? If you go to Wal-Mart, drop down on your knees and start praying in the middle of the store, will someone come to arrest you? No.

Attend the Church of our Choosing as long as you don't deny marrying same sex couples,

Plenty of churches deny same-sex marriage. I know, I attend one every sunday. If your church doesn't deny same sex marriage and you want it to, then leave and find a church that does. There are PLENTY of churches in America. I guarantee you can find one in your vincity that caters to your particular flavor.

teach your kids religion of your choosing but they can't take a Bible to read in study hall.

I brought a Bible to school, and last I checked, it wasn't an uncommon thing for schools to have course that actually taught you about the Bible and required you to study it, so this is nonsense. If there was a case of someone not being allowed to have a Bible in study hall, then whoever was enforcing that rule would be against the law, not the person reading the Bible.

Oh, and by the way.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ham lost the debate when he said, "Well, I have this book". Don't misunderstand me, the book is fine, it's just that it has nothing to do with the topic of the debate.

This is the winning moment for Nye.

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

Then you don't understand the paper correctly. Koonin and O'Malley clearly state that eukaryotes CAN be put into a tree of life. Not maybe. Not some time in the future. NOW. This is the due to the infrequency of HGT in eukaryotes which allows us to ignore those very rare HGT events and use the overwhelming phylogenetic signal from VGT to evidence common ancestry.

What they are arguing is that since prokaryotes do not fit into well defined trees because of higher rates of HGT, and since prokaryotes make up a bulk of the species on Earth, that one shouldn't expect to put all species into a tree of life. However, the tree of life concept still works just fine for eukaryotes which includes complex vertebrates like us, chimps, bears, and fish.

I give Koonin +1 for having the cojones to challenge Darwin, that is a step in the right direction.

 

[Loudmouth]

I give Koonin +1 for having the cojones to challenge Darwin, that is a step in the right direction.

Darwin stated that eukaryotes should fall into a Tree of Life. Koonin agrees. How is that challenging Darwin?

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

This is the winning moment for Nye.

To be honest, I was not impressed by either one of them, they both need to update their understanding of science to this century.

 

[bhsmte]

This is the winning moment for Nye.

Well, the above is par for the course, with many with faith beliefs.

How many times have you seen someone with a faith belief claim; they are 100% certain about their belief, and there is zero chance they could ever be wrong.

On the other hand, non believers will typically state; they could be wrong, but based on the available evidence, they have no reason to think they are wrong.

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

Darwin stated that eukaryotes should fall into a Tree of Life. Koonin agrees. How is that challenging Darwin?

It is not obvious from this statement and others that Koonin supports the idea of a single common ancestor, he uses it as a model to produce tree(s) plural and potentially "web-like representation of genome evolution". The impression I get is that he is noncommittal and poses this as more of a "question of major interest for future phylogenomic studies".

Whether there is life remaining in the TOL beyond this usage or whether it has to be replaced by new, probably web-like representations of genome evolution, is a question of major interest for phylogenomic studies and will continue to inspire research far into the future.

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

How many times have you seen someone with a faith belief claim; they are 100% certain about their belief, and there is zero chance they could ever be wrong.

Guilty!!!

 

[Loudmouth]

It is not obvious from this statement and others that Koonin supports the idea of a single common ancestor,

Neither did Darwin, for that matter.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."--Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species"

So how exactly is Koonin "going against Darwin" when Darwinian evolution never required a single common ancestor for life?

he uses it as a model to produce tree(s) plural and potentially "web-like representation of genome evolution".

Not for eukaryotes, he doesn't.

 

[Loudmouth]

Guilty!!!

This causes you to ignore the evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

This causes you to ignore the evidence.

Actually, it requires some to deny the evidence, to ward of the cognitive dissonance.

 

[Loudmouth]

To be honest, I was not impressed by either one of them, they both need to update their understanding of science to this century.

The image I supplied has nothing to do with scientific knowledge. It has to do with dogmatism. Nye readily admits that he could be wrong and would change his position if someone had the evidence to disprove him. What about Ham? Nope. He won't budge one inch no matter what the evidence is.

Nye wins on this alone.

 

[justlookinla]

The image I supplied has nothing to do with scientific knowledge. It has to do with dogmatism. Nye readily admits that he could be wrong and would change his position if someone had the evidence to disprove him. What about Ham? Nope. He won't budge one inch no matter what the evidence is.

Nye wins on this alone.

Sure would be interesting to see evidence, based on the scientific method, for atheistic Darwinist creationism. Until then folks will have to take it on faith.

 

[lasthero]

Guilty!!!

If that's the way you feel, then what's the point of even engaging in a debate?

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

This causes you to ignore the evidence.

Really?

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

If that's the way you feel, then what's the point of even engaging in a debate?

This statement is meaningless because this thread is not about my faith, nor does it concern why I so strongly adhere to it, that conversation is reserved for other threads on this site. I said I will hold my tongue to preserver the integrity of the thread, please provide the same courtesy.

 

[lasthero]

Really?

Yes.

You've openly admitted that you don't care what the evidence is - you believe you're right, regardless. You can't help but ignore the evidence. It doesn't matter what the argument is, you won't change your mind.

This statement is meaningless because this thread is not about my faith, nor does it concern why I so strongly adhere to it, that conversation is reserved for other threads on this site. I said I will hold my tongue to preserver the integrity of the thread

My fault. I thought I was responding to a post you made, but since you said you'd preserve the integrity of this thread, clearly, such a post didn't exist and I wasn't.

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

You've openly admitted that you don't care what the evidence is.

I very much do care about what the evidence is, that I disagree with your interpretation is what is at issue.

Please do not make the false argument that Dawkins makes, that the debates are between "science" and "religion".

 

[lasthero]

I very much do care about what the evidence is, that I disagree with your interpretation is what is at issue.

Not all interpretations are equal.

Flat earthers interpret the world to be flat.
Anti-Vaccers interpret that vaccines causes autism.
Some people even interpret that the Earth is only 6,000 or so years old.

You could interpret the moon to be made of cheese, if you wanted, and come up with a whole bunch of reasons why everyone who thinks its not is wrong. Just because you have alternate interpretation of something doesn't mean it's automatically on equal footing with all other interpretations.

 

[Loudmouth]

Really?

Really.