Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Evolution

[razeontherock]

I assumed nothing. You said ask a good scientist and they will tell you "the teaching of Ev sux." I responded by telling you (as a good scientist) that "the teaching of creationism/I.D. sux," instead.

It's not an either / or.

 

[razeontherock]

The values given in the verse:
Diameter = 10 cubits
Circumference = 30 cubits

According to Math,

Thus, 30 = pi * 10

Solve for pi,

pi = 30/10 = 3

Silly man. Ever think of starting with what the text actually says?

 

[razeontherock]

This atheist site essentially says that the pi=3 argument is a bad argument, easily refuted:



Peter

All 4 of those were presented in AV's pi thread, and specifically #2 was shown that with the normal thickness, if the laver were perfectly circular the given measurements arrive at pi quite well.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, ya gonna link your pi thread?

Here's my Pi challenge: 1

And here's another one, with a more thorough explanation: 1 -- using a round basin.

 

[Nostromo]

As if pi is even close to the biggest problem in Christian ideology.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Silly man. Ever think of starting with what the text actually says?

Thanks for adding more substance to the thread

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

All 4 of those were presented in AV's pi thread, and specifically #2 was shown that with the normal thickness, if the laver were perfectly circular the given measurements arrive at pi quite well.

Like a lot of things in the Bible, it requires a long thought-out explanation to make it resemble reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

Like a lot of things in the Bible, it requires a long thought-out explanation to make it resemble reality.

That leaves you guys out, doesn't it?

 

[Nostromo]

That leaves you guys out, doesn't it?

That's right, because atheists are sub-normal. You'll just have to humour us.

 

[Split Rock]

It's not an either / or.

This is a discussion forum, is it not?

 

[razeontherock]

Like a lot of things in the Bible, it requires a long thought-out explanation to make it resemble reality.

Yes, G-d gave us a thinker and He expects us to use it!

 

[razeontherock]

This is a discussion forum, is it not?

Yes. We can discuss that ID is not appropriate subject matter in public schools, and that Ev theory is taught poorly. This is not an either / or condition.

 

[Astridhere]

Hello, AV1611VET. I have been following you for many years, and I hope I can finally engage in conversation with you.

Now, it might help if you think of how DNA is replicated. DNA is an acid made up of little building blocks that act like the code for how to build a living thing. You need a whole set for every cell in your body (and there are quite a few cells-- many trillions in fact!)

I'm sure you know that cells split-- Creationists and Evolutionists can agree on that

Every time our cells split, they need to make a new set of DNA. The process itself is tricky, but the code is broken up into chunks and reformed in each cell. This process is not perfect.

Going from STOP -> STOOP is a mistake. It is not a willful addition of information. Somewhere in that tangling and untangling, breaking apart and reforming that goes on when DNA is replicated, a mistake was made and a chunk was added. Sometimes, people even have whole extra chromosomes as well. These are all errors in the duplication process.

This is almost always bad, as we can see from people born with extra chromosomes. Often, these extra chromosomes make it impossible for a fetus to develop as the genetic code makes no sense. This happens with cells as well; if a cell has a changed set of DNA, it may not be able to survive, or it may even develop into cancer.
Yes, they are almost always bad and our system has a way of deleting mistakes.
Very rarely, the mistake might be beneficial. Now, we don't need to get into the nitty-gritty. We don't have to argue about whether or not a duck can grow extra arms or a cat can sprout wings. Understanding the basics would help you understand why these things do not happen.
Yes you do need to get into the nitty gritty because evolutionists use examples like immunity as examples of beneficial mutations which are never going to change a deer into a whale. Your best example in drosophila where after 35 years, comparable to 12,000 human years, did not fix an allele in the population for accelerated development. How less likely is it going to occur in the wild.
Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila : Nature : Nature Publishing Group
What's more the drosophila that did display accelerated development lived shorter lives, weighed less and were less resistant to starvation.

Your classic sweeps are rare, if they happen at all.
Subtle shifts, not major sweeps, drove human evolution

So let us just focus on one teeny-tiny bit of the whole puzzle: mistakes made when replicating DNA. We can agree that they happen, no? Again, let us not worry about the larger implications. I would simply like to explain, as fully as you would like, that bits of DNA can be lost, changed, or added.
No, duplications, are just that..duplications of same for a start. The difference between a deer and a whale amounts to more than gene duplications as is the difference between a chimp and human. Secondly the evidence is that duplications are disadvantageous, similar to the majority of mutations eg trisotomy21. There is no evidence to suggest that say the opposite occurs such as duplications that cause lets say exceptional ability or some advantage.
Does gene duplication provide the engine for evolution?

Further to that, and most importantly your researchers have no idea really what goes on with gene duplications and changes in function. It is all speculative and at times a wish list. Wiki speaks to the list of theories around gene duplication. Many theories in fact demonstrates conclusively that scientists do not know and can only speculate. The point being the latest flavour of the month means little.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_by_Gene_Duplication_(Theoretical_models)
Evolution is full of hopeful claims and theories that really never amount to anything.


Do you have any questions?

No I can see there are no questions really. Your research, biased as it may be, still supports creationist paradigms. Macroevolution is not supported. Rather the research aligns with creationism. The level of mutation required to change a deer like organism into a whale like organism will be non advantageous at best and likely lethal in the wild. Recent work into epigentics demonstrates that changes within kind are somatic and inheritable with no change required in underlying DNA.

When it comes to catastrophe an advantageous trait is more luck than anything else.

When it comes to gradual evolution scenarios what research has actually demonstrated is all this stuff you guys go on about actually does not happen. Your experiments confirm it. You can only demonstrate somatic changes eg beak size, immunity, somatic adaptation. Researchers have to come up with a stream of non plausible scenarios and excuses as to why they are unable to demonstrate their claims.

I think AV has summed up his reasons to dismiss evolution very well and I agree with him.

 

[Split Rock]

Yes. We can discuss that ID is not appropriate subject matter in public schools, and that Ev theory is taught poorly. This is not an either / or condition.

How is Ev theory taught poorly?

 

[Split Rock]

No I can see there are no questions really. Your research, biased as it may be, still supports creationist paradigms. Macroevolution is not supported. Rather the research aligns with creationism.

So far, all you have come up with "if junk DNA has no purpose" as evidence that doesn't support creationism. I have asked you to show us the purpose of highly-repreated or satellite DNA and why the puffer fish has no junk DNA at all. Where are the answers?

The level of mutation required to change a deer like organism into a whale like organism will be non advantageous at best and likely lethal in the wild.

Non sequiter. What "level" is non-advantageous? A mutation is either neutral, benefical or deliterious. It is either selected for, against, or subject to genetic drift. How do "levels" fit in?

Recent work into epigentics demonstrates that changes within kind are somatic and inheritable with no change required in underlying DNA.

Define "kind." Changes within a species can be both inheritable and genetic. You are just plain wrong.

When it comes to catastrophe an advantageous trait is more luck than anything else.

If I understand you correctly, I agree. Why do you think the majority of species are now extinct? Sin???

When it comes to gradual evolution scenarios what research has actually demonstrated is all this stuff you guys go on about actually does not happen. Your experiments confirm it. You can only demonstrate somatic changes eg beak size, immunity, somatic adaptation. Researchers have to come up with a stream of non plausible scenarios and excuses as to why they are unable to demonstrate their claims.

You do nothing but make baseless assertions here... I suppose so you can read your own posts.

I think AV has summed up his reasons to dismiss evolution very well and I agree with him.

Of course you "agree" with him. Just as you guys "agree" with the gibberish that dad posts. You are all "brothers and sisters in Christ" who do whatever it takes to deny reality here.

 

[selfinflikted]

Yes, G-d gave us a thinker and He expects us to use it!

Except for the times when we do use it and our findings contradict the Bible, right?

 

[razeontherock]

How is Ev theory taught poorly?

Now that question, has lots of answers!

My pet peeve is the impression given of "fact," drastically overstating what is known. For example, I trust you are aware of how much was recovered of any given skeleton. Some are good and nearly complete, many are mostly missing and ... filled in with our expectations. (Otherwise known as closure) I would like to think progress has been made wrt honesty on this subject, but usually such detail is omitted at earlier levels of education.

This is one strong bias, and it amounts to indoctrination, and honestly looks like there is something to hide. In any event it is in the best interest of science itself to teach how much remains to be discovered ...

 

[razeontherock]

Except for the times when we do use it and our findings contradict the Bible, right?

No, that is just the beginning of using our thinker

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Now that question, has lots of answers!

My pet peeve is the impression given of "fact," drastically overstating what is known. For example, I trust you are aware of how much was recovered of any given skeleton. Some are good and nearly complete, many are mostly missing and ... filled in with our expectations. (Otherwise known as closure) I would like to think progress has been made wrt honesty on this subject, but usually such detail is omitted at earlier levels of education.

This is one strong bias, and it amounts to indoctrination, and honestly looks like there is something to hide. In any event it is in the best interest of science itself to teach how much remains to be discovered ...

If you understood the genetic evidence, you'd realize that fossils are icing on the cake. If we never dug for fossils but still had the DNA evidence, evolution would still be just as strong. Fossils are truly wonderful and demonstrate the tree of life well, but as far as strength of evidence goes, genetics wins.

Unfortunately, to truly understand the genetic evidence, you have to have a decent understanding of biology.

 

[razeontherock]

If you understood the genetic evidence, you'd realize that fossils are icing on the cake.

Well I do understand that genetic evidence is much stronger than fossil evidence, so again you demonstrate that one can have some knowledge, yet still arrive at wrong conclusions.