The defeated, the undefeated and the proud (invite only)

[the iconoclast]

When it comes to Life I hope you would agree that it is important to get the balance right, to have an appropriate sense of scale. And when it comes to scales then having a dragon on your side puts you ahead of the game.

Hey hey my dear

Thank you for your interesting perspective. Wow so far 3 atheists seem to really like kylies dragon. We do live in interesting times ;p

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey my atheist friend

Lets hang here for a bit. Are u suggesting that i must seek out the dragon? The dragon does not come to me?

Cheers

Why do you think the Dragon would force itself on you?

 

[the iconoclast]

Why do you think the Dragon would force itself on you?

Hey hey my favourite atheist (sorry @Subduction Zone.)

That response did not address the question or was even relevant. Check out the context of our conversation.

Kylie - "You'll have to speak or otherwise communicate with the Dragon to learn the full extent of the Dragon's capabilities. I'm not privy to everything the dragon can do."

Icon - Are u suggesting that i must seek out the dragon? The dragon does not come to me?

Kylie - "Why do you think the Dragon would force itself on you.

No one said anything about force. It was a simple question abouting seeking your dragon.

You are most welcome to a second attempt.

Are u suggesting that i must seek out the dragon? The dragon does not come to me?

Cheers and dont be shy, something as astonishing as this entity you believe in needs to be explored and the news spread far, and wide.

This thing exists to you and you confess your sins to it. Heads up when we move on this honest experience you have will come into play.

Cant wait!!!

How is that going for you, anyways?

Cheers

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey my favourite atheist (sorry @Subduction Zone.)

That response did not address the question or was even relevant. Check out the context of our conversation.

Kylie - "You'll have to speak or otherwise communicate with the Dragon to learn the full extent of the Dragon's capabilities. I'm not privy to everything the dragon can do."

Icon - Are u suggesting that i must seek out the dragon? The dragon does not come to me?

Kylie - "Why do you think the Dragon would force itself on you.

No one said anything about force. It was a simple question abouting seeking your dragon.

You are most welcome to a second attempt.

Are u suggesting that i must seek out the dragon? The dragon does not come to me?

Cheers and dont be shy, something as astonishing as this entity you believe in needs to be explored and the news spread far, and wide.

This thing exists to you and you confess your sins to it. Heads up when we move on this honest experience you have will come into play.

Cant wait!!!

How is that going for you, anyways?

Cheers

My answer did address the question. The Dragon does not come to you because if it did, it would be forcing itself into your life. The Dragon will not be a part of your life unless you want it in your life.

Also, I don't recall saying that I confess my sins to the dragon...

 

[the iconoclast]

My answer did address the question. The Dragon does not come to you because if it did, it would be forcing itself into your life. The Dragon will not be a part of your life unless you want it in your life.

Hey hey

Are u suggesting that i must seek out the dragon? The dragon does not come to me?

Also, I don't recall saying that I confess my sins to the dragon...

To get the proof that there is a dragon in her backyard, i must follow the Dragon method ie open your heart to the dragon, confess your sins of doubting the Dragon and acknowledge that the Dragon is your saviour. For this to work you must have complete trust that the Dragon is who He says He is and you must humble your self. Once we have 100% faith then we get a result. You will feel the presence of the Dragon and He can be known through the Dragon Spirit.

This was your comparison. You too can attribute these properties to your dragon and it would be no different to Jesus?

Did you not say these things?

You did these things, did you not?

Cheers

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey

Are u suggesting that i must seek out the dragon? The dragon does not come to me?



To get the proof that there is a dragon in her backyard, i must follow the Dragon method ie open your heart to the dragon, confess your sins of doubting the Dragon and acknowledge that the Dragon is your saviour. For this to work you must have complete trust that the Dragon is who He says He is and you must humble your self. Once we have 100% faith then we get a result. You will feel the presence of the Dragon and He can be known through the Dragon Spirit.

This was your comparison. You too can attribute these properties to your dragon and it would be no different to Jesus?

Did you not say these things?

You did these things, did you not?

Cheers

You really need to stop doing this.

I have not made any posts in this thread about the need to confess sins to the dragon. Please don't misrepresent my position.

 

[the iconoclast]

You really need to stop doing this.

I have not made any posts in this thread about the need to confess sins to the dragon. Please don't misrepresent my position.

Hey hey my dear

You wrote this to me

Kylie - "This is no different to me saying, "To get the proof that there is a dragon in my backyard, we must follow the Dragon method ie open your heart to the dragon, confess your sins of doubting the Dragon and acknowledge that the Dragon is your saviour. For this to work you must have complete trust that the Dragon is who He says He is and you must humble your self. Once we have 100% faith then we get a result. You will feel the presence of the Dragon and He can be known through the Dragon Spirit."

So what do you mean here?

So we know The Dragon does not force himself onto other, so are u suggesting that i must seek out the dragon? The dragon does not come to me?

Failure to answer this will be consider suspicious.

Cheers

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey my dear

You wrote this to me

Kylie - "This is no different to me saying, "To get the proof that there is a dragon in my backyard, we must follow the Dragon method ie open your heart to the dragon, confess your sins of doubting the Dragon and acknowledge that the Dragon is your saviour. For this to work you must have complete trust that the Dragon is who He says He is and you must humble your self. Once we have 100% faith then we get a result. You will feel the presence of the Dragon and He can be known through the Dragon Spirit."

So what do you mean here?

So we know The Dragon does not force himself onto other, so are u suggesting that i must seek out the dragon? The dragon does not come to me?

Failure to answer this will be consider suspicious.

Cheers

Ah, so that is in a different thread. (A link to the post would have been nice instead of making me do a search, but...)

I was using that as a counterpoint to your argument. I literally just cut and pasted your comment and changed the words Jesus to "The Dragon". That's all. It was not meant to suggest that confessing your sins to the dragon was required.

 

[the iconoclast]

Ah, so that is in a different thread. (A link to the post would have been nice instead of making me do a search, but...)

Hey hey friend

All our previous discussion topics are now balled into one. Yep 2018 dec, i told you i have got a good memory and i record all our discussions. I have easy access to things that you say.

I was using that as a counterpoint to your argument. I literally just cut and pasted your comment and changed the words Jesus to "The Dragon". That's all.

That kills your argument. You literally cut and paste attributes that do not belong to your dragon, swiped from how a sinner comes to Jesus.

It was not meant to suggest that confessing your sins to the dragon was required.

So if its not required and you did not do these things to get your experience from the dragon - a dragon who you have experienced and believes is real.

Then it is redundant, you cannot attribute such qualities to this dragon if it does not have them. Case closed, you loose the point and now its up for grabs.

Kyli - "This is no different to me saying To get the proof that there is a dragon in my backyard, we must follow the Dragon method ie open your heart to the dragon....etc"

So it is different! What is a category error?

While we are here lets confirm some things.

Is this dragon a reality to you?
Does this dragon bless you?
Is this dragon the reason for the unverse and life?
Do you communicate with this dragon?

Cheers my unique and special creature

Ps
We will hang here for a while as it would seem you did not get a result from using the Christian faith formula to a non deity. We need to double check some things.

You still are adamant you have an invisible dragon in your backyard?

Pss
I edit post 1 to reflect any changes. The offical score card is there.

Kylie loses 1 point

Kylie - 1
Icon - 0

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey friend

All our previous discussion topics are now balled into one. Yep 2018 dec, i told you i have got a good memory and i record all our discussions. I have easy access to things that you say.



That kills your argument. You literally cut and paste attributes that do not belong to your dragon, swiped from how a sinner comes to Jesus.



So if its not required and you did not do these things to get your experience from the dragon - a dragon who you have experienced and believes is real.

Then it is redundant, you cannot attribute such qualities to this dragon if it does not have them. Case closed, you loose the point and now its up for grabs.

Kyli - "This is no different to me saying To get the proof that there is a dragon in my backyard, we must follow the Dragon method ie open your heart to the dragon....etc"

So it is different! What is a category error?

While we are here lets confirm some things.

Is this dragon a reality to you?
Does this dragon bless you?
Is this dragon the reason for the unverse and life?
Do you communicate with this dragon?

Cheers my unique and special creature

Ps
We will hang here for a while as it would seem you did not get a result from using the Christian faith formula to a non deity. We need to double check some things.

You still are adamant you have an invisible dragon in your backyard?

Pss
I edit post 1 to reflect any changes. The offical score card is there.

Kylie loses 1 point

Kylie - 1
Icon - 0

No, you lose one point, because I was not attempting to describe attributes of the Dragon, I was attempting to show that the argument you proposed would not be acceptable to you if applied to something else. If you'd included the claim that believing in Jesus would teleport you to Mars, I would have included that too.

You have a very bad habit of misinterpreting things. In the paste you've refused to accept it when I've attempted to correct you, I do hope that won't be the case this time.

 

[the iconoclast]

No, you lose one point, because I was not attempting to describe attributes of the Dragon,

Hey hey kylie

As you already said you just cut and paste what i said about Jesus and attributed to your dragon.

I may have not gotten the terminology right, could you explain to me what a category error is?

I was attempting to show that the argument you proposed would not be acceptable to you if applied to something else.

So my argument would not be acceptable is you were to attribute properties to a thing which cannot have such properties?

If you'd included the claim that believing in Jesus would teleport you to Mars, I would have included that too.

So you would gladly attribute properties to an entity that does not have those attributes. The properties you assigned - cut and paste - are unique to Jesus?

You have a very bad habit of misinterpreting things.

Hahaha how or where have i misrepresented you?

In the paste you've refused to accept it when I've attempted to correct you, I do hope that won't be the case this time.

I doubt that very much. The problem here is that a Christian cannot be right, most atheists wriggle and dont like to be caught.

I caught you out.

Your dragon is made up by you - very obvious. You dont really believe in such a thing and you are guilty of a category error?

You will now have to defend yourself and your position.

Tell me the definition of a category error and show me how you are not guilty of the offense.

You still lose that point and here is your last chance.

Cheers

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey kylie

As you already said you just cut and paste what i said about Jesus and attributed to your dragon.

I may have not gotten the terminology right, could you explain to me what a category error is?

Why is that relevant? I'm saying that I was not stating an actual description of the dragon, I was pointing out how the same logic would not be convincing to you if it was applied to something else.

So my argument would not be acceptable is you were to attribute properties to a thing which cannot have such properties?

Again, you do not seem to understand my point.

I used the exact same argument for the dragon that you used for God/Jesus.

If the logic is valid, then you must accept it as a valid argument for the Dragon. If you do not accept it as an argument for the Dragon, then it can't be a valid argument for God either.

So you would gladly attribute properties to an entity that does not have those attributes. The properties you assigned - cut and paste - are unique to Jesus?

It's not relevant.

Hahaha how or where have i misrepresented you?

I have literally just explained that.

I doubt that very much. The problem here is that a Christian cannot be right, most atheists wriggle and dont like to be caught.

I caught you out.

Your dragon is made up by you - very obvious. You dont really believe in such a thing and you are guilty of a category error?

You will now have to defend yourself and your position.

Tell me the definition of a category error and show me how you are not guilty of the offense.

You still lose that point and here is your last chance.

Cheers

Again, no.

I have been very clear about this.

You proposed a certain logical argument and claimed that it is a valid evidence for God. I showed how that same argument can be used as an argument for the Dragon.

If the argument is valid, it supports the existence of the Dragon just as much as it does the existence of God.

Yet if you claim that the argument is not a valid argument for the existence of the dragon, then it can't count as valid for God either.

So either you have to admit one of three things:

1. Your argument is not a valid argument for God
2. The Dragon is just as valid as God
3. You pick and choose whether you agree with something based on whether you want to believe it, not on the strength of the argument for it.

Which is it to be?

 

[the iconoclast]

Why is that relevant?

Hey hey kylie

Ill show you why its relevant. Ill cut and paste some properties from a person named Marilynne Robinson from the book Housekeeping

” … in the last years she continued to settle and began to shrink. Her mouth bowed forward and her brow sloped back, and her skull shone pink and speckled within a mere haze of hair, which hovered about her head like the remembered shape of an altered thing."

Can i cut and paste these attributes and assign them to you?

I'm saying that I was not stating an actual description of the dragon, I was pointing out how the same logic would not be convincing to you if it was applied to something else.

It would not be convincing because it would prove you made it up.

Again, you do not seem to understand my point.


I used the exact same argument for the dragon that you used for God/Jesus.

Yep, you applied a whole heap of conditions to something that has not got those conditions.

If the logic is valid, then you must accept it as a valid argument for the Dragon.

The logic is erroneous and its interesting how you wont elaborate what a category error is to me. Something quite suspicious here.

If you do not accept it as an argument for the Dragon, then it can't be a valid argument for God either.

So if i dont accept the argument that you are allowed to cut and past properties from one entity to another. Then logically i cant accept the entity that you cut and pasted from?

This is a stitch up, you are not fooling anyone kylie.

I understand your argument. If i say there is a God and to find the proof you will need to open your heart and follow the Christian faith formula, then you can make up an entity, ascribe properties to it and its no different.

But the fact that you did cut and paste shows a bad argument.

This dragon is made up by you.

It's not relevant.

Yes it is and i still see that you wont defend yourself against the category error i have charged you with. You seem to be weak at defending your position and too used to getting your own way.

I have literally just explained that.

Well dont be shy. Show me the post you have an issue with?

Ill admit i did use a technique - in one post - which was to exaggerate what you said so I'd get a final answer from you. It worked and i have what you said recorded for future use.

Again, no.


I have been very clear about this.

Again yes. The fact that you wont defend your self against the category error proves that you dont want to be caught out.

You proposed a certain logical argument and claimed that it is a valid evidence for God.

I did and its unique to Christianty, not to dragons.

I showed how that same argument can be used as an argument for the Dragon.

Yep. The Christian faith formula - unique to Christianity - can be applied to anything.

If the argument is valid, it supports the existence of the Dragon just as much as it does the existence of God.

No it doesnt my dear. You have been in your comfort zone for too long.

If the argument is valid then so is the square root of the colour yellow.

Yet if you claim that the argument is not a valid argument for the existence of the dragon, then it can't count as valid for God either.

Here is your chance to explain why you think you have a valid argument. Why are you allow to ascribe properties that dont belong to one thing from another?

So either you have to admit one of three things:

I think i have more options here than the ones you have tried to pigeon hole.

Your argument is not a valid argument for God

Well i have opened my heart to Jesus and am in a relationship with God through the Holy Spirit. So i wont be choosing this one.

The Dragon is just as valid as God

A dragon you made up, cut and pasted attributes from Christian faith to and one you dont believe in.

Pass.

You pick and choose whether you agree with something based on whether you want to believe it, not on the strength of the argument for it.

Pass, my experiences with God happen and have changed me in such a way, here i am going out of my way to talk with you.

Which is it to be?

Non of them. What other options do you think i have?

Kylie, you need to address the charge i made against you. Ignoring it will not make it go away, Ill just keep replying

Dont be shy, that point is still up in the air and you seem not willing to defend yourself against the charge that you made a category error. Show me how you have not made one?

Cheers

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey kylie

Ill show you why its relevant. Ill cut and paste some properties from a person named Marilynne Robinson from the book Housekeeping

” … in the last years she continued to settle and began to shrink. Her mouth bowed forward and her brow sloped back, and her skull shone pink and speckled within a mere haze of hair, which hovered about her head like the remembered shape of an altered thing."

Can i cut and paste these attributes and assign them to you?

No. I was very clear. I can't understand how you don't get what I was trying to say.

Let me state it as basically as I can.

There are two people. The first says, "I claim that God exists based on Argument X. This is a valid argument, therefore it serves to show that God actually exists."

The second person says, "I claim that a different entity exists, and I also use Argument X to demonstrate the existence of this different entity."

Since the first person accepts the validity of Argument X (since they use it to show God exists), they should also accept that it proves the different entity exists as well, shouldn't they?

It would not be convincing because it would prove you made it up.

If the use of that reasoning proves I made up the dragon, then it must also prove that God is made up.

Yep, you applied a whole heap of conditions to something that has not got those conditions.

I'm not talking about the dragon, I'm talking about the validity of the argument you used.

The logic is erroneous and its interesting how you wont elaborate what a category error is to me. Something quite suspicious here.

Because it's not relevant to the discussion. It would be like me demanding you define a computer server in a discussion about how to make cookies.

So if i dont accept the argument that you are allowed to cut and past properties from one entity to another. Then logically i cant accept the entity that you cut and pasted from?

This is a stitch up, you are not fooling anyone kylie.

I understand your argument. If i say there is a God and to find the proof you will need to open your heart and follow the Christian faith formula, then you can make up an entity, ascribe properties to it and its no different.

But the fact that you did cut and paste shows a bad argument.

This dragon is made up by you.

Again, you seem incapable of understanding the point I am trying to make.

If a particular argument is valid, then you can't say it works when it is used to show your God exists but it doesn't work when it is used to show something else exists. The argument is always valid or it is never valid.

Yes it is and i still see that you wont defend yourself against the category error i have charged you with. You seem to be weak at defending your position and too used to getting your own way.

We aren't talking about category errors here.

Well dont be shy. Show me the post you have an issue with?

Post 130, where I explained to you how an argument isn't just valid when you want it to be.

Ill admit i did use a technique - in one post - which was to exaggerate what you said so I'd get a final answer from you. It worked and i have what you said recorded for future use.

So you have to resort to strawman arguments.

Again yes. The fact that you wont defend your self against the category error proves that you dont want to be caught out.

Again: we're not talking about category errors here. We're talking about how you want to think that an argument is only valid when it supports your point of view.

I did and its unique to Christianty, not to dragons.

Yep. The Christian faith formula - unique to Christianity - can be applied to anything.

Wow. I've never seen anyone contradict themselves so quickly before.

You go from saying that the argument can be used only for Christianity to saying that the argument can be applied to anything.

No it doesnt my dear.

You just said the argument can be applied to anything. You're flip-flopping more than a politician.

If the argument is valid then so is the square root of the colour yellow.

So your argument for God is meaningless?

Here is your chance to explain why you think you have a valid argument. Why are you allow to ascribe properties that dont belong to one thing from another?

Not talking about the properties! I'm talking about how you pick and choose when an argument is valid and when it isn't.

I think i have more options here than the ones you have tried to pigeon hole.

Let's see what these extra options are then...

Well i have opened my heart to Jesus and am in a relationship with God through the Holy Spirit. So i wont be choosing this one.

Didn't think you would.

A dragon you made up, cut and pasted attributes from Christian faith to and one you dont believe in.

Pass.

Right. So look at the argument:

"To get the proof of X, we must follow X's method ie open your heart to X, confess your sins of doubting X and acknowledge that X is your saviour. For this to work you must have complete trust that X is who He says He is and you must humble your self. Once we have 100% faith then we get a result. You will feel the presence of X and He can be known through X's Spirit."
​

Is this argument for getting proof of X valid?

Because you are saying that it's valid for God, but not for the Dragon.

And THAT is the point I am making.

Pass, my experiences with God happen and have changed me in such a way, here i am going out of my way to talk with you.

Oh, I'm so sorry that this conversation is such an inconvenience to you.

Non of them. What other options do you think i have?

You're the one who said that you thought you had other options. Can't you tell me what these alleged other options are? Or don't you have any other options?

Kylie, you need to address the charge i made against you. Ignoring it will not make it go away, Ill just keep replying

Dont be shy, that point is still up in the air and you seem not willing to defend yourself against the charge that you made a category error. Show me how you have not made one?

Cheers

Once again, we are not talking about category errors. Are you just going to randomly bring that up whenever you can't address my points? I have made it abundantly clear that my point is that you are saying that a particular argument is valid when it supports your views but invalid when it contradicts your views. You must explain how that works or you must accept that when I use your argument to show the Dragon exists, it is just as valid as your argument for God.

 

[the iconoclast]

No. I was very clear. I can't understand how you don't get what I was trying to say.

Let me state it as basically as I can.

There are two people. The first says, "I claim that God exists based on Argument X. This is a valid argument, therefore it serves to show that God actually exists."

The second person says, "I claim that a different entity exists, and I also use Argument X to demonstrate the existence of this different entity."

Since the first person accepts the validity of Argument X (since they use it to show God exists), they should also accept that it proves the different entity exists as well, shouldn't they?



If the use of that reasoning proves I made up the dragon, then it must also prove that God is made up.



I'm not talking about the dragon, I'm talking about the validity of the argument you used.



Because it's not relevant to the discussion. It would be like me demanding you define a computer server in a discussion about how to make cookies.



Again, you seem incapable of understanding the point I am trying to make.

If a particular argument is valid, then you can't say it works when it is used to show your God exists but it doesn't work when it is used to show something else exists. The argument is always valid or it is never valid.



We aren't talking about category errors here.



Post 130, where I explained to you how an argument isn't just valid when you want it to be.



So you have to resort to strawman arguments.



Again: we're not talking about category errors here. We're talking about how you want to think that an argument is only valid when it supports your point of view.



Wow. I've never seen anyone contradict themselves so quickly before.

You go from saying that the argument can be used only for Christianity to saying that the argument can be applied to anything.



You just said the argument can be applied to anything. You're flip-flopping more than a politician.



So your argument for God is meaningless?



Not talking about the properties! I'm talking about how you pick and choose when an argument is valid and when it isn't.



Let's see what these extra options are then...



Didn't think you would.



Right. So look at the argument:

"To get the proof of X, we must follow X's method ie open your heart to X, confess your sins of doubting X and acknowledge that X is your saviour. For this to work you must have complete trust that X is who He says He is and you must humble your self. Once we have 100% faith then we get a result. You will feel the presence of X and He can be known through X's Spirit."
​

Is this argument for getting proof of X valid?

Because you are saying that it's valid for God, but not for the Dragon.

And THAT is the point I am making.



Oh, I'm so sorry that this conversation is such an inconvenience to you.



You're the one who said that you thought you had other options. Can't you tell me what these alleged other options are? Or don't you have any other options?



Once again, we are not talking about category errors. Are you just going to randomly bring that up whenever you can't address my points? I have made it abundantly clear that my point is that you are saying that a particular argument is valid when it supports your views but invalid when it contradicts your views. You must explain how that works or you must accept that when I use your argument to show the Dragon exists, it is just as valid as your argument for God.

Hey hey kylie

Im back!!! Sorry for delay, in a new band, been practicing and rocking out with some funky groove. I cant wait to get into it again with you. First i need to address some ppls.

The show will go on soon. Hey @Shemjaza, our conversation will be moved here and will happen shortly. I bet you shiver with anticipation.

 

[the iconoclast]

VirOptimus can speak for himself. I questioned your implication that evolution has not been observed.

Hey hey james d

Well my dear, he did voice a complaint to the mods about me. Thats how he speaks for himself, he enjoys dishing it out but he cant take it.

Well this is why i called him out, he likes to make statements and not defend his position. Has evolution been observed? Please provide an example and not just a statement my friend.

What have you got?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

The theory of evolution has nothing to say about the existence of God, one way or the other.

Hey hey brother im back!!!

From wiki on evolution

"The major criticism of theistic evolution by non-theistic evolutionists focuses on its essential belief in a supernatural creator. These critics argue that by the application of Occam's razor, sufficient explanation of the phenomena of evolution is provided by natural processes (in particular, natural selection), and the intervention or direction of a supernatural entity is not required"

What do you think about this excerpt?

Of course it is, and the theory of evolution does not deny it.

Woud you say that the mainstream theory of Evolution encourages the concept of a Creator?

If i were to accept evolution as fact how would that benefit me?

Ps dont parrot the others and say reality. Give me something good.

None of it. It is all the inspired Word of God.

Speedwell - It (evolution) only denies a literal interpretation of Genesis, but not on purpose, only incidentally.

1. So evolution denies a literal interpretation of Genesis and you agree wth evolution.
2. On the other hand you believe none of Genesis should be discarded.

How do you reconcile these 2?

If 1 conflicts with 2 which one do you ultimately choose?

Don't be fooled by these creationists who say that if you don't take it to be 100% accurate literal history you are discounting or discarding it.

Thanks for the heads up. Heres a heads up for you, im a Pentecostal Christian. Who are these creationists that are trying to fool me or i should watch out for?

What do you mean here, do you not accept the Bible as 100% accurate?
You say dont be fooled, what makes it not 100% accurate? What should be discounted?

Cheers, i will be back and forth. Busy time practising for my new band, gotta gig in 3 weeks????

Dude i rock!!!

 

[the iconoclast]

You did indeed run away from discussing evidence for evolution.

Hey hey my dear brother in Christ.

Again, i disagree. I have all our conversations recorded.

Sfs - "What discussion? So far all that's happened is you've written a series of posts saying you're going to discuss evolution and quibbling about definitions."

Haha quibble. You have been hanging out with @Kylie too much. Hey @Kylie


Dude i WANT a discussion and i want one with you. Now i have your attention!

Great. Here is some evidence for the common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees. Offer a different explanation for the data.

Wow and thank you. Lets check out what you have for me

"One question that comes up frequently about evolutionary biology is whether it really boils down to speculation and assumption"

Brother this is fantastic as the link you have shared helps continue our previous conversation about a single common ancestor and random processes.

Brother you may not have a good memory. Lucky that i do.

"To a scientist, though, the right question is not, “Were you there?” but rather “What if?"

So evolution is a what if?

"One way we can test for shared ancestry with chimpanzees is to look at the genetic differences between the two species. If shared ancestry is true, these differences result from lots of mutations that have accumulated in the two lineages over millions of years. That means they should look like mutations."

While we are here can you point me in the direction of this common ancestor ie what was it?

That was a question you refused to answer. So answer it?

"On the other hand, if humans and chimpanzees appeared by special creation, we would not expect their genetic differences to bear the distinctive signature of descent from a common ancestor."

My dear this statement is an assumption. It assumes a trend.

"What do mutations look like, then? DNA consists of a long string of four chemical bases, which we usually call A, C, G and T (for adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine). A mutation is any change to that string."

"This means that as they accumulate, mutations create a characteristic pattern of more and less common changes. It is that pattern that we can look for to see if genetic differences were caused by mutations."

Are you familiar with any positive mutations?

"To determine the pattern for mutations, I calculated the rates for the four classes using human diversity data (which is available online). Then I calculated the pattern seen when comparing human and chimpanzee DNA, also using public data. The first graph is the distribution for humans. As expected, transitions are the most common. That pattern is our signature–the sign that mutation has been at work."

I'm curious how does this prove a mutation is at work?


"The second graph is the same distribution for differences between human and chimpanzee DNA. The overall rates are different–there are 12 times as many differences between human and chimpanzee DNA as there are between DNA from two humans (note the different scale on the y-axis of the graphs)–but the pattern is almost identical."

If there a 12 times as many differences between humans and chimpanzees how cN there be a pattern?

"Remember my opening question: if humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor, what should we see? What we should see is what we do see: genetic differences between the species that look exactly like they were produced by mutations."

I dont see anything that concludes they were produced by mutations but i do like the artwork.

"In scientific terms, I had a hypothesis about the distant past, I tested the hypothesis with data, and it passed the test."

I do not see anything that confirmed common ancestry. In fact im very unimpressed by your evidence so far. What else have you got?

"Everywhere we look, the pattern is the same. That’s true even though the overall rate of genetic difference ranges from less than 1% (human vs chimpanzee) to more than 5% (humans vs baboons). The genetic differences between species always look like mutations."

How does a genetic difference confirm a mutation?

Lets stop here. I look forward to our discussion but cant help feeling disappointed with the evidence supplied.

You may think im stupid for believing in a God who designed and created a human friendly planet. You do not realise how gullible i think someone is who agrees with scientific words and artwork, which dont prove anything but sound nice.

Cheers brother

 

[sfs]

So evolution is a what if?

No. Evolution was a "what if" when it was first thought of. Then scientists considered the evidence and concluded that it had happened.

While we are here can you point me in the direction of this common ancestor ie what was it?

It was an ape that lived about 7 million years ago. Since we're not living 7 million years ago, I don't know how I'm supposed to point you to it. What does this have to do with the evidence we're talking about?

My dear this statement is an assumption. It assumes a trend.

I don't know what that means. What trend does it assume?

Are you familiar with any positive mutations?

Yes. Are you aware that your question has nothing to do with what you quoted?

I'm curious how does this prove a mutation is at work?

Because we see the same pattern in differences between humans and chimps as between two humans. We know the latter is caused by mutation. If you have an alternative explanation for why we see the same pattern, by all means offer it.

If there a 12 times as many differences between humans and chimpanzees how cN there be a pattern?

This is a pattern:

This is the same pattern:

Do the two figures really not look similar to you?

I do not see anything that confirmed common ancestry. In fact im very unimpressed by your evidence so far. What else have you got?

I'm sorry. I was under the impression you wanted to discuss the evidence. You show no sign of having understood what the evidence is, much less engaged with it in a meaningful way. We can move on to another piece of evidence when you've dealt with this one.

Now, the question is simple: why do the two patterns of genetic difference look so similar?

 

[tampasteve]

MOD HAT ON

This thread is now permanently closed. In general "invite only" threads are not allowed and the topic has become an apologetic thread, which is not allowed in this forum.

MOD HAT OFF​