Where did the laws of nature come from?

[stevevw]

That you'd have better luck convincing people that your accusation that I deceptively put the quotes out of order if you'd actually point to the posts they came from. But for some reason instead you're talking about a bunch of unrelated posts - which tells me you've made yet another baseless accusation.

A quote from Oct 8th isn't before the 4th. It doesn't have much to do with your claim that I posted things out of order. What's your point, other than to demonstrate that rather than admitting you were making stuff up about me that you tried to pretend you never said it.

Ah thats the 4th of November. The 8th of October is well before the 4th of November from that other quote. There are even other ones going back to July and the point is the later one on the 4th was a repeat of the same earlier ones saying the same things. You started to accuse me of this back well before October. You kept asking me where have you said that selection is negligible and insufficient for complex life and I kept showing you the quotes. You said you didn't say this directly I assumed and I said I didn't say you said it directly but that you claimed the papers said this to ensure I had clarified things.

The point is you have decided to use a later version of the same quote I repeated. You have put the other statemnet first to make out I accused you of admitting something and then later changed my mind. That is not the case. Besides even if I had both opinions what does it matter as they were formed apart from each other. A person can believe that another has a certain position at one stage and then form another opinion later as they think and reassess things.

You are trying to put me into some box you want to make for me that only paints one picture which is a negative one with no other considerations at all. In other words you are holding a kangaroo court and being judge jury and executioner.

This debate has been diverted to these ridiculous claims about me and not the debate. You have done this several times for which I have shown you were wrong. It seems that you are trying to discredit me and therefore discredit what I have said about evolution which is a logical fallacy. I have seen this before that when someone persists with challenging evolution people begin to mock the person and source rather than deal with the debate. Theres this attitude that anyone who doesn't agree with evolution must have something wrong with them. Now every one of your replies is about attacking the person and not debating the issues. The reality is everyone is not the same and people do have different views and they have a right to their view and a right not to be ridiculed for their views.

 

[stevevw]

Yep, you made the edit about a half hour after I first pointed out the contradiction in post 1977. I'm sure those two facts are totally unrelated, though.


This is simply not true. See the end of this post where I identified the problem : Where did the laws of nature come from?. You'll notice the date on that post is Nov 4th.

So any other excuses you want to try? The list is getting kinda long but there's always room for more.

My point as I also made the same remark on the 8th of October nearly a full month before this and similar remarks in September, August and even July when you first started to make this accusation well before this remark in November. This takes this ongoing debate about your accusation back well before me reassessing things and saying you did mean what you said through your own logic.

The real issue though is all this is over such a trivial point that you want to prove that I contradicted myself. I could show you the many times you have done the same. But what does this prove and what is the point. Is it going to negate your point about the papers, no of course not because that is a separate thing. I am not going to judge what you say about a scientific debate based on whether you made some contradiction about some other trivial point that is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Thats what politicians do so that they can side track the debate as seen in your recent elections. The candidates spent more time trying to undermine each others character rather than debate the issues. The last 10 pages or so have been about you ridiculing the person rather than debating the issues.

 

[KCfromNC]

Many papers state that there are mostly small deleterious effects from mutations.

If you say so. Too bad you didn't

But I am surprised you say that I have supplied only 1 paper.

I'm guessing many things back here in reality surprise you. But this shouldn't. You listed how many papers in the post I was replying to? Oh yeah, the answer is 1.

Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability. October 2009

Excerpt: The accepted paradigm that proteins can tolerate nearly any amino acid substitution has been replaced by the view that the deleterious effects of mutations, and especially their tendency to undermine the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of protein, is a major constraint on protein evolvability,,
Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability. - PubMed - NCBI

Which has nothing to do with the question of the frequency of neutral mutations.

The rest of the papers have the same problem - while they're interesting none of them are relevant to your claim that most mutations are an error to what is already working.

Come on, you should know by now I'm going to actually read the quotes rather than just blindly accept your claims that they support your faith on the matter. Did you really think you'd fool anyone?

 

[KCfromNC]

Note that I'm just starting to cut out claims which are complete fabrications. If you're interested in me discussing them, let's see some direct quotes rather than what you hope maybe you think you might have remembered.

Ah thats the 4th of November.

Nope, the 4th of October :

Oh sorry thats right you also acknowledged that natural selection is insufficient for the origin of complex organisms

But hey, it isn't too late to edit that post yet again to try and change reality.

You kept asking me where have you said that selection is negligible and insufficient for complex life and I kept showing you the quotes.

If this were true you wouldn't be talking about changing your mind later in the post. You really should make up one excuse and stick to it.

I assumed and I said I didn't say you said it directly but that you claimed the papers said this to ensure I had clarified things.

Wait, weren't you just saying that I reversed the quotes to make it look like you were changing your mind? And here you are confirming that the quotes were in the correct order because you did change your mind. Can you at least apologize for lying about me when you said I deceptively reversed the order of the quotes.

The point is you have decided to use a later version of the same quote I repeated.

Guess not.

A person can believe that another has a certain position at one stage and then form another opinion later as they think and reassess things.

Pro tip : when this happens the socially acceptable option is to apologize and move on, not accuse the person you were wrong about of being a liar.

You are trying to put me into some box you want to make for me that only paints one picture which is a negative one

If you don't like how the written record makes you look, guess who is to blame?

It seems that you are trying to discredit me

I wouldn't say I'm really trying that hard. It just seems to happen naturally by quoting the various contradictory excuses you've come up with.

I have seen this before that when someone persists with challenging evolution people begin to mock the person and source rather than deal with the debate.Theres this attitude that anyone who doesn't agree with evolution must have something wrong with them. Now every one of your replies is about attacking the person and not debating the issues.The reality is everyone is not the same and people do have different views and they have a right to their view and a right not to be ridiculed for their views.

This is very impressive coming from someone calling me deceptive and dishonest for simply quoting him.

 

[KCfromNC]

My point as I also made the same remark on the 8th of October nearly a full month before this and similar remarks in September, August and even July

You keep listing random dates but for some reason have problems showing what posts you're talking about. Given your track record, I have a hard time taking any of that sort of thing seriously.

The real issue though is all this is over such a trivial point that you want to prove that I contradicted myself.

It isn't that you contradicted yourself. It is my amusement that instead of just admitting it you're running around in a thousand different directions trying to find some way to make your feeling on the subject into truth. I keep posting a plain, simple contradiction and each time you come back with a new excuse, each one at odds with the last.

I'm sure there's some relationship there to the approach you've shown towards the scientific literature. I'll see if you have the insight to make the connection, though.

I could show you the many times you have done the same.

It is interesting you feel that your own problems consistently reconciling your beliefs with reality are shared by everyone else.

 

[Mobezom]

Once and for all:

"Evolutionary biology is treated unlike any science by both academics and the general public. For the average person, evolution is equivalent to natural selection, and because the concept of selection is easy to grasp, a reasonable understanding of comparative biology is often taken to be a license for evolutionary speculation. It has long been known that natural selection is just one of several mechanisms of evolutionary change, but the myth that all of evolution can be explained by adaptation continues to be perpetuated by our continued homage to Darwin's treatise in the popular literature. … There is, of course, a substantial difference between the popular literature and the knowledge base that has grown from a century of evolutionary research, but this distinction is often missed by nonevolutionary biologists [including the authors of EE].
…
[E]volution is a population-genetic process governed by four fundamental forces. Darwin articulated one of those forces, the process of natural selection, for which an elaborate theory in terms of genotype frequencies now exists. The remaining three evolutionary forces are nonadaptive in the sense that they are not a function of the fitness properties of individuals: mutation is the ultimate source of variation on which natural selection acts, recombination assorts variation within and among chromosomes, and genetic drift ensures that gene frequencies will deviate a bit from generation to generation independent of other forces.
…
[A]ll four major forces play a substantial role in genomic evolution. It is impossible to understand evolution purely in terms of natural selection, and many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution can only be understood by invoking a negligible level of adaptive involvement.
Michael Lynch (2007) "The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(S1):8597-8604"

No, Steve, this doesn't show that evolution cannot explain organismal complexity. Only that natural selection alone might not have.

 

[VirOptimus]

Once and for all:

"Evolutionary biology is treated unlike any science by both academics and the general public. For the average person, evolution is equivalent to natural selection, and because the concept of selection is easy to grasp, a reasonable understanding of comparative biology is often taken to be a license for evolutionary speculation. It has long been known that natural selection is just one of several mechanisms of evolutionary change, but the myth that all of evolution can be explained by adaptation continues to be perpetuated by our continued homage to Darwin's treatise in the popular literature. … There is, of course, a substantial difference between the popular literature and the knowledge base that has grown from a century of evolutionary research, but this distinction is often missed by nonevolutionary biologists [including the authors of EE].
…
[E]volution is a population-genetic process governed by four fundamental forces. Darwin articulated one of those forces, the process of natural selection, for which an elaborate theory in terms of genotype frequencies now exists. The remaining three evolutionary forces are nonadaptive in the sense that they are not a function of the fitness properties of individuals: mutation is the ultimate source of variation on which natural selection acts, recombination assorts variation within and among chromosomes, and genetic drift ensures that gene frequencies will deviate a bit from generation to generation independent of other forces.
…
[A]ll four major forces play a substantial role in genomic evolution. It is impossible to understand evolution purely in terms of natural selection, and many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution can only be understood by invoking a negligible level of adaptive involvement.
Michael Lynch (2007) "The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(S1):8597-8604"

No, Steve, this doesn't show that evolution cannot explain organismal complexity. Only that natural selection alone might not have.

I see the future... I see... wall of texts, misquotes, quotemining, creationism in disguise, but no real scientific arguments.

We will see if I have read the signs correctly.

 

[stevevw]

You keep listing random dates but for some reason have problems showing what posts you're talking about. Given your track record, I have a hard time taking any of that sort of thing seriously.

AS I said this has been an ongoing debate about you accusing me of saying that I said you acknowledged that selection was negligible and insufficient for evolving complex life, even going back to July.
Jul 22, 2016 #1413
KCfromNC said
Does the fact that I'm telling you that you are wrong about your interpretation of my writing mean nothing to you?
Stevevw said
So when you said
" this quote is specifically talking about the origins of complexity"
you were not referring to natural selections ability to evolve complexity considering the quote you are referring to states that natural selections ability to evolve complexity is questionable.
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ature-come-from.7928975/page-76#post-69940825
Jul 22, 2016 #1407
Stevevw said
So you have admitted at least that the papers were referring to natural selection being insufficient and negligible
#1825
KCfromNC said
Where did you see the word negligible in the quote I was talking about?
Stevevw said
here, KCfromNC said This quote is specifically talking about the origins of complexity. It has nothing to do with the more general claim that "natural selection is negligible and/or minimal.

So in other words you are saying that the quote about natural selection being negligible and /or minimal is only referring specifically to complexity.

Jul 31, 2016 #1508
stevevw said
But even so KCfromNC said it only applied to complex networks
KCfromNC said
I did? I remember this was one of those cases where you were trying somehow to convince yourself that you were able to see some hidden message in my posts despite me telling you otherwise. Seems to be a pattern here.
Aug 1, 2016 #1512
Stevevw
Didn't you say that the paper didn't apply to a general meaning for natural selection but a specific one of complexity.
Aug 1, 2016 #1520
KCfromNC said
If you have to ask me to remind you what I actually wrote maybe it'd be best if you didn't also try and tell others what I was or wasn't talking about.

You didn't seem to answer this but I later went on to show a post that you did say this even though you were saying you didn't. But as stated the confusion here was about you thinking I was saying you acknowledged this outright when I was saying you admitted the papers said this.

Jul 22, 2016 #1407
KCfromNC said "this quote is specifically talking about the origins of complexity. It has nothing to do with the more general claim that "natural selection is negligible and/or minimal"

It wasn't until much later in November where you used that other statemnet where I did say you acknowledged thing outright as I had concluded over that long period that according to your own logic you must have believed what the papers said because to dispute what I was saying. So I asked how can you stand on the paper to use it to dispute me if you dont believe what it says.

So you have taken two quotes out of an ongoing debate that stretches back months and has already made similar remarks. It was something that progressed back and forth about what people said and what they meant. Even you were contradicting your own position with what you were saying which added to the confusion. In that time I did take both positions as per those two seemingly contradictory quotes but that was also because you were contradicting what you said. When you put them into the context over this longer debate it makes more sense that I started with one view and gradually came to a different conclusion based on your replies and your own logic.

You have been singling out particular remarks and quoting them out of context. Like I said I could spend time finding ways to try and undermine someone. This is a debate site and all you have been doing for the last 10 plus pages is ridiculing the person and not debating. I have already shown that you have exaggerated and falsely accused me of things

It isn't that you contradicted yourself. It is my amusement that instead of just admitting it you're running around in a thousand different directions trying to find some way to make your feeling on the subject into truth. I keep posting a plain, simple contradiction and each time you come back with a new excuse, each one at odds with the last.

I'm sure there's some relationship there to the approach you've shown towards the scientific literature. I'll see if you have the insight to make the connection, though.

No I have said the same thing about what has happened. I just may not be the best at explaining things as this is not my strongest point. But you have made other accusations such as that I said selection didn't happen at all or that I said the author contradicted himself ect for which I have shown you were wrong and making exaggerations or wrong assertions. I think this has been a pattern as well. maybe it is just a communication breakdown more than anything else.

It is interesting you feel that your own problems consistently reconciling your beliefs with reality are shared by everyone else.

I am not bring my beliefs into this. Lets put things into perspective here. I am debating evolution and using scientific support and not religious support and opposing some of the tenets that supporters believe in a forum that has probably 10 to 1 supporters of evolution. Of course I am going to be up against it and that you and others are going to agree with things. That doesn't surprise me and nor is it a worry for me.

 

[KCfromNC]

AS I said this has been an ongoing debate about you accusing me of saying that I said you acknowledged that selection was negligible and insufficient for evolving complex life, even going back to July.

Look, it is great for me you've found more examples of you trying to mislead people about what I actually wrote. I agree, it is a pattern and you really should explore why you need to do this when reality starts to disagree with how you feel it should be.

But let's stick to the point. You claimed that I deceptively reordered the quotes to make it look like you were contradicting yourself. I've posted links to each post showing I quoted them in the correct order. On the other hand, you've had no luck showing those specific quotes in the order you claimed was correct. And yet you're still here pretending I'm somehow falsely accusing you of, well, who knows at this point because you're off on a different tangent making up more stuff I haven't done.

It wasn't until much later in November where you used that other statemnet where I did say you acknowledged thing outright

Funny how at the top of the page you say it was from October - as does my link to the post where you made the claim, which I've only posted like 20 times or something.

When you can't even keep your story straight over one page of posts, maybe it is time to stop and think about how you're representing yourself.

So you have taken two quotes out of an ongoing debate that stretches back months

You need to learn to not blame other if being directly quoted makes you look bad.

You have been singling out particular remarks and quoting them out of context.

You keep making this claim, and yet you don't seem to have much luck substantiating it. Think about how people are going to view that approach.

But you have made other accusations such as that I said selection didn't happen at all

No, I said you claimed it was non-existent. That's because you said it was :

Other than you're convinced that natural selection plays a negligible role. That's assuming you meant what you wrote, of course.

As explained negligible also means many of the other words that described natural selection used in the papers such as insufficient, not even necessary, has no direct evidence ect. So these mean negligible and even non existent.

If you're just going to keep pretending you never said stuff that you obviously did there's no point in pretending you're serious about anything you write.

 

[stevevw]

I see the future... I see... wall of texts, misquotes, quotemining, creationism in disguise, but no real scientific arguments.

We will see if I have read the signs correctly.

LOL we will see but I havnt got time at the moment. I have to work out what I am going to put in that big wall of text. If it wasn't for me this thread would be all one sided, how boring.

 

[VirOptimus]

LOL we will see but I havnt got time at the moment. I have to work out what I am going to put in that big wall of text. If it wasn't for me this thread would be all one sided, how boring.

Well you stick to your guns, but its evidently clear that you wont debate honestly or that you understand science so there is no real meaning in trying to engage you.

 

[stevevw]

Look, it is great for me you've found more examples of you trying to mislead people about what I actually wrote. I agree, it is a pattern and you really should explore why you need to do this when reality starts to disagree with how you feel it should be.

But let's stick to the point. You claimed that I deceptively reordered the quotes to make it look like you were contradicting yourself. I've posted links to each post showing I quoted them in the correct order. On the other hand, you've had no luck showing those specific quotes in the order you claimed was correct. And yet you're still here pretending I'm somehow falsely accusing you of, well, who knows at this point because you're off on a different tangent making up more stuff I haven't done.



Funny how at the top of the page you say it was from October - as does my link to the post where you made the claim, which I've only posted like 20 times or something.

When you can't even keep your story straight over one page of posts, maybe it is time to stop and think about how you're representing yourself.

You need to learn to not blame other if being directly quoted makes you look bad.

You keep making this claim, and yet you don't seem to have much luck substantiating it. Think about how people are going to view that approach.

No, I said you claimed it was non-existent. That's because you said it was :

If you're just going to keep pretending you never said stuff that you obviously did there's no point in pretending you're serious about anything you write.

So another long post of ridicule and negatives and not debating the topic. This is all you have come down to. I guess you have gone right off the track now and the OP did say he would like to have a civil debate. What do you hope to achieve with all this character assassination. At last you may call my posts as being false or lacking scientific support but at least they are on subject of the thread.

I have shown above in post 2208 that what you posted recently was not a recent and isolated statemnet which you have tried to make out was to undermine me. The above post shows how you have admitted and then denied what you have said as well. I may have reassessed things and changed my view about what you said but thats not a contradiction as it was formulated over a few months of debate. I think it is ridiculous to have to defend myself with this and so I have said what I have said on the topic . You choose to fob off anything I say so there's no sense in persisting with it. You are right and I am wrong if that pleases you. It still doesn't resolve the debate and thats what we should be talking about.

 

[stevevw]

Well you stick to your guns, but its evidently clear that you wont debate honestly or that you understand science so there is no real meaning in trying to engage you.

What I have posted has been from scientific papers. All I have set out to do in this thread anyway is show that Natural selection is not the all powerful thing that many supporters of evolution believe. Instead people are thinking I'm saying evolution is false and that there is no selection at all. I cant help when people over react to something.

 

[VirOptimus]

What I have posted has been from scientific papers. All I have set out to do in this thread anyway is show that Natural selection is not the all powerful thing that many supporters of evolution believe. Instead people are thinking I'm saying evolution is false and that there is no selection at all. I cant help when people over react to something.

No, you arent foolin anyone.

What you have done is trying to sound sciency- when using creationist and ID arguments hiding in wall of texts and misquotes.

As soon as you are called out, new wall of texts, new misquotes and new misinformation.

I get it, your belief is important to you, but is it really worth lying for? Because that is what you are doing in this thread.

 

[stevevw]

No, you arent foolin anyone.

What you have done is trying to sound sciency- when using creationist and ID arguments hiding in wall of texts and misquotes.

So how is scientific papers using creationists arguments. How is showing that selection for example is negligible and insufficient for evolving the genetic networks central for building complex life a creationist argument. These are arguments from scientists who support evolution. Thats all I have used. I havnt used religion. I havnt even taken a position on creation and said I dont really know what happened. I am calling things how I see them and I dont fall into that belief about some of the tenets of evolution that some do with support. That takes just as much faith as you say religion does.

[/quote]As soon as you are called out, new wall of texts, new misquotes and new misinformation.[/quote]The way I write has nothing to do with the evidence. That is how I write whether its to do with evolution, religion or music or my essays for Uni.I like to give detailed answers and post lots of support, something I dont see much of from others who tend to think just by saying something it must be true. I guess I have learnt that from doing research and writing for my assignments.

I get it, your belief is important to you, but is it really worth lying for? Because that is what you are doing in this thread.

My faith has little to do with it. As stated I havnt given a position on this so how do you come to this conclusion. Maybe you just see anyone who opposes what you believe must be either religious or have something else wrong. It wouldn't matter to my faith if evolution were true as it fist in with faith anyway, There are many on this site who believe in evolution and God at the same time. So thats just another logical fallacy, ie because a person has some religious faith then everything they say must be religiously motivated.

 

[VirOptimus]

So how is scientific papers using creationists arguments. How is showing that selection for example is negligible and insufficient for evolving the genetic networks central for building complex life a creationist argument. These are arguments from scientists who support evolution. Thats all I have used. I havnt used religion. I havnt even taken a position on creation and said I dont really know what happened. I am calling things how I see them and I dont fall into that belief about some of the tenets of evolution that some do with support. That takes just as much faith as you say religion does.

As soon as you are called out, new wall of texts, new misquotes and new misinformation.

The way I write has nothing to do with the evidence. That is how I write whether its to do with evolution, religion or music or my essays for Uni.I like to give detailed answers and post lots of support, something I dont see much of from others who tend to think just by saying something it must be true. I guess I have learnt that from doing research and writing for my assignments.

My faith has little to do with it. As stated I havnt given a position on this so how do you come to this conclusion. Maybe you just see anyone who opposes what you believe must be either religious or have something else wrong. It wouldn't matter to my faith if evolution were true as it fist in with faith anyway, There are many on this site who believe in evolution and God at the same time. So thats just another fallacy

You are doing it again. Pretty funny.

You have yourself on this very forum posted that your religious belief makes you doubt evolution. Or will you deny even your own words? Will you, again, lie for your religion?

Yes, plenty, I would say most, christians do not deny science because of their faith but some do. And you are one of those people.

 

[KCfromNC]

So another long post of ridicule and negatives and not debating the topic. This is all you have come down to. I guess you have gone right off the track now and the OP did say he would like to have a civil debate. What do you hope to achieve with all this character assassination. At last you may call my posts as being false or lacking scientific support but at least they are on subject of the thread.

I have shown above in post 2208 that what you posted recently was not a recent and isolated statemnet which you have tried to make out was to undermine me. The above post shows how you have admitted and then denied what you have said as well.

I'll take this to mean you've had no luck backing up your assertion that I was being deceptive about the timing of the two quotes I've been talking about. Weird you just can't admit that and instead have to make up even more stuff you'll eventually have to run away from, though.

I may have reassessed things and changed my view about what you said but thats not a contradiction as it was formulated over a few months of debate.

If you'll remember, this isn't a discussion of your opinions but about a question of fact - did you or didn't you claim that I had acknowledged something :

Oh sorry thats right you also acknowledged that natural selection is insufficient for the origin of complex organisms

I didn't say you acknowledge that natural selection was insufficient for the origin of complex organisms.

You might have changed your mind by the time you made the second post, but that doesn't mean we've got to go along with your fantasy that it never happened.

 

[stevevw]

You are doing it again. Pretty funny.

You have yourself on this very forum posted that your religious belief makes you doubt evolution. Or will you deny even your own words? Will you, again, lie for your religion?

Yes, plenty, I would say most, christians do not deny science because of their faith but some do. And you are one of those people.

Then your doing what I have been accused of, twisting and changing what people have said. I didn't say that my religious belief makes me completely fooled that I cant see the difference between that influence and what the evidence states. I was being honest that of course my beliefs will have an influence on what I think is the way things happened. Just the same as any atheist or supporter of evolution for that matter will be the same if they are honest. This "science only looks for the truth" is a cop out because its the humans behind the science who are steering the ship and its only human nature that we are bias towards our beliefs and views. But you are making out that I am completely blinded by my faith and cannot put this aside to see the evidence and judge what may be the facts. You are using a logical fallacy and this puts all the great Godly people who are also scientists into a box.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then your doing what I have been accused of, twisting and changing what people have said. I didn't say that my religious belief makes me completely fooled that I cant see the difference between that influence and what the evidence states. I was being honest that of course my beliefs will have an influence on what I think is the way things happened. Just the same as any atheist or supporter of evolution for that matter will be the same if they are honest. This "science only looks for the truth" is a cop out because its the humans behind the science who are steering the ship and its only human nature that we are bias towards our beliefs and views. But you are making out that I am completely blinded by my faith and cannot put this aside to see the evidence and judge what may be the facts. You are using a logical fallacy and this puts all the great Godly people who are also scientists into a box.

Another wall of text. Brevity is a virtue.

That you dont see the problems with this is very funny, sad too.

 

[stevevw]

You are doing it again. Pretty funny.

You have yourself on this very forum posted that your religious belief makes you doubt evolution. Or will you deny even your own words? Will you, again, lie for your religion?

You have made another false accusation. nothing in that original post said that my faith blinds me from seeing the evidence and therefore causing me to deny any facts. I was explaining my faith and how the evidence is based on observation and therefore can be seen more than one way. That both sides can be biased. In fact I was actually supporting the opposite of basing things on faith and personal bias by stating that it is important to use proper scientific testing to verify things.

Stevevw said
If there is any bias going on then it happens on all sides because much of the debate is based on observation and personal interpretations. Evolution is based on a lot of these assumptions ans speculations. Thats why its important to look at the evidence such as genomics as well because this can verify or cast doubt on what has been said.

I then replied to that original post when you first made that false claim with the following which is exactly the same reply I just gave. This shows I was making myself clear that I wasn't admitting to anything like you have falsely claimed.

Jul 31, 2016 #1498
stevevw said
That doesn't mean anything. With that sort of logic then every scientists who speaks the same way about their personal experiences is also only believing because of their belief. That includes some of the greatest scientists who have discovered some of the best theories in science, ie Issac Newton, Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, Max Planck and Gregor Mendel who was prominent in the field of evolution with genetics. The rest of the scientists mainly worked in the field of physics which is probably the best field to dispute religious faith as it deals with the material world. But all the scientists will base they work on falsification yet they still believed in a supernatural creator God. So your argument is based on a false conclusion and an illogical fallacy.

Yes, plenty, I would say most, christians do not deny science because of their faith but some do. And you are one of those people.

where did you see me denying science, can you supply any support for this yet again false accusation. All people accept science but will disagree with it to varying degrees depending what the topic is. I mean science is a way of looking and explaining things and those who believe in God may say that science is just explaining Gods creation. All Christians believe God is the creator whether it is through theist evolution or creation which is totally unscientific. So at the end of the day though some Christians believe in theist evolution they still believe it cannot happen without Gods intervention and that's an important distinction.