Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (5)

[bhsmte]

He's looking for a "no" answer. Why is nobody decent enough to say that?

Justlookin is correct, ToE allows for no such thing. But your side of the aisle needs to establish that.

If there was evidence of such, the TOE would include it. Or, would you like science to add things with no objective support?

And, if you have evidence that should be included in the TOE, please feel free to state your case, of course using the scientific method, because the TOE is science.

We will wait.

 

[bhsmte]

What makes you think he's trying to present the scientific theory? That would be ... your role here.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, I'm trying to ascertain how AVism has age embedded into fossils, while arriving after the fall. Pass the popcorn

Yea, he isn't reciting any theory in an accurate way, no question. Maybe you missed that part people have been pointing out to him for several weeks.

Hence, his personal interpretation of the same would be; justlookinlaism.

He created it, he needs it, he owns it.

 

[selfinflikted]

How does God show you that he constantly corrects stars?

This.

 

[theophilus777]

Who made you the arbiter of that criteria?

If I tell you how you think, and I am wrong, am I still wrong?

Yes. You are wrong. Get used to it (You're married, right? Should be no problem)

I note that you deleted what must be, according to you, a valid comparison.

Not a valid comparison because God shapes my world view. No God shapes yoru world view, nor that of any atheist. This is a simple concept you should be able to surmise on your own.

A strawman of a fallacy? Oncedeceived, is that you?

Sorry. Apparently I've been bombarded by so many assumptions I made one of my own. I need to stop hanging out here

 

[theophilus777]

How does God show you that he constantly corrects stars?

That was past tense

 

[theophilus777]

If there was evidence of such, the TOE would include it. Or, would you like science to add things with no objective support?

And, if you have evidence that should be included in the TOE, please feel free to state your case, of course using the scientific method, because the TOE is science.

We will wait.

This is not necessary. All you need to do is say that justlookin is correct, no such thing is allowable.

You just can't bring yourself to do it. That would be, PREJUDICE.

 

[bhsmte]

That was past tense

I will take that as you have nothing then.

Thanks.

 

[bhsmte]

This is not necessary. All you need to do is say that justlookin is correct, no such thing is allowable.

You just can't bring yourself to do it. That would be, PREJUDICE.

Clearly, you have not paid attention to my responses to justlookinlaism.

That's ok, I understand.

 

[gdm2731]

The Bible states God created Adam. Was Adam created as an infant or an adult? Adam was created as a fully formed adult. The question is if Adam on his first day was an adult then doesn't it stand to reason that God created the earth amd universe for that matter as a fully mature and functioning system that appeared as a much older system just as Adam appeared mature. Therefore misleading scientists into inferring a more ancient system than it really is.

 

[Loudmouth]

What makes you think he's trying to present the scientific theory? That would be ... your role here.

And that is what I have done. I have presented evidence for the scientific theory. Here is a copy and paste of the post I made in the other thread.

First, we have the transitional hominids which have more basal ape features earlier in the temporal sequence and more modern human features later in the temporal sequence. Overall, we see a slow increase in cranium size, a reduction in jaw prognathus, a reduction in canine size, a reduction in lower jaw size, and a reduction in brow ridge size, to name a few. There are even more examples of transitional features in the post-axial skeleton, especially in the pelvis and wrists. We can go over those as well.

All of these transitions are consistent with evolutionary mechanisms and common ancestry.

On top of that, we have the genetic evidence demonstrating the evolutionary mechanisms at the molecular level. ERV's are viral insertions that insert randomly among many possible integration sites. Finding the same insertion at the same position in two individuals is proof that they share a common ancestor since independent insertions would produce insertions at different positions in the vast majority of cases. The random insertion of retroviruses is supported by oodles of observations in the lab, like in this paper.

Retroviral DNA integration: ASLV, HIV, and MLV sho... [PLoS Biol. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI

Not only that, but we have resurrected one type of retrovirus found in the human genome and found that it acts just like modern retroviruses.

Identification of an infectious progenitor for the multiple-copy HERV-K human endogenous retroelements

So we know that retroviruses in the past behave just like they do now. No assumption needed.

When we mapped the human genome, we found over 200,000 ERV's. That observation is found in this paper, in table 11.

Table[bless and do not curse]11 : Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome : Nature

From the mapping of the chimp genome, we know that less than 100 of those human ERV's do not have an orthologous copy in the chimp genome.

Table[bless and do not curse]2 : Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Nature

So out of 200,000 ERV's found in the human genome, only 100 are not found at the same position in chimps. This is absolute smoking gun evidence for common ancestry between humans and chimps.

On top of that, we can determine that random mutations have shaped the human genome by looking at those same ERV's. From the Johnson and Coffin (1999) paper:

Third, sequence divergence between the LTRs at the ends of a given provirus provides an important and unique source of phylogenetic information. The LTRs are created during reverse transcription to regenerate cis-acting elements required for integration and transcription. Because of the mechanism of reverse transcription, the two LTRs must be identical at the time of integration, even if they differed in the precursor provirus (Fig. 1A). Over time, they will diverge in sequence because of substitutions, insertions, and deletions acquired during cellular DNA replication.
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences
​

Is that what we see? Do we observe the divergence of LTR's as predicted by the theory of evolution through the accumulation of random mutations? Yep, sure do. Here are the phylogenies constructed by LTR divergence found in the paper cited above.

http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254/F2.large.jpg

If you want evidence that natural seleciton has been in action, then look no further than the chimp genome paper found here:

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature

It details examples of areas of the genome that vary with respect to divergence rates as measured by Ka/Ks. This is experimental evidence of natural selection producing differences in the human genome.

If you won't even look at the evidence for common ancestry with our closest living cousins, then moving back further into human evolutionary history is a waste of time.

 

[Loudmouth]

He's looking for a "no" answer. Why is nobody decent enough to say that?

Justlookin is correct, ToE allows for no such thing. But your side of the aisle needs to establish that.

Why don't you give us evidence for the Newtonist creationist gravity theory that says gravity is all that exists, and that God does not exist?

 

[Loudmouth]

The Bible states God created Adam. Was Adam created as an infant or an adult? Adam was created as a fully formed adult. The question is if Adam on his first day was an adult then doesn't it stand to reason that God created the earth amd universe for that matter as a fully mature and functioning system that appeared as a much older system just as Adam appeared mature. Therefore misleading scientists into inferring a more ancient system than it really is.

Why would mature life require transitional fossils already in the ground? Why would mature life require ERV LTR's found in humans and other primates to fall into a phylogeny as predicted by the theory of evolution? Why would a mature Earth require uranium radiohaloes in rocks in order to function? Why would meteors need 4.5 billion years worth of decay products for K, U, and Rb in order to function? Why would a mature Earth need to be devoid of Cs-135?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The Bible states God created Adam. Was Adam created as an infant or an adult? Adam was created as a fully formed adult.
The question is if Adam on his first day was an adult then doesn't it stand to reason that God created the earth amd universe for that matter as a fully mature and functioning system that appeared as a much older system just as Adam appeared mature. Therefore misleading scientists into inferring a more ancient system than it really is.

If that is the case, then wouldn't Jesus have been born as a fully formed adult?
[and no, that is not my view, so don't put this on the FSTDT site ] but Jeremiah 31:22 does mention a NEW thing in the land, a woman will compass a man.

Jeremiah 31:22
How long will you go about, O you backsliding daughter? for the LORD has created a new thing in the earth,
A woman shall compass a man.

A woman shall compass a man.—The verse is obscure, and has received very different interpretations. It will be well to begin our inquiry with the meaning which the translators attached to it.

Rotherham 1 Corin 15:47 The first man is of the ground, earthy, the second man is of heaven:



.

 

[Davian]

Yes. You are wrong.

No, as I am not telling how you think, but you have been wrong in describing how I think.

Not a valid comparison because God shapes my world view. No God shapes yoru world view, nor that of any atheist. This is a simple concept you should be able to surmise on your own.

I already have. No god beliefs shape my world view, nor any belief in extraterrestrial visitors, unicorns, Bermuda triangles, or monsters under the bed. However, my belief in Santa Claus, as an adult, was illuminating.

I take it that you have declined to tell us how your lack of belief in other supreme beings, spirits, and demons has shaped your worldview.

 

[bhsmte]

Theo,

You never answered my question regarding your comment below:

God showed me that He constantly corrects stars, and gave me a sense of their vastness. Kinda humbling. Then He compared that to my reluctance to His correction. VERY humbling

How does God show you this?

 

[Dizredux]

He's looking for a "no" answer. Why is nobody decent enough to say that?

Justlookin is correct, ToE allows for no such thing. But your side of the aisle needs to establish that.

But it does. Someone just has to provide empirical evidence for the involvement of the supernatural in evolution.

If this were done and it was rejected without cause, you might have a point but thus far you don't.

Dizredux

 

[theophilus777]

Newtonist creationist gravity theory

2 points for Loudmouth

 

[theophilus777]

But it does. Someone just has to provide empirical evidence for the involvement of the supernatural in evolution.

If this were done and it was rejected without cause, you might have a point but thus far you don't.

Dizredux

This is a silly statement. First of all, it's Justlookin's point, not mine. Second, by definition you're not going to have empirical evidence for God. It feels very odd to have to explain this to a professing Christian.

Therefore Justlookin's premise is correct, (not his whole premise by any means, just the part I quoted and pointed out you guys should respond to) but no one will affirm that. Solely because of PREJUDICE.

 

[bhsmte]

This is a silly statement. First of all, it's Justlookin's point, not mine. Second, by definition you're not going to have empirical evidence for God. It feels very odd to have to explain this to a professing Christian.

Therefore Justlookin's premise is correct, (not his whole premise by any means, just the part I quoted and pointed out you guys should respond to) but no one will affirm that. Solely because of PREJUDICE.

Wrong.

When he decided to quote the definition of Darwinism accurately from wiki, I and others confirmed with him that was correct.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out no scientific theory mentions God in the affirmative as being involved or in the negative. This appears to be something that bothers just greatly, along with oncedeceived. They just can't understand why the theory couldn't even mention; well, God may have been part of this, we just don't have any evidence to confirm that. If one wants to add God for their own personal satisfaction, they are more then welcome to.

From that, just added his own tid bits to Darwinism, that WERE NOT part of the definition, but where his own assumptions, hence the CREATION of; justlookinlaism.

Just's problems are really with science in general, but he doesn't want to admit that.

I told him to contact the national academy of sciences and see if he can petition them to add God to the TOE and see what they say. Maybe even contacting Francis Collins, who is a devout Christian, would be someone who just can grill on this:

Francis Collins: "The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.
Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics"

 

[Dizredux]

This is a silly statement. First of all, it's Justlookin's point, not mine. Second, by definition you're not going to have empirical evidence for God. It feels very odd to have to explain this to a professing Christian.

This is wrong. It is not by definition that God is not factored in it is there is currently no evidence and method of doing so. Is it possible in the future, I think so but not now.

Therefore Justlookin's premise is correct, (not his whole premise by any means, just the part I quoted and pointed out you guys should respond to) but no one will affirm that. Solely because of PREJUDICE.

Not in the least. Just says that God is not allowed in and I say that he would be if Just could come up with some evidence or at least a way to factor God in.

To me it is simple, right now we have no scientific evidence for or against God. For some reason he made it that way. I feel that simple faith is what what he wants from me but that is just my faith and for me, it works well.

In any case if Just would simply supply the evidence and the method, we can test his claims.

Dizredux