genuineoriginal
New member
That is an interpretation, not evidence!
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Evolution is a falsehood
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
That is an interpretation, not evidence!
You must be miserable to live with.
:yawn:
We should find a couple of houses to live in near each other in Heaven!
With a rugby field!
I'm not much of a sports person, but ok! haha
:shocked:
I'm an introvert, what do you expect! XD
Being an introvert, that you'd play in the forwards. :up:
lain:6 days, since posing my original question about obtaining the opinions of experts, you have responded to me over 10 times. Not once in any of those ten responses have you made any pretense of answering. my question.
Rather than simply and honestly responding to a simple question, you have resorted to an amazing array of distortions and innuendo. Your need to rely on inference (“if you suggest … ”, “you suggested that …“, “ambiguous”, “dishonest”, “seem to indicate”, etc.) in place of facts far exceeds that needed to show that some fish actually evolved into YECs.
Your performance is one I have not witnessed since long ago when I saw a child with a toothache screaming in abject horror being because she was being taken to a dentist. As I said many posts back – The Agony of a Simple Answer…
On the bright side, though, you have now made the short list of those I want on my dodge-ball team.
And just to help out, how about:
Are any of those possible responses ones that you would expect?
Quite the opposite, instead of thinking he “is not a scientist”, I have looked up his admirable record of peer-reviewed studies that were accepted for inclusion in scientific journals. I am a bit surprised that you replied that you do not consider him as “an expert on your side”. Can you share with us why you don’t count him as an expert?
Again, I had Behe in mind - Behe at the Dover trial. I expect you know what happened there.
Meantime on issues of scientific evidence, we jointly agreed to “not make scientific assertions sans specific evidence backing them.” You recommended we look at the “overwhelming deleterious nature of mutations,” and you even called it “1 strong piece of evidence”. That led to you saying “the problem is much bigger than he <Kondrashov> believed it was at that time.” In response I asked for the evidence for that claim:
My asking for that evidence was more than 3 exchanges ago between us. Do you intend to back your claim in the near future?
Do I have free will – meaning of the choices I can make it is up to me as to which choice I actually select?
Rather than simply and honestly responding to a simple question, you have resorted to an amazing array of distortions and innuendo. Your need to rely on inference (“if you suggest … ”, “you suggested that …“, “ambiguous”, “dishonest”, “seem to indicate”, etc.) in place of facts far exceeds that needed to show that some fish actually evolved into YECs.
Your performance is one I have not witnessed since long ago when I saw a child with a toothache screaming in abject horror being because she was being taken to a dentist. As I said many posts back – The Agony of a Simple Answer…
On the bright side, though, you have now made the short list of those I want on my dodge-ball team.
And just to help out, how about:
“I think some of them would agree with me, and some would not.”
“I expect they would all agree with me.”
“Probably most of them would say that human evolution is silly”.
“I would expect every last one of them to <accept>/<reject> the notion of humans being an evolved species.”
“I expect they would all agree with me.”
“Probably most of them would say that human evolution is silly”.
“I would expect every last one of them to <accept>/<reject> the notion of humans being an evolved species.”
Are any of those possible responses ones that you would expect?
Quite the opposite, instead of thinking he “is not a scientist”, I have looked up his admirable record of peer-reviewed studies that were accepted for inclusion in scientific journals. I am a bit surprised that you replied that you do not consider him as “an expert on your side”. Can you share with us why you don’t count him as an expert?
Again, I had Behe in mind - Behe at the Dover trial. I expect you know what happened there.
Meantime on issues of scientific evidence, we jointly agreed to “not make scientific assertions sans specific evidence backing them.” You recommended we look at the “overwhelming deleterious nature of mutations,” and you even called it “1 strong piece of evidence”. That led to you saying “the problem is much bigger than he <Kondrashov> believed it was at that time.” In response I asked for the evidence for that claim:
My asking for that evidence was more than 3 exchanges ago between us. Do you intend to back your claim in the near future?
Do I have free will – meaning of the choices I can make it is up to me as to which choice I actually select?
Actually, we provided a few resources you could look into for that one. You might have missed mine because of the server update.
Last edited:
6days
New member
Great! Then why did you put the word scientist in quote marks referring to him? Its obvious you were making a bandwagon argument, suggesting that since his beliefs are different from yours that he is not a scientist, but instead a "scientist".redfern said:
Strawman fallacy... I did not say he is not an expert.redfern said:
In 1992 Kondrashov said that the total number of NEW mutations to each person, (in addition to the thousands they inherit) is about 100. He considers about 10% of them to be deleterious, and the remainder slightly deleterious. In the 1995 paper you refer to, Kondrashov says that mutation load can be excessive even with just 1 new mutation per diploid genome per generation. How much worse is the problem than Kondrashov imagined? Well, in 2007, ENCODE released preliminary results on our non-coding DNA. ENCODEsaid that most of the DNA previously thought to be junk, is doing something. Although we don't understand completely everything the DNA does, we do know much is involved in some type of regulatory function.. The problem Kondrashov described is worse, because he had no way of knowing that the "junk" was actually functional... IOW... he had not (and could not have) considered mutations in 'useless DNA to be a problem.redfern said: