Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Greg Jennings]

Are you saying that accepting ALL the data is cherry picking?


Greg... a couple weeks had now passed since you suggested you could dissect creationist arguments on genetics. I think you now know what VSDM's are. So can you now answer the question from a couple weeks back.

Science helps confirm the truth of God's Word, and our young created universe.

No... I accept the data. I think you are no longer wanting to "dissect" genetics, and want new goal posts?

Oh my goodness Greg! How can you possibly believe a tree is older than the earth???

You are frustrated it seems so now fabricating an argument, you think you can beat up on. (Strawman fallacy). I have never said that about the speed of light. If you wish to say genetics supports Scripture, and discuss the speed of light... can do.

You didn't answer a single question I asked. You just brought up something I told somebody else a month ago. If that's not moving the goalposts then I don't know what is

This is why nobody takes you seriously

 

[Jose Fly]

And what of all of the science that directly contradicts a young created Earth? You reject radiometric dating, tree rings, ice core data, and so on -- all indicating an Earth that is very very old. How do explain that some trees are older than your Earth is?

Greg, I have to say I'm a bit disappointed that you have to ask. One thing I thought that became abundantly clear in this thread is that 6days filters everything from science through the framework of...

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record


I would recommend before you engage 6days further on any science-related subject, you keep the above in mind. TBH, that's really all anyone needs to know about him.

 

[6days]

Greg, I have to say I'm a bit disappointed that you have to ask. One thing I thought that became abundantly clear in this thread is that 6days filters everything from science through the framework of.. (AIg statement of faith)

Haha... What is your filter Jose? Why do you ignore the science... the data and rely on 'potential resolutions'. You do know that starting with the conclusion as you do is not science?

 

[Greg Jennings]

You do know that starting with the conclusion as you do is not science?

Are you saying that IS NOT what you do?

 

[6days]

You didn't answer a single question I asked.

Greg... you ignored the answers.

I said we can gladly move the goalposts if you wish, but first we should come to a conclusion on genetics. Are we in agreement that genetics... and the data (ALL the data) in the various articles help confirm the truth of God's Word? If you don't agree, then maybe answer the simple question you have avoided for the last 3 weeks or so. You said you can "dissect" genetics?

How can selection remove 100 new mutations per person per generation in a population with a reproductive rate of 2? HOW... why believe in uphill evolution when the science and Gods Word shows the opposite?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Greg... you ignored the answers.

I said we can gladly move the goalposts if you wish, but first we should come to a conclusion on genetics. Are we in agreement that genetics... and the data (ALL the data) in the various articles help confirm the truth of God's Word? If you don't agree, then maybe answer the simple question you have avoided for the last 3 weeks or so. You said you can "dissect" genetics?

How can selection remove 100 new mutations per person per generation in a population with a reproductive rate of 2? HOW... why believe in uphill evolution when the science and Gods Word shows the opposite?

If you will answer my questions, then sure. Will you? Without dodging or crying "fallacy" everywhere?

 

[6days]

If you will answer my questions, then sure. Will you? Without dodging or crying "fallacy" everywhere?

Sure Greg... You can move the goalposts, and attempt to dissect other topics. But you have dodged genetics for almost 4 weeks now.

Here it is again

Pick any one of those topics. I'll dissect it for you

Ok... let's look at genetics. Your beliefs in uphill evolution is not an answer. Let's start with a simple question.

1. How can natural selection, simultaneously select and remove 100 VSDM's per person, per generation in a population with a birth rate of about 2?

Do you have an answer?

 

[Jose Fly]

Haha... What is your filter Jose?

Like most scientists, I don't have one. I evaluate things on their own merits, rather than whether or not they agree with a set of religious beliefs.

Why do you ignore the science... the data and rely on 'potential resolutions'. You do know that starting with the conclusion as you do is not science?

Looks like all you can do is accuse others of your own faults. That speaks for itself.

 

[Silent Hunter]

1. How can natural selection, simultaneously select and remove 100 VSDM's per person, per generation in a population with a birth rate of about 2.

Instead of cherry-picking the parts you like and ignoring the parts you don't, the answer is glaringly obvious and specifically noted in the paper(s) YOU cite. But you ignore the solution, not because it is impossible, but, because it conflicts with no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field can be valid if it contradicts (your personal interpretation of) the scriptural record.

 

[6days]

Like most scientists, I don't have one.

Oh, bologna Jose. Your bias is VERY OBVIOUS. It is silly to pretend that anybody puts on a white lab coat, and suddenly they are transformed into a blank slate.
A blank slate... you are not.

 

[Jose Fly]

Instead of cherry-picking the parts you like and ignoring the parts you don't, the answer is glaringly obvious and specifically noted in the paper(s) YOU cite. But you ignore the solution, not because it is impossible, but, because it conflicts with no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field can be valid if it contradicts (your personal interpretation of) the scriptural record.

It's what I said before....his question is nonsense. He just has no idea why. Shoot, I'd bet he doesn't even understand the "paradox" Kondrashov wrote about in 1995.

 

[Jose Fly]

Oh, bologna Jose. Your bias is VERY OBVIOUS. It is silly to pretend that anybody puts on a white lab coat, and suddenly they are transformed into a blank slate.
A blank slate... you are not.

Accusing others of your own faults...speaks for itself.

And btw...are we now in agreement that the less bias in how one interprets data, the better? Because you wouldn't be trying so desperately to accuse me of it if you didn't think it was a bad thing, right?

 

[6days]

Instead of cherry-picking the parts you like and ignoring the parts you don't, the answer is glaringly obvious and specifically noted in the paper(s) YOU cite. But you ignore the solution, not because it is impossible, but, because it conflicts with no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field can be valid if it contradicts (your personal interpretation of) the scriptural record.

Well Mr Hunter..... You are wrong. They present the data.... then they propose solutions trying to make the data fit their beiefs. I ACCEPT the data... You reject it since it contradicts your belief system

 

[Jose Fly]

They present the data.... then they propose solutions trying to make the data fit their beiefs. I ACCEPT the data..

Now that is positively hilarious.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Sure Greg... You can move the goalposts, and attempt to dissect other topics. But you have dodged genetics for almost 4 weeks now.

Here it is again

Ok... let's look at genetics. Your beliefs in uphill evolution is not an answer. Let's start with a simple question.

1. How can natural selection, simultaneously select and remove 100 VSDM's per person, per generation in a population with a birth rate of about 2?

Do you have an answer?

No.

Is it my turn?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Well Mr Hunter..... You are wrong. They present the data.... then they propose solutions trying to make the data fit their beiefs. I ACCEPT the data... You reject it since it contradicts your belief system

Would you believe me if I told you I spent years 12-17 looking for any way that Genesis could be historically accurate? Specifically Noah's Ark. I wanted so badly to believe it was petrified up on top of Mt Ararat. But after exhausting options, I realized that there is no ark, and as I studied the Earth's geology it became obvious that 10,000 years is laughably young for the Earth's true age

 

[Stripe]

Specifically Noah's Ark. I wanted so badly to believe it was petrified up on top of Mt Ararat. But after exhausting options, I realized that there is no ark.

:rotfl:

Darwinists and logic are like oil and water.

 

[Greg Jennings]

:rotfl:

Darwinists and logic are like oil and water.

Do explain

 

[Stripe]

Do explain

You exhausted all options. What if the thing was dismantled? Buried?

 

[Greg Jennings]

You exhausted all options. What if the thing was dismantled? Buried?

It was impossible to build. At the time of construction ship-building was primitive. People didnt yet know how to join multiple logs together when creating a central beam for the bow of a ship (they also didn't know how to seal spaces between wooden pieces, making sinking a near certainty). It would've had to be one giant piece from a single tree. And unless there was a Giant Redwood invasion over in the Middle East that nobody has ever found evidence of, there wouldn't be a tree big enough for the central beam of a ship that had the biblical ark's dimensions


Combine that with the many futile expeditions to find Noah's Ark, and the geological history of the planet, and it's pretty clear