Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

A positive, testable case for Intelligent Design:

A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design - Evolution News & Views

Let's see if Loki can come up with an actual logical argument to rebutt this. Or see if he just throws out common fallacies as the reason it isn't true without any detailed explanation for how the argument is a fallacy like he always does.

Fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would be interested in hearing his view on this,but he is still running from the RNA article and showing how punctuated equilibrium is compatible with gradualism. Talk about opposing views.

 

[LOki]

Yes I have identified your faulty presuppositions by the questions I have asked You.

No, you asked some questions, identifying only that you forgot I had answered those questions a dozen times already.

Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "faulty presuppositions."

Of course because the fossil record is a problem for your theory because of the lack of evidence for gradualism.

Evolution and gradualism are not the same thing, and evolution is not dependent upon gradualism for validity. The fossil record really does not invalidate gradualism either.

Despite the obvious opportunity to do so, you fail to identify this "problem."

Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "problem."

Oh no you havn't you have linked to people trying to explain the answer to the question and it still lacked evidence.

No. I answered you questions in my own words, and you STILL have not identified any "faulty presuppositions" those answers were based upon.

Even evoluitionist admit your side should not use fossil evidence as support of the theory.

Oh, I'm sure you can disingenuously misquote or otherwise misrepresent some evolutionist to support your point, but then I'll just expose your intellectual dishonesty and prove you wrong again.

 

[LOki]

Yes I have identified your faulty presuppositions by the questions I have asked You.

No, you asked some questions, identifying only that you forgot I had answered those questions a dozen times already.

Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "faulty presuppositions."

Of course because the fossil record is a problem for your theory because of the lack of evidence for gradualism.

Evolution and gradualism are not the same thing, and evolution is not dependent upon gradualism for validity. The fossil record really does not invalidate gradualism either.

Despite the obvious opportunity to do so, you fail to identify this "problem."

Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "problem."

Evolution is not gradualism

Sorry Loki but you are barking up the wrong tree.

No, I'm not. You are by demanding that they are the same thing.

 

[LOki]

Proof comes from evidence nitwit.

Not for Creationists, retard.

That is right and I have explained to you why there are changes in small populations and it is through genetic drift not mutations.

The retard is not I.

Yes. I am aware that you insist that among all the various ways that a difference in genotype might arise, it is only those differences in genotype caused by mutation that cannot possibly lead to differences in phenotype.

You're so deeply retarded.

Back up your claim moron.

Which claim? The claim that Creationists don't require evidence to claim they have proof, or that you insist that among all the various ways that a difference in genotype might arise, it is only those differences in genotype caused by mutation that cannot possibly lead to differences in phenotype?

 

[LOki]

Not if you believe in gradualism and that is what your theory teaches.

Think will you.

Since the theory of punctuated equilibrium is entirely compatible with the theory of evolution and in no way invalidates gradualism, what's your point?

Explain how they are compatible ?

If you actually read Eldridge & Gould, you'd have your answer, but it boils down to this; evolution describes incremental (gradual, if you will) genetic (hence, physical) changes within populations of organisms; these changes lead to differentiation into separate identifiable populations. Punctuated Equilibrium posits that the rate of differentiation is not necessarily constant ... but it's still gradual.

 

[LOki]

Woyzeck another thing your side ignores is, since the Genome project mapped the Genome they have discovered there is no junk DNA how do you explain that ?

While you are at it,explain all the organs that was once thought to serve no purpose are now considered to serve a purpose ?

Wrong.

 

[LOki]

Yes I have identified your faulty presuppositions by the questions I have asked You.

No, you asked some questions, identifying only that you forgot I had answered those questions a dozen times already.

Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "faulty presuppositions."

Of course because the fossil record is a problem for your theory because of the lack of evidence for gradualism.

Evolution and gradualism are not the same thing, and evolution is not dependent upon gradualism for validity. The fossil record really does not invalidate gradualism either.

Despite the obvious opportunity to do so, you fail to identify this "problem."

Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "problem."

Loki, you move the goalpost so many times I'm not even sure you know where the field is anymore!!!

I don't move the goal posts asshole.

You do. From asking for evidence to claiming it's not proof; from asserting a baseless criticism of Evolution to a baseless criticism of gradualism.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, you asked some questions, identifying only that you forgot I had answered those questions a dozen times already.

Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "faulty presuppositions."

Evolution and gradualism are not the same thing, and evolution is not dependent upon gradualism for validity. The fossil record really does not invalidate gradualism either.

Despite the obvious opportunity to do so, you fail to identify this "problem."

Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "problem."

Oh no you havn't you have linked to people trying to explain the answer to the question and it still lacked evidence.

No. I answered you questions in my own words, and you STILL have not identified any "faulty presuppositions" those answers were based upon.

Even evoluitionist admit your side should not use fossil evidence as support of the theory.

Oh, I'm sure you can disingenuously misquote or otherwise misrepresent some evolutionist to support your point, but then I'll just expose your intellectual dishonesty and prove you wrong again.

If you can't see your faulty presuppositions by the questions I asked you ,that is on you.

 

[LOki]

On RNA World...

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you..."

1. Böhler, C., P. E. Nielsen, and L. E. Orgel. 1995. Template switching between PNA and RNA oligonucleotides. Nature 376: 578-581. See also: Piccirilli, J. A., 1995. RNA seeks its maker. Nature 376: 548-549.
   
2. Jeffares, D. C., A. M. Poole and D. Penny. 1998. Relics from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 18-36.
   
3. Leipe, D. D., L. Aravind, and E. V. Koonin. 1999. Did DNA replication evolve twice independently? Nucleic Acids Research 27: 3389-3401.
   
4. Levy, Matthew and Andrew D. Ellington. 2003. Exponential growth by cross-catalytic cleavage of deoxyribozymogens. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100(11): 6416-6421.
   
5. Poole, A. M., D. C. Jeffares, and D. Penny. 1998. The path from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 1-17.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, you asked some questions, identifying only that you forgot I had answered those questions a dozen times already.

Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "faulty presuppositions."

Evolution and gradualism are not the same thing, and evolution is not dependent upon gradualism for validity. The fossil record really does not invalidate gradualism either.

Despite the obvious opportunity to do so, you fail to identify this "problem."

Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "problem."

Evolution is not gradualism

Sorry Loki but you are barking up the wrong tree.

No, I'm not. You are by demanding that they are the same thing.

Do you understand the theory of evolution ?

Is it gradual change over time or not ?

When the fossil record shows no gradual change over time,you don't see that as a problem for your theory ?

So I will ask you again. how are punctuated equilibrium and gradualism compatible with each other ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Woyzeck another thing your side ignores is, since the Genome project mapped the Genome they have discovered there is no junk DNA how do you explain that ?

While you are at it,explain all the organs that was once thought to serve no purpose are now considered to serve a purpose ?

Wrong.

These switches are part of what scientists used to call "junk DNA." How has the view of junk DNA changed in the past decade?

When I first started working in genetics, the focus was largely on genes. But we've learned that genes only make up a little less than two percent of our DNA. The vast majority of these three billion letters in our DNA aren't sending signals about how to make proteins.

At first, the thought was that there was just a bunch of junk in there. But within less than a decade, the way that we think about this so-called junk DNA has really changed. Encoded in those pieces is information about how to turn genes on and off—these switches—as well as features that affect the structure of the DNA. And the structure of the DNA is tightly linked to its function—you can't copy a gene or turn a gene on if it's closed in a tight structure.

NOVA | The DNA of Human Evolution

What is funny as they still spew their theory even though their so called junk DNA is not junk DNA they can't bring themselves to admit that this can't happen on it's own without design .Once called junk DNA is actually working at switching on and off genes. That sounds like evidence for design to me.

So much for your chimp and human similarity argument. She admitted that only 2% of our DNA comes from our genes but then say's we are 99% similar. Once they study where all our DNA comes from then they can be more honest with the similarity number between a chimps and humans DNA.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Since the theory of punctuated equilibrium is entirely compatible with the theory of evolution and in no way invalidates gradualism, what's your point?

Explain how they are compatible ?

If you actually read Eldridge & Gould, you'd have your answer, but it boils down to this; evolution describes incremental (gradual, if you will) genetic (hence, physical) changes within populations of organisms; these changes lead to differentiation into separate identifiable populations. Punctuated Equilibrium posits that the rate of differentiation is not necessarily constant ... but it's still gradual.

All we see are small scale changes within a family,not one family evolving into a new family. Once again this is Micro-evolution not Macro-evolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

On RNA World...

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you..."

1. Böhler, C., P. E. Nielsen, and L. E. Orgel. 1995. Template switching between PNA and RNA oligonucleotides. Nature 376: 578-581. See also: Piccirilli, J. A., 1995. RNA seeks its maker. Nature 376: 548-549.
   
2. Jeffares, D. C., A. M. Poole and D. Penny. 1998. Relics from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 18-36.
   
3. Leipe, D. D., L. Aravind, and E. V. Koonin. 1999. Did DNA replication evolve twice independently? Nucleic Acids Research 27: 3389-3401.
   
4. Levy, Matthew and Andrew D. Ellington. 2003. Exponential growth by cross-catalytic cleavage of deoxyribozymogens. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100(11): 6416-6421.
   
5. Poole, A. M., D. C. Jeffares, and D. Penny. 1998. The path from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 1-17.

Evidently you did not read the article.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, you asked some questions, identifying only that you forgot I had answered those questions a dozen times already.

Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "faulty presuppositions."

Evolution and gradualism are not the same thing, and evolution is not dependent upon gradualism for validity. The fossil record really does not invalidate gradualism either.

Despite the obvious opportunity to do so, you fail to identify this "problem."

Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "problem."

Loki, you move the goalpost so many times I'm not even sure you know where the field is anymore!!!

I don't move the goal posts asshole.

You do. From asking for evidence to claiming it's not proof; from asserting a baseless criticism of Evolution to a baseless criticism of gradualism.

You think because you provide an article with an explanation that proves your point,but your articles fail to point to the evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Not for Creationists, retard.

Yes. I am aware that you insist that among all the various ways that a difference in genotype might arise, it is only those differences in genotype caused by mutation that cannot possibly lead to differences in phenotype.

You're so deeply retarded.

Back up your claim moron.

Which claim? The claim that Creationists don't require evidence to claim they have proof, or that you insist that among all the various ways that a difference in genotype might arise, it is only those differences in genotype caused by mutation that cannot possibly lead to differences in phenotype?

Will you please stop with the nonsense that mutations cause evolutionary change.

Like I said before we can account for many defects due to mutations and point out very few benefits from mutations.

 

[daws101]

Wrong, world of the dead,in other words the grave.

another one wizzes right past you...i'll make it easy " of all the man made disciption of hell this is the best: hell is the absence of reason.
your version presupposes that consciousness survives death and that hell actually exists.
also Hades ( /ˈheɪdiːz/; from Greek ᾍδης (older form Ἀϝίδη&#962, Hadēs, originally Ἅιδης, Haidēs or Άΐδης, Aidēs (Doric Ἀΐδας Aidas), meaning "the unseen"[1]) was the ancient Greek god of the underworld. The genitive ᾍδου, Haidou, was an elision to denote locality: "[the house/dominion] of Hades". Eventually, the nominative came to designate the abode of the dead.
so again your ignorance shines!

Someone calling someone ignorant that does not know what he is talking about is priceless

EDITED FOR MEANINGLESS BABBLE----------------

 

[daws101]

Some people do choose to follow Satan. This goes back to an argument between God and Satan concerning the will of God's children, < we are unique in that respect. Angels stand, His children sit at His table. It is Satan's contention that if God gave us a choice, we would dis Him for Satan every time.
Satan is so skillful, that we can be led like puppies and we don't even know he's there, or that what he is proposing is considered sin. So as not to be taken advantage of, God (in his instruction manual) explains how to avoid "slings and arrows" from Satan by putting on the armor of God for complete protection. An absence of knowledge leaves us vulnerable, which is why we are urged to study his word. He did not leave us on our own when dealing with Satan because he knows we are no match.
Knowledge exposes Satan. The more you know about Satan, the quicker you realize when he's there.

Satan motivates bad decisions.

We allow our selves to be distracted by ignorance on how not to be distracted, and a corrupt human spirit that desires earthly things. Hence: Put the human spirit to death daily and your chances of being mislead decrease dramatically.

What God provided is more than enough, we just don't bother to acquaint ourselves with His instruction, or we decide to ignore it in favor of, or a desire for, immediate gratification.

Laugh now, because the bible is clear on what the non-believer will be doing on the day of judgment.

Rev 6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every freeman, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains.
Rev 6:16 And they said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him sitting on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb;
Rev 6:17 for the great day of His wrath has come, and who will be able to stand?

------REVELATIONS A NUT JOB'S RAMBLING

 

[LOki]

Evolution is not gradualism

Sorry Loki but you are barking up the wrong tree.

No, I'm not. You are by demanding that they are the same thing.

Do you understand the theory of evolution ?

Yes. It bears no resemblance to your strawman version however.

Is it gradual change over time or not ?

Yes it is; that is not in dispute.

When the fossil record shows no gradual change over time,you don't see that as a problem for your theory ?

IF the fossil record showed no gradual change over time, that would pose a problem for part of the theory. Yet since the fossil record DOES show strong evidence of gradual changes, the "problem" you suggest does not really exist.

So I will ask you again. how are punctuated equilibrium and gradualism compatible with each other ?

Again, evolution describes incremental (gradual, if you will) genetic (hence, physical) changes (over time) within populations of organisms; these changes (over time) lead to differentiation into separate identifiable populations. Punctuated Equilibrium posits that the rate of differentiation is not necessarily constant ... but it's still gradual change over time.

 

[LOki]

Explain how they are compatible ?

If you actually read Eldridge & Gould, you'd have your answer, but it boils down to this; evolution describes incremental (gradual, if you will) genetic (hence, physical) changes within populations of organisms; these changes lead to differentiation into separate identifiable populations. Punctuated Equilibrium posits that the rate of differentiation is not necessarily constant ... but it's still gradual.

All we see are small scale changes within a family,not one family evolving into a new family.

The unit of evolution is the species. Evolution DOES NOT posit that one family will evolve into another family. YOU STRAWMAN IS INVALID!

Once again this is Micro-evolution not Macro-evolution.

No. It's not. One family evolving into a new family is a Christian Creationist strawman.

 

[LOki]

Loki, you move the goalpost so many times I'm not even sure you know where the field is anymore!!!

I don't move the goal posts asshole.

You do. From asking for evidence to claiming it's not proof; from asserting a baseless criticism of Evolution to a baseless criticism of gradualism.

You think because you provide an article with an explanation that proves your point,but your articles fail to point to the evidence.

Non-sequitur.