Creationists

[newpolitics]

who the fuck is "us"
GUESS YOU'RE ILLITERATE TOO "American Atheists’ Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:

I’m a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert."

please explain how this person's knowledge of christianity becomes invalid just because they quit buying into the bullshit.
that's like saying because you're no longer a taxi driver, you've lost the ability to drive.
who's bias again?

Your analogy is as weak as your brain.

Her opinion isn't invalid, it's simply wrong.


And "us" doesn't mean you so get off your self righteous horse.

Who is the us anyway? Usually it's the mouse squeaking in someones pocket. All sides need to stop the religious hatred and start supporting the constitution that makes our republic work.

This isn't a debate about the constitution. This is a debate about the merits of creationism/Intelligent Design and those of Evolution. There are plenty of threads about the constitution on this website.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, I didn't know this, but I don't see how this matters, either. You have made the claim that beneficial mutations are impossible. However it is, that mutations occur, we know they occur. What I am asking if why you seem to think that only harmful mutations occur? This is a very convenient position to have for a creationist, and it is very suspect. There is no mechanism to discriminate against positive mutations. This much I know, because that would imply there was an evolved system that was designed to produce harmful mutations only. No life form with an interest in continuing life, would evolve this kind of system. Then again, you believe that virus' have a built-in self-destruct sequence.

Whoa ,whoa, whoa, I said earlier when you asked me, I said they were to rare to be the engine to produce the diversity seen in nature.

How are you defining "too rare" and how have you determined this, apart from your amazing "intuition"?

How rare are they? I will let you decide. We have over 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations and your side can only point to a handfull of beneficial mutations. Beneficial mutations they say can be added to the genepool because they are less likely to be noticed and eliminated. Why is that when we can only point to a few beneficial mutations that has been added to the genepool but we can point to many more harmful mutations that have been added to the genepool ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I know where you're going with this, so I'll spare you the embarrassment of making an even larger anal aperture..

Although degrees are very nice to have, God does not require an individual to have degrees to lead his church. However, God does have requirements. To lead God's church, one must first have accepted Christ as their personal saviour. One must be honourable and trustworthy, respected, not easily given to sin, have the ability to lead, be receptive to the leading of the Holy Spirit, be a good manager or Stewart of God's business, have goals and the additional requirements as emphasized in the Bible.

Now, some denominations may have degree requirements for their pastors. Some may require you to get formal theological training leading to the M.Div (Master of Divinity) or the M.Min (Master of Ministry) degree. There are also academic degrees leading to the Master of Systematic Theology or the Master of Sacred Theology. Some may require a Bachelor of Theology. If you belong to a denomination that holds such requirements, you may not be able to be a Pastor unless you have fulfilled this requirement. In any case, degree or no degree, the above requirements that meet the standards of holiness must be met.
What degree is required to be a Pastor of a church

I'd have answerd in my own words but you guys have a built in bias when it come to theological matters when us evil atheists provide them.

What did you do start a church out in the woods no major denomination would touch you without a degree poser.

I did nothing. who is this you you're talking about?
"no major denomination?" the post proves you wrong.
why the fuck would I start a church anywhere?
you do know WHAT a atheist is ..right?
making statements that showcase your stupidty are not funny..so keep your day job whatever that might be.

Unless you were quoting someone else you claimed to be a pastor. If you were quoting someone else then I am sorry for the mistake, If not my accusation stands.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Please show me some actual proof of your creator. Not things that you think it created. The actual dude or dudess.

Complexity is evidence of a designer. Foreknowledge from the bible is also evidence of this designer.

previously debunked

 

[Youwerecreated]

That's not what I asked. I asked for proof of your guy, not some philosophical bs. So what if I can't show you that? It still doesn't prove anything that I can't explain your irrelevant question, because you have nothing to prove your guy anyways.

You have two choices naturalism or intelligence which is better supported by the evidence.

wrong again! you have no evidence for creationism or Id. saying it's supported by evidence is false.

Care to explain who programmed the enzymes to identify copying errors during DNA replication and then repair them ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

the best you could do is call lie and name call!?

That is your specialty daws.

that is also a lie.

All one has to do is look at your last 100 posts in this thread and they would see who the liar is.

 

[mjollnir]

You have two choices naturalism or intelligence which is better supported by the evidence.

wrong again! you have no evidence for creationism or Id. saying it's supported by evidence is false.

Care to explain who programmed the enzymes to identify copying errors during DNA replication and then repair them ?

Yawn. That presumes a programmer, and that the term 'programming' even applies to that.

Assigning that to an invisible super being does nothing to support the contention there is a 'creator'.

Try again.

 

[newpolitics]

Whoa ,whoa, whoa, I said earlier when you asked me, I said they were to rare to be the engine to produce the diversity seen in nature.

How are you defining "too rare" and how have you determined this, apart from your amazing "intuition"?

How rare are they? I will let you decide. We have over 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations and your side can only point to a handfull of beneficial mutations. Beneficial mutations they say can be added to the genepool because they are less likely to be noticed and eliminated. Why is that when we can only point to a few beneficial mutations that has been added to the genepool but we can point to many more harmful mutations that have been added to the genepool.

Wow... If we thought like you did throughout history, we wouldn't have gotten very far. No offense. It's intellectual laziness on your part. To get to the point, you are not able to show that the chances are too small for a beneficial mutation to occur. In fact, its ridiculous to rule this out, and you are committing a logical fallacy, once again: "proof by assertion." If you have no evidence for something, you don't get to simply assert it as fact. Again, intuition does not count as evidence. It may be unlikely, but given how much time has passed since the earths beginning, and how many times animals have mated or divided, it becomes more and more likely.

The answer to your question is quite simple. it is more probable that a mutation is either neutral or harmful, simply because what constitutes fitness for any given animal is a narrow set of features. Relative to the possible mutations, only a narrow set of mutations would actually increase the chances for an organism to survive. Therefore, it is more statistically improbable that a random change in the alleles will produce anything desirable, than something undesirable. Occasionally, we do see people with beneficial mutations, but we might not even notice it. They may simply be the "prodigies" we all admire. By definition, any mutation we see, wouldn't be a huge mutation, because that's not really possible, or highly unlikely. It would be a small mutation, something we might not even notice, like greater intelligence, or a greater proclivity to understand math or music, english, etc... who knows. You seem to be expecting someone with wings or something ridiculous, I am guessing. Of course we are going to notice the harmful mutations, while any beneficial mutations might not be noteworthy. They may simply be a very successful person who don't even realize they have a beneficial mutation. So, you have no way of tracking how many beneficial mutations there are, because of confirmation bias with respect to the evidence.

 

[UltimateReality]

who the fuck is "us"
GUESS YOU'RE ILLITERATE TOO "American Atheists’ Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:

I’m a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert."

please explain how this person's knowledge of christianity becomes invalid just because they quit buying into the bullshit.
that's like saying because you're no longer a taxi driver, you've lost the ability to drive.
who's bias again?

What degree do you hold daws to be a pastor ?

I know where you're going with this, so I'll spare you the embarrassment of making an even larger anal aperture of yourself

Although degrees are very nice to have, God does not require an individual to have degrees to lead his church. However, God does have requirements. To lead God's church, one must first have accepted Christ as their personal saviour.

Wrong. This is what some of the religions of Christianity teach but this is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

One must be honourable and trustworthy, respected, not easily given to sin, have the ability to lead, be receptive to the leading of the Holy Spirit, be a good manager or Stewart of God's business, have goals and the additional requirements as emphasized in the Bible.

Now, some denominations may have degree requirements for their pastors. Some may require you to get formal theological training leading to the M.Div (Master of Divinity) or the M.Min (Master of Ministry) degree. There are also academic degrees leading to the Master of Systematic Theology or the Master of Sacred Theology. Some may require a Bachelor of Theology. If you belong to a denomination that holds such requirements, you may not be able to be a Pastor unless you have fulfilled this requirement. In any case, degree or no degree, the above requirements that meet the standards of holiness must be met.
What degree is required to be a Pastor of a church

I'd have answerd in my own words but you guys have a built in bias when it come to theological matters when us evil atheists provide them.

You said it. Not me.

 

[UltimateReality]

Hey UR, this is kinda fun thanking them for their totally useless posts.

It is!!! They started it like it was some kind of club thing, like it added legitimacy to their atheist buddy's post so for awhile I wrongly thanked you and Lonestar so we were sure the sides were picked. Now it is more like, "Thanks for your useless post". Even NP has joined in!!!

 

[Youwerecreated]

How are you defining "too rare" and how have you determined this, apart from your amazing "intuition"?

How rare are they? I will let you decide. We have over 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations and your side can only point to a handfull of beneficial mutations. Beneficial mutations they say can be added to the genepool because they are less likely to be noticed and eliminated. Why is that when we can only point to a few beneficial mutations that has been added to the genepool but we can point to many more harmful mutations that have been added to the genepool.

Wow... If we thought like you did throughout history, we wouldn't have gotten very far. No offense. It's intellectual laziness on your part. To get to the point, you are not able to show that the chances are too small for a beneficial mutation to occur. In fact, its ridiculous to rule this out, and you are committing a logical fallacy, once again: "proof by assertion." If you have no evidence for something, you don't get to simply assert it as fact. Again, intuition does not count as evidence.


The answer to your question is quite simple. it is more probable that a mutation is either neutral or harmful, simply because what constitutes fitness for any given animal is a narrow set of features. Relative to the possible mutations, only a narrow set of mutations would actually increase the chances for an organism to survive. Therefore, it is statistically improbable that a random change in the alleles will produce anything desirable. Occasionally, we do see people with beneficial mutations, but we might not even notice it. They may simply be the "prodigies" we all admire. By definition, any mutation we see, wouldn't be a huge mutation, because that's not really possible, or highly unlikely. It would be a small mutation, something we might not even notice, like greater intelligence, or a greater proclivity to understand math or music, english, etc... who knows. You seem to be expecting someone with wings or something ridiculous, I am guessing.

I did a post on mutation fixation a while back and the conditions that need to be met for a mutation to become fixated in the population and the problems for this to happen. You have enzymes also working against fixation . I am not gonna search for that post but here read this article and you will see one of your own explaining the conditions that have to be met for fixation to take place plus the enzymes working to correct these copying errors and the chances are impossible no matter how many years you give it.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.

Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.

NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION

Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject. 1

1. Natural Environment

Byles's first condition is: "Natural selection must be inconsequential at the locus or loci under investigation." This is because natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations--in other words, it tends to prevent their becoming a permanent part of the gene pool of a population. Natural selection keeps things stable rather than helping them to change. B. Clarke points out that even so-called advantageous mutations are harmful in that, because of increased competition, they can reduce population size, making their fixation nearly impossible. He adds that they will almost certainly lead to extinction of the mutant gene or organism, and possibly even the entire population. 2

The effect of Byles's first condition is that the environment must be selectively neutral, or else the mutant gene will never be retained in the population, preventing even slight change. But according to J.T. Giesel, most locations are almost certainly not selectively neutral. 3 Thus, in the vast majority of cases, Byles's first condition will not be met.

2. No Structural Change

Byles's second condition is: "There must be no pleiotropic effect involved with the locus or loci, or, if such effect exists, all the phenotypic structures involved must be selectively neutral." This means that there either must be no changes in physical structure involved, or they must be selectively neutral. If none are involved, then of course evolution does not occur. But if only those occur that are selectively neutral, then they are of no advantage to the mutant and survival of the fittest does not affect it or its non-mutant relatives; again, no evolution.

Not only would mutations that met this condition appear to contribute little or nothing to evolution, but also they would appear never to happen--or nearly never, anyway. G. Ledyard Stebbins tells us that within the gene there is no such thing as an inactive site at which a mutation will not affect the adaptive properties of the gene. 4 "Every character of an organism is affected by all genes," writes Ernst Mayr, "and every gene affects all characters. It is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional integration of the genotype as a whole." 5

In other words, there may well be no such thing as a mutation having no structural change in the organism. Yet Byles says that a requirement for the fixation of a mutation is that it have none, or that the effect it has must be selectively neutral. Neither case appears ever to happen, and even if the latter did, it would not lead to macro-evolution since it would leave the mutant no more "fit" than any of its relatives. Indeed it would probably be less "fit" because of the tendency of natural selection to weed out rather than preserve mutations in a gene pool.

3. Net Effect Must be Unidirectional

Byles's third condition is: ". . . the mutational event must be recurrent and, furthermore, the rate of back mutation must be so small as to be irrelevant." Byles himself admits, though, that even recurrent mutations are almost never retained in the population: ". . . non-recurrent mutations have a very low probability of remaining in the genepool at all . . . the odds against a recurrent mutation being retained in the gene pool for any significant number of generations are very high." And even "most recurrent mutations have been observed to retain the potential for back mutation." It seems that neither part of his third condition will be fulfilled; yet Byles makes it clear in his article that all the conditions must be fulfilled in order for mutations to be fixed in a population.

4. High Mutation Rate

Byles's fourth condition is: "The mutation rate at the relevant locus or loci must be very large." Yet Francisco Ayala says, "It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations in higher organisms between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation." 6

Byles himself comments on Lerner's estimate of one hundred mutations per one million gametes (one in ten thousand). "Obviously, a mutation rate this small, even given a complete absence of back mutation (which appears never to occur), would result in a very small change in a given gene pool, even given large numbers of generations. This has long been considered one of the major stumbling blocks to the [Probably Mutation Effect] . . . In order for the P.M.E. to be effective, very high mutation rates are clearly necessary."

So it appears that this condition, too, is likely never met in nature.

5. Large Population

Byles's fifth condition is that the population involved must be large. He stipulates this because small populations can easily be destroyed by a mutation. And, as population size decreases, the probability that a mutation will be eliminated increases.

Dobzhansky, Hecht, and Steers, however, postulate that a small population with much inbreeding is important: ". . . the ideal conditions for rapid evolution . . . are provided by a species which is divided into a number of small local sub-populations that are nearly but not completely isolated and small enough so that a moderate degree of inbreeding takes place. . . . The division of a species into two or more subspecies is of course dependent on complete isolation being achieved in some way." 7

It seems that evolutionists themselves have realized a great problem but are unable to deal with it. In a small population, a mutation will almost certainly be eliminated. Yet a small population is needed for evolution to occur. Here indeed is an impasse. But the problem gets worse.

Byles adds (in contradiction of Dobzhansky, Hecht, and Steere), "If the investigator is dealing with a population which is undergoing contact with genetically dissimilar neighbors, the effect of the mutation is inevitably so minor as to be undetectable. Therefore, to argue that mutation is the cause of change in the population's genetic structure, one must also of necessity argue that this population is not undergoing a process of hybridization." In other words, if the population is large, the effect of the mutation is almost nil. Even when Byles's condition is met, then, the effects of the mutations are almost zero on the entire population. And, furthermore, while Dobzhansky, Hecht, and Steere say some interbreeding between dissimilar populations is necessary, Byles says it is death to evolutionary change.

6. Selective Neutrality of Polygenes

Byles's sixth condition is: "Polygenes are not relevant to this argument, unless the entire anatomical complex is itself selectively neutral." This means that for organisms of many genes, the mutation cannot be fixed unless the whole anatomical structure of the organism is selectively neutral relative to the gene which mutates. That this does not occur was shown in our discussion of the second condition.

7. Little Hybridization

Byles's seventh condition is: "There must be little or no hybridizing admixture." This of course is to avoid making the mutation itself insignificant. But if the effect is actually significant, then this contradicts his second condition, which was that the mutation must cause no significant structural change (see under point 2 above). Furthermore, the only way in which to have no hybridizing admixture is to have a small population that is isolated from others of the same kind. This contradicts his fifth condition. If the population is small, the probability of a mutant gene's being eliminated rises steeply.

This seventh condition, if fulfilled, makes evolution impossible because the mutation would not be retained due to the necessarily small population. But if unfulfilled, it leaves evolution impossible due to the insignificance of the effect of the mutation.

8. Necessity of High Penetrance

Byles's eighth condition is: "The genetic structures involved must have high 'penetrance.'" Put simply, this means that the genes must be highly susceptible to mutation. It thus means almost the same as Condition Four.

Yet it occasions another problem. As soon as the structure becomes highly susceptible to mutation, it must also become highly susceptible to back mutation. But his third condition states that the rate of back mutation must be irrelevant. Again there is contradiction: fulfill Condition Eight and you can't fulfill Condition Three. Fulfill Condition Three and you can't fulfill Condition Eight. Yet Byles says that all of the conditions must be fulfilled for mutation fixation to occur; and without mutation fixation there is no macro-evolution.

9. High Heritability

Byles's ninth condition is: "The phenotype must have high heritability." This condition is almost never met for mutational phenotypes. Byles himself told us that the probability of retaining even a recurring mutation is "very low."

TALLYING THE SCORE

It appears that the probability of meeting any one of these conditions in nature is extremely low, if not non-existent. Recall now that the fifth and seventh conditions effectively cancel each other out, as do the third and eighth, and we are forced to the conclusion that it is impossible to meet all the conditions. Mutation cannot be the mechanism for macro-evolution.
Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

 

[UltimateReality]

Who programmed the errors?

Are the gawds looking for job security?

The same one who programmed the enzymes. I have said I believe that this is one of the mechanisms God has chosen to carry out his setence of death to all who sin.

Good answer. Those pre-teens with cancer, well screw'em. They're sinners who deserve to die. It's a good thing Manson's still alive. He would have been a good example for any 7 year old sinner with a terminal disease. Good thing that the gawds stepped in and snuffed out little johnny and Jane...die sinners.

Christianity teaches we are born into sin. And no where in the Bible does God guarantee you any minimum number of years on the planet. In fact, genocidal atheist feminazi's like Hawly have seen to it that we can kill as many unborn lives as possible. That is the thing about free will, you have the choice to destroy life. Abortion is EVIL.

 

[UltimateReality]

I know where you're going with this, so I'll spare you the embarrassment of making an even larger anal aperture..

Although degrees are very nice to have, God does not require an individual to have degrees to lead his church. However, God does have requirements. To lead God's church, one must first have accepted Christ as their personal saviour. One must be honourable and trustworthy, respected, not easily given to sin, have the ability to lead, be receptive to the leading of the Holy Spirit, be a good manager or Stewart of God's business, have goals and the additional requirements as emphasized in the Bible.

Now, some denominations may have degree requirements for their pastors. Some may require you to get formal theological training leading to the M.Div (Master of Divinity) or the M.Min (Master of Ministry) degree. There are also academic degrees leading to the Master of Systematic Theology or the Master of Sacred Theology. Some may require a Bachelor of Theology. If you belong to a denomination that holds such requirements, you may not be able to be a Pastor unless you have fulfilled this requirement. In any case, degree or no degree, the above requirements that meet the standards of holiness must be met.
What degree is required to be a Pastor of a church

I'd have answerd in my own words but you guys have a built in bias when it come to theological matters when us evil atheists provide them.

What did you do start a church out in the woods no major denomination would touch you without a degree poser.

I did nothing. who is this you you're talking about?
"no major denomination?" the post proves you wrong.
why the fuck would I start a church anywhere?
you do know WHAT a atheist is ..right?
making statements that showcase your stupidty are not funny..so keep your day job whatever that might be.

Yes, atheists worship creation and not the Creator. They worship nature. Their faith is in materialism. They also happen to believe that everyone should be as miserable as they are, and thus their continued assault on Christmas. You know, because giving people gifts, helping those in need, and spending time with family should never be encouraged by the gov'ment.

 

[UltimateReality]

No, I didn't know this, but I don't see how this matters, either. You have made the claim that beneficial mutations are impossible. However it is, that mutations occur, we know they occur. What I am asking if why you seem to think that only harmful mutations occur? This is a very convenient position to have for a creationist, and it is very suspect. There is no mechanism to discriminate against positive mutations. This much I know, because that would imply there was an evolved system that was designed to produce harmful mutations only. No life form with an interest in continuing life, would evolve this kind of system. Then again, you believe that virus' have a built-in self-destruct sequence.

Whoa ,whoa, whoa, I said earlier when you asked me, I said they were to rare to be the engine to produce the diversity seen in nature.

How are you defining "too rare" and how have you determined this, apart from your amazing "intuition"?

Scientific evidence easily studied with a google search.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I can see the useless posts now after posting something from a creationist.

 

[UltimateReality]

Your analogy is as weak as your brain.

Her opinion isn't invalid, it's simply wrong.


And "us" doesn't mean you so get off your self righteous horse.

Who is the us anyway? Usually it's the mouse squeaking in someones pocket. All sides need to stop the religious hatred and start supporting the constitution that makes our republic work.

since god is not mentioned in the Constitution I think you're on the wrong thread.

Hollowhead tried arguing this and got totally owned. God is absolutely mentioned in the Constitution. Now maybe not in the context to which you are referring, but he is definitely mentioned.

 

[UltimateReality]

It's a new tactic to his creepy stalking.

even creepier he thanks himself for his own posts.
it's a kind of masturbation.

And thats different than you laughing at your own jokes how?

 

[UltimateReality]

wrong again! you have no evidence for creationism or Id. saying it's supported by evidence is false.

Care to explain who programmed the enzymes to identify copying errors during DNA replication and then repair them ?

Yawn. That presumes a programmer, and that the term 'programming' even applies to that.

Assigning that to an invisible super being does nothing to support the contention there is a 'creator'.

Try again.

Why would you automatically assume it is an invisible super being and not an advanced alien race?

 

[newpolitics]

Whoa ,whoa, whoa, I said earlier when you asked me, I said they were to rare to be the engine to produce the diversity seen in nature.

How are you defining "too rare" and how have you determined this, apart from your amazing "intuition"?

Scientific evidence easily studied with a google search.

You are missing the point. This is not something you can even study through google, because the assertion is completely subjective until some definitions are laid out, which YWC has failed to do. He simply relies on intuition as his guide for objective truths.

 

[mjollnir]

Care to explain who programmed the enzymes to identify copying errors during DNA replication and then repair them ?

Yawn. That presumes a programmer, and that the term 'programming' even applies to that.

Assigning that to an invisible super being does nothing to support the contention there is a 'creator'.

Try again.

Why would you automatically assume it is an invisible super being and not an advanced alien race?

I assume neither.