Creationists

[daws101]

That isnt even a correct description of the argument!

You just agreed that human ancestors had 24 pairs of chromosomes.



NO ORGANISM WITH 24 PAIRS OF CHROMOSOMES IS HUMAN.

Thats the entire point. That is the very definition of human.

Ever heard of correlation-causality? Because your fucking it up.

If an animal doesnt have 46 chromosomes, then its not a human. However, if an organism does have 46 chromosomes, than that does not necessarily mean it is a human

Similar to:

If its raining it must be wet outside, but just because its wet outside doesnt mean its raining. (maybe the sprinkler is on...)

Get it??

Ill say it again:

If an animal doesnt have 46 chromosomes, then its not a human. However, if an organism does have 46 chromosomes, than that does not necessarily mean it is a human

So if you admit that human ancestors had 24 pairs of chromosomes, which you do, then you MUST admit that human ancestors were a different species.

Well my explanation would be that the fusion was caused by God. God knowing how perverted man could be he made sure there would be no crossing of ape and human or any animal. God said he created man in his image and he meant for man to remain in his image.

God also commanded that man should not lie with an animal.

Exodus 22:19 (ESV)
19 “Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death

Leviticus 18:23 (ESV)
23 And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.


Leviticus 20:15–16 (ESV)
15 If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely


Deuteronomy 27:21 (ESV)
21 “ ‘Cursed be anyone who lies with any kind of animal.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’


So i would say god defitnitely made sure man and animal could not produce offspring.

So your explanation is that speciation exists, but its just that god drives it?

what does goat sex have to do with human evolution...?
"daaaaaaaady!"
"look at it this way kid, you'll never need a sweater."
"

 

[Youwerecreated]

Just to hammer down the correlation causality thing one more time.

Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is what your doing.

Statement 1: An animal with something other than 46 chromosomes is not a human.

Statement 2: An animal with 46 chromosomes is a human.

Statement 1 is correct, statement 2 is false.

Similar to....

Statement 1: The more firemen fighting a fire, the bigger the fire is observed to be.

Statement 2: Therefore firemen cause fire.

Statement one is true; more firefighters are sent to fight a bigger fire. But statement two is false; firemen certainly dont cause the fire.

Get it yet?

Wrong,i showed animals with the same amount of chromosomes that were vastly different.

And i pointed out it was not the number of chromosomes but it was the information contained in the chromosomes that mattered.

NO YOU IDIOT!

"animals with the same amount of chromosomes that were vastly different."

EXACTLY!!!!!!!
---------------
Statement 2: An animal with 46 chromosomes is a human. <---thats false! there are plenty of animals with 46 chromsomes

Statement 1: An animal with something other than 46 chromosomes is not a human. <----thats true, all humans must have 46 chromosomes
---------------
chromosomes equal 46, then human

chromosomes not equal 46, then not necessarily human.
---------------
The point is that if human ancestors had 48 chromosomes they werent human.

No one is claiming that means all animals with 46 chromosomes are human.

but all humans have 46 chromosomes.

The idiot is the one that can't read. How do you know there were no humans with 48 chromosomes ?

I named two species that were not human with 46 chromosomes. Not saying they were human unless there was a typo.

The point is the information in the chromosomes is the important issue which you ignored, not the number of chromosomes.



Here let me blow your little theory up again.

Man with 44 chromosomes that is perfectly normal,it is fun debating people who constantly step in it. Give you guys enough rope you hang yourselves with it. Notice how they try to spin this evidence.

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/news.php?id=124

 

[Youwerecreated]

That isnt even a correct description of the argument!

You just agreed that human ancestors had 24 pairs of chromosomes.



NO ORGANISM WITH 24 PAIRS OF CHROMOSOMES IS HUMAN.

Thats the entire point. That is the very definition of human.

Ever heard of correlation-causality? Because your fucking it up.

If an animal doesnt have 46 chromosomes, then its not a human. However, if an organism does have 46 chromosomes, than that does not necessarily mean it is a human

Similar to:

If its raining it must be wet outside, but just because its wet outside doesnt mean its raining. (maybe the sprinkler is on...)

Get it??

Ill say it again:

If an animal doesnt have 46 chromosomes, then its not a human. However, if an organism does have 46 chromosomes, than that does not necessarily mean it is a human

So if you admit that human ancestors had 24 pairs of chromosomes, which you do, then you MUST admit that human ancestors were a different species.

Well my explanation would be that the fusion was caused by God. God knowing how perverted man could be he made sure there would be no crossing of ape and human or any animal. God said he created man in his image and he meant for man to remain in his image.

God also commanded that man should not lie with an animal.

Exodus 22:19 (ESV)
19 “Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death

Leviticus 18:23 (ESV)
23 And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.


Leviticus 20:15–16 (ESV)
15 If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely


Deuteronomy 27:21 (ESV)
21 “ ‘Cursed be anyone who lies with any kind of animal.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’


So i would say god defitnitely made sure man and animal could not produce offspring.

So your explanation is that speciation exists, but its just that god drives it?

Possibly or he just allowed variations within a family.

 

[LOki]

Here let me blow your little theory up again.

Man with 44 chromosomes that is perfectly normal,it is fun debating people who constantly step in it. Give you guys enough rope you hang yourselves with it. Notice how they try to spin this evidence.

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/news.php?id=124

It appears that what we're looking at here is an example of human speciation. Blowing up your little "theory."

You lose again!

 

[LOki]

Well my explanation would be that the fusion was caused by God. God knowing how perverted man could be he made sure there would be no crossing of ape and human or any animal. God said he created man in his image and he meant for man to remain in his image.

God also commanded that man should not lie with an animal.

Exodus 22:19 (ESV)
19 “Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death

Leviticus 18:23 (ESV)
23 And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.


Leviticus 20:15–16 (ESV)
15 If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely


Deuteronomy 27:21 (ESV)
21 “ ‘Cursed be anyone who lies with any kind of animal.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’


So i would say god defitnitely made sure man and animal could not produce offspring.

So your explanation is that speciation exists, but its just that god drives it?

Possibly or he just allowed variations within a family.

Literally no evolutionist anywhere is disputing the genetic variation that exists within a taxonomic family--as a matter of fact, such variation is in perfect agreement with evolutionary theory, but your Creation science has no explanation for it; IT'S INEXPLICABLE!

 

[Youwerecreated]

Here let me blow your little theory up again.

Man with 44 chromosomes that is perfectly normal,it is fun debating people who constantly step in it. Give you guys enough rope you hang yourselves with it. Notice how they try to spin this evidence.

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/news.php?id=124

It appears that what we're looking at here is an example of human speciation. Blowing up your little "theory."

You lose again!

Try again moron.

No change and perfectly normal don't sound like evolution to me.

So how do you know humans didn't have 48 chromosomes ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

So your explanation is that speciation exists, but its just that god drives it?

Possibly or he just allowed variations within a family.

Literally no evolutionist anywhere is disputing the genetic variation that exists within a taxonomic family--as a matter of fact, such variation is in perfect agreement with evolutionary theory, but your Creation science has no explanation for it; IT'S INEXPLICABLE!

It fits perfectly with creation,we believe in microevolution which adds up to microadaptations which brings about variations within a family,not macroevolution that means new family.

Cross breeding and parental traits, i answered this before . I guess it didn't sink in.

You're amazing

 

[daws101]

Here let me blow your little theory up again.

Man with 44 chromosomes that is perfectly normal,it is fun debating people who constantly step in it. Give you guys enough rope you hang yourselves with it. Notice how they try to spin this evidence.

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/news.php?id=124

It appears that what we're looking at here is an example of human speciation. Blowing up your little "theory."

You lose again!

Try again moron.

No change and perfectly normal don't sound like evolution to me.

So how do you know humans didn't have 48 chromosomes ?

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/news.php?id=124

 

[Youwerecreated]

It appears that what we're looking at here is an example of human speciation. Blowing up your little "theory."

You lose again!

Try again moron.

No change and perfectly normal don't sound like evolution to me.

So how do you know humans didn't have 48 chromosomes ?

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/news.php?id=124

Evolutionist claim humans only have 46 chromosomes they were wrong again.

Like i said the guy with 44 chromosomes is perfectly normal,the chromosome count is not important,it's the information in the chromosomes that is important.

 

[Youwerecreated]

School is out for the day.

 

[LOki]

Here let me blow your little theory up again.

Man with 44 chromosomes that is perfectly normal,it is fun debating people who constantly step in it. Give you guys enough rope you hang yourselves with it. Notice how they try to spin this evidence.

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/news.php?id=124

It appears that what we're looking at here is an example of human speciation. Blowing up your little "theory."

You lose again!

Try again moron.

No change and perfectly normal don't sound like evolution to me.

The article seems to assert that he cannot successfully reproduce with a genetically normal Homo sapiens-sapiens; hence, he may be the founder of a new species of Homo--IF he can find a mate with his same mutation.

And right there in one act of retarded hubris, you have just provided prima-facie evidence that not only can mutation lead to speciation (as you have been denying) but also that human beings are subject to such variation in genotype to engender speciation in agreement with evolutionary theory--and in direct contradiction to your Creationism "theory."

CONGRATULATIONS DUMBASS!

So how do you know humans didn't have 48 chromosomes ?

Because homo sapiens DOES NOT have 48 chromosomes.

WOW! That was easy!

Now your turn; I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It appears that what we're looking at here is an example of human speciation. Blowing up your little "theory."

You lose again!

Try again moron.

No change and perfectly normal don't sound like evolution to me.

The article seems to assert that he cannot successfully reproduce with a genetically normal Homo sapiens-sapiens; hence, he may be the founder of a new species of Homo--IF he can find a mate with his same mutation.

And right there in one act of retarded hubris, you have just provided prima-facie evidence that not only can mutation lead to speciation (as you have been denying) but also that human beings are subject to such variation in genotype to engender speciation in agreement with evolutionary theory--and in direct contradiction to your Creationism "theory."

CONGRATULATIONS DUMBASS!

So how do you know humans didn't have 48 chromosomes ?

Because homo sapiens DOES NOT have 48 chromosomes.

WOW! That was easy!

Now your turn; I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.

Human is human dumbass

Was there a change in the information ?

You do realize new information is evolution right ?

Don't be such a Troll

 

[Youwerecreated]

It appears that what we're looking at here is an example of human speciation. Blowing up your little "theory."

You lose again!

Try again moron.

No change and perfectly normal don't sound like evolution to me.

The article seems to assert that he cannot successfully reproduce with a genetically normal Homo sapiens-sapiens; hence, he may be the founder of a new species of Homo--IF he can find a mate with his same mutation.

And right there in one act of retarded hubris, you have just provided prima-facie evidence that not only can mutation lead to speciation (as you have been denying) but also that human beings are subject to such variation in genotype to engender speciation in agreement with evolutionary theory--and in direct contradiction to your Creationism "theory."

CONGRATULATIONS DUMBASS!

So how do you know humans didn't have 48 chromosomes ?

Because homo sapiens DOES NOT have 48 chromosomes.

WOW! That was easy!

Now your turn; I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.

Do you ever read everything you

"Theoretically the 44 chromosome man should have fewer problems having children than his parents did. As this figure shows, there are no unpaired chromosomes when he and a woman with 46 chromosomes have children. But all of their kids would have a balanced translocation."

 

[LOki]

Human is human dumbass

Yes, ... and cats are cats. But all cats are not all the same species. I was obligated to school you on this subject, because you failed to learn it in 10th grade.

Was there a change in the information ?

Yes.

You do realize new information is evolution right ?

Yes.

Don't be such a Troll

Do you ever read everything you

Yes. Yet you seem to have some trouble reading everything ... even the crap you post. Seriously.

"Theoretically the 44 chromosome man should have fewer problems having children than his parents did. As this figure shows, there are no unpaired chromosomes when he and a woman with 46 chromosomes have children. But all of their kids would have a balanced translocation."

Yes, to this "theoretically"; but the actuality his progeny will experience is significantly different. So what does your quote actually mean? Here's the answer:

"His chromosomes are arranged in a stable way that could be passed on if he met a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too." [em.: LOki]

...

...​

"The parent with the balanced translocation can make 6 different kinds of sperm or egg (the second row). As the figure shows, when the eggs and sperm combine, 2/3 of the time the fetus ends up with an extra or missing chromosome. Unless this chromosome is the X, Y or number 21, the usual result is miscarriage or being born with severe problems.

In this case it would almost certainly result in miscarriage. In fact, the 44 chromosome man's family has a long history of miscarriages and spontaneous abortions." [em.: LOki]​

You see there? He has to find "... a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too ..." if he is to pass this 44 chromosome configuration in a stable manner; otherwise his progeny--ALL of his progeny--will experience a 66% reproductive failure rate at best.

After seeing you resolutely deny the plenitude of fossil evidence of transitions in populations of organisms (and the necessary transitions in genetic information appurtenant to them), and your arrant refusal to acknowledge the existence (and significant blow they make to your criticisms of evolution theory of speciation) of ring species, it's not at all surprising that now you'd (deliberately) not see the transition from 46 chromosomes, to 45 chromosomes, to 44 chromosomes to be any difference in the genetic information between the respective organisms, nor any evidence of any kind of transition.

Considering your inability to effectively (or honestly) discuss any subject of actual science, I would surmise you'd have every confidence in your ability to provide a meaningful explanation for your own "theory."

So, I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Human is human dumbass

Yes, ... and cats are cats. But all cats are not all the same species. I was obligated to school you on this subject, because you failed to learn it in 10th grade.

Was there a change in the information ?

Yes.

Yes.

Do you ever read everything you

Yes. Yet you seem to have some trouble reading everything ... even the crap you post. Seriously.

"Theoretically the 44 chromosome man should have fewer problems having children than his parents did. As this figure shows, there are no unpaired chromosomes when he and a woman with 46 chromosomes have children. But all of their kids would have a balanced translocation."

Yes, to this "theoretically"; but the actuality his progeny will experience is significantly different. So what does your quote actually mean? Here's the answer:

"His chromosomes are arranged in a stable way that could be passed on if he met a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too." [em.: LOki]

...

...​

"The parent with the balanced translocation can make 6 different kinds of sperm or egg (the second row). As the figure shows, when the eggs and sperm combine, 2/3 of the time the fetus ends up with an extra or missing chromosome. Unless this chromosome is the X, Y or number 21, the usual result is miscarriage or being born with severe problems.

In this case it would almost certainly result in miscarriage. In fact, the 44 chromosome man's family has a long history of miscarriages and spontaneous abortions." [em.: LOki]​

You see there? He has to find "... a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too ..." if he is to pass this 44 chromosome configuration in a stable manner; otherwise his progeny--ALL of his progeny--will experience a 66% reproductive failure rate at best.

After seeing you resolutely deny the plenitude of fossil evidence of transitions in populations of organisms (and the necessary transitions in genetic information appurtenant to them), and your arrant refusal to acknowledge the existence (and significant blow they make to your criticisms of evolution theory of speciation) of ring species, it's not at all surprising that now you'd (deliberately) not see the transition from 46 chromosomes, to 45 chromosomes, to 44 chromosomes to be any difference in the genetic information between the respective organisms, nor any evidence of any kind of transition.

Considering your inability to effectively (or honestly) discuss any subject of actual science, I would surmise you'd have every confidence in your ability to provide a meaningful explanation for your own "theory."

So, I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.

The only difference is he has 44 chromosomes.

The information is the same if not there would be a difference.

That is why i use terms kind or family while there are variations but this guy shows no difference period other then having 44 chromosomes he is a human not a new species.

I have told you and others evolutionist are guilty of creating terms to help them in making a case for macro-evolution.

The theory is built on faulty assumptions and conclusions from those faulty assumptions.

We descended from humans that is what genetics teach us. We do not share a common ancestor with the chimp. There is zero evidence of this.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Human is human dumbass

Yes, ... and cats are cats. But all cats are not all the same species. I was obligated to school you on this subject, because you failed to learn it in 10th grade.

Was there a change in the information ?

Yes.

Yes.

Do you ever read everything you

Yes. Yet you seem to have some trouble reading everything ... even the crap you post. Seriously.

"Theoretically the 44 chromosome man should have fewer problems having children than his parents did. As this figure shows, there are no unpaired chromosomes when he and a woman with 46 chromosomes have children. But all of their kids would have a balanced translocation."

Yes, to this "theoretically"; but the actuality his progeny will experience is significantly different. So what does your quote actually mean? Here's the answer:

"His chromosomes are arranged in a stable way that could be passed on if he met a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too." [em.: LOki]

...

...​

"The parent with the balanced translocation can make 6 different kinds of sperm or egg (the second row). As the figure shows, when the eggs and sperm combine, 2/3 of the time the fetus ends up with an extra or missing chromosome. Unless this chromosome is the X, Y or number 21, the usual result is miscarriage or being born with severe problems.

In this case it would almost certainly result in miscarriage. In fact, the 44 chromosome man's family has a long history of miscarriages and spontaneous abortions." [em.: LOki]​

You see there? He has to find "... a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too ..." if he is to pass this 44 chromosome configuration in a stable manner; otherwise his progeny--ALL of his progeny--will experience a 66% reproductive failure rate at best.

After seeing you resolutely deny the plenitude of fossil evidence of transitions in populations of organisms (and the necessary transitions in genetic information appurtenant to them), and your arrant refusal to acknowledge the existence (and significant blow they make to your criticisms of evolution theory of speciation) of ring species, it's not at all surprising that now you'd (deliberately) not see the transition from 46 chromosomes, to 45 chromosomes, to 44 chromosomes to be any difference in the genetic information between the respective organisms, nor any evidence of any kind of transition.

Considering your inability to effectively (or honestly) discuss any subject of actual science, I would surmise you'd have every confidence in your ability to provide a meaningful explanation for your own "theory."

So, I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.

How many times do i have to say I can't prove God exists from physical evidence,but he can be shown to exist from what's contained in the scriptures. You don't want to accept it fine,but you can't prove he doesn't exist.

You can't prove your religion ever happened either. You still don't see your beliefs are based on faith not evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Human is human dumbass

Yes, ... and cats are cats. But all cats are not all the same species. I was obligated to school you on this subject, because you failed to learn it in 10th grade.

Was there a change in the information ?

Yes.

Yes.

Do you ever read everything you

Yes. Yet you seem to have some trouble reading everything ... even the crap you post. Seriously.

"Theoretically the 44 chromosome man should have fewer problems having children than his parents did. As this figure shows, there are no unpaired chromosomes when he and a woman with 46 chromosomes have children. But all of their kids would have a balanced translocation."

Yes, to this "theoretically"; but the actuality his progeny will experience is significantly different. So what does your quote actually mean? Here's the answer:

"His chromosomes are arranged in a stable way that could be passed on if he met a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too." [em.: LOki]

...

...​

"The parent with the balanced translocation can make 6 different kinds of sperm or egg (the second row). As the figure shows, when the eggs and sperm combine, 2/3 of the time the fetus ends up with an extra or missing chromosome. Unless this chromosome is the X, Y or number 21, the usual result is miscarriage or being born with severe problems.

In this case it would almost certainly result in miscarriage. In fact, the 44 chromosome man's family has a long history of miscarriages and spontaneous abortions." [em.: LOki]​

You see there? He has to find "... a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too ..." if he is to pass this 44 chromosome configuration in a stable manner; otherwise his progeny--ALL of his progeny--will experience a 66% reproductive failure rate at best.

After seeing you resolutely deny the plenitude of fossil evidence of transitions in populations of organisms (and the necessary transitions in genetic information appurtenant to them), and your arrant refusal to acknowledge the existence (and significant blow they make to your criticisms of evolution theory of speciation) of ring species, it's not at all surprising that now you'd (deliberately) not see the transition from 46 chromosomes, to 45 chromosomes, to 44 chromosomes to be any difference in the genetic information between the respective organisms, nor any evidence of any kind of transition.

Considering your inability to effectively (or honestly) discuss any subject of actual science, I would surmise you'd have every confidence in your ability to provide a meaningful explanation for your own "theory."

So, I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.

Explain the new and beneficial genetic information ?

Evolution is considered new and benficial information so how would this be evolution ?

 

[LOki]

How many times do i have to say I can't prove God exists from physical evidence,but he can be shown to exist from what's contained in the scriptures.

How many times do I have to point out to you that "... show[ing God] to exist from what's contained in the scriptures" is question-begging? It's an INVALID demonstration of fact!

Besides, I have unambiguously stated I am aware that the existence of your God is baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, and that you are aware of this as well ... which is why I am not asking you to prove that your God exists. I have long stopped asking for any verifiable evidence and/or valid logic proving that your God exists. I have stopped asking for this.

Am I now finally clear? I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.

Do you understand this? I will say it again:

I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.

So stop refusing to prove that your God exists, when I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.

Can you perceive why you should stop refusing to prove that your God exists? Let me tell you why:

I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.

Is this now finally clear to you?

I hope so, because I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists ...

... until that point where you make the claim that you can. Then I'll (legitimately) start asking again.

(The same goes for any assertion you make regarding "evidence" you can submit that supports any assertion you make that your God exists. I will then (legitimately) insist that you present your evidence for inspection and validation.)​

So as long as you can abide by these rules of intellectually honest discourse, you can continue to be assured that I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.

Ok?

You don't want to accept it fine, ..."

You've offered no intellectually valid--OR HONEST--reason to accept your "(utter and complete lack of) explanation."

Just saying "God did it" is not an explanation. And saying, "I can't prove God exists" does not address the question asked, because:

(Say it with me now, ) I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.

Ok?

... but you can't prove he doesn't exist.

I NEVER set out to do so, I have NEVER claimed I could, and I AM NOT asking you to prove that your God does exist ... I am asking you to provide the exact same specificity regarding the mechanisms of your Creation "theory" that you require evolution scientists to provide when they explain their claims--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory." You're just obstinately refusing to do so, or you're just too cowardly to admit that your "theory" as well as your objections to other theories are entirely duplicitous; and baseless in fact of reality and/or meaningless.

So from now on, you can stop accusing me of asserting that your God does not exist.

I am not saying I can prove that your God does not exist.

I am not trying to prove that your God does not exist.

I am not saying that your God does not exist.

I am not saying that I can prove [whatever god you wish to name] does not exist.

I am not trying to prove [whatever god you wish to name] does not exist.

I am not saying that [whatever god you wish to name] does not exist.

I am not saying I can prove that a Creator does not exist.

I am not trying to prove that a Creator does not exist.

I am not saying that a Creator does not exist.

I am not even saying that everything was not created.

Ok? Got that? All of you? Have I made myself abundantly clear?

I am NOT saying that God does not exist.

Thus, claiming that I am saying one or all of these things is no valid rebuttal to anything I actually say or have actually said because, (now say it with me) I am NOT saying that God (or a Creator, or whatever superstitious supremacy you wish to invoke--I'll just say "God" from now on for brevity's sake) does not exist.

You got that now?

I am NOT saying that God does not exist; I am NOT trying to prove that God does not exist.

You may now desist with the accusation that I am saying God does not exist, or that I am trying to prove God does not exist, as any kind of rebuttal to anything I am actually saying because, I am NOT saying that God does not exist; I am NOT trying to prove that God does not exist.

So if you do make such an accusation, you had better provide specific substantiation in the form of a direct quote and link, or your accusation--baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic--is meaningless garbage, and I will gleefully expose it as such.

Are we clear on that now?

Allow me to repeat: I am NOT saying that God does not exist; I am NOT trying to prove that God does not exist.

Ok?

I am NOT saying that God does not exist; I am NOT trying to prove that God does not exist. (Just in case ...)

You can't prove your religion ever happened either.

What religion? What religion, precisely? What claim of "proof" have I made? Provide verifiable evidence of your claims; provide quotes and/or links so that your claims can be validated. Again, your disingenuous claims about, objections to, and criticisms of other theories are entirely baseless in verifiable fact of reality and/or meaningless.

You still don't see your beliefs are based on faith not evidence.

The evidentiary bases of my beliefs have been amply provided, and as such are conspicuously obvious; you have made that point clear with your responses. Yet the fact that you prejudicially refuse to acknowledge verifiable evidence is no refutation of that evidence or its validity. And your refusal to accept the verifiable evidence that I have presented as "proof" (rather than simply evidence), is irrelevant to the fact of reality that what I have presented is actual valid evidence in support of my beliefs; evidence validated by its verifiability AND by valid logic. Do you understand the important distinction between such valid evidence, and the invalid evidence you present?

I hope so, because then you must accept as such, that there is literally NO FAITH involved in my beliefs as presented. None. These beliefs require no denial of verifiable evidence or denial of valid logic; they simply are not faith.

Now that I've cleared all of that up for you, I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.*

*(n.b.: Lest you have already forgotten: I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists; so there is no reason at all for you to refuse this request, on the basis that it's a request for you to prove that your God exists. Ok? I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.)

 

[LOki]

Explain the new and beneficial genetic information ?

Did I say, "new"? Direct quote and link, please.

Did I say, "beneficial"? Direct quote and link, please.

I would be happy to explain something I said (for a change).

Evolution is considered new and benficial information so how would this be evolution ?

Considered by whom? Direct quote (from an actual and currently practicing mainstream evolutionary scientist) and link, please.

So, I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.

Thanks!

 

[LOki]

The only difference is he has 44 chromosomes.

The information is the same if not there would be a difference.

You seem to be confused. Is there a difference, or is there no difference?

That is why i use terms kind or family while there are variations but this guy shows no difference period other then having 44 chromosomes he is a human not a new species.

You seem to be confused. Is there a difference, or is there no difference?

I see a difference. And I see that difference (under the right conditions) could prove to be significant in the way such differences (and others) accumulate such that speciation occurs transitionally, as manifested in ring-species, for example.

I wonder why you just won't perceive the difference here.

I have told you and others evolutionist are guilty of creating terms to help them in making a case for macro-evolution.

The terms are descriptive. The principles mechanisms they describe are pretty consistently understood and acceptable--differences are conspicuously noted.

The theory is built on faulty assumptions and conclusions from those faulty assumptions.

Nonsense. The assumptions are not faulty. At least not so egregiously faulty as assuming that Santa's elves cause evolution when they feed fairy dust to flying reindeer, whose subsequent flatulence directs the development of life in a specific (and spiritually meaningful) way; or that "God" did it.

Right?

We descended from humans that is what genetics teach us. We do not share a common ancestor with the chimp. There is zero evidence of this.

Your prejudicial refusal to acknowledge of the evidence is no refutation of that evidence or its validity.