Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

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?

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.)

The bible made claims and science verified many of the claims.

I have pointed out many parts of the theory that are not backed by evidence so they fall in the faith category. like it or not that is the facts.

 

[LOki]

The bible made claims and science verified many of the claims.

The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. Look it up.

I have pointed out many parts of the theory that are not backed by evidence so they fall in the faith category. like it or not that is the facts.

You have intentionally misrepresented the assertions made by theorists (e.g. punctuated equilibrium), the theory of evolution (e.g. "everything is supposed to get better"), as well as the "evidence" (e.g. conflation of taxonomic descriptions); and every instance of your misrepresentations have been unambiguously exposed for what they are.

Now that we have that out of the way, 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.)

 

[Youwerecreated]

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!

Why don't you learn the theory before you try to argue in behalf of it.This is why i should ignore your posts.

Sweeps weak in human evolution


Rapid spread of beneficial mutations relatively rare

By Tina Hesman Saey

Web edition : Thursday, February 17th, 2011

Text Size


Humans probably didn’t get swept up in evolution.

Scientists have favored a model of evolution in which beneficial gene mutations quickly and dramatically sweep through a population due to the evolutionary advantages they confer. Such mutations would become nearly universal in a population. But this selective sweep model may not be accurate for humans, a new study indicates. Human evolution likely followed a more subtle and complicated path, say population geneticists Molly Przeworski of the University of Chicago and Guy Sella of Hebrew University of Jerusalem and colleagues.

Sweeps Weak In Human Evolution - Science News

 

[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!

Why don't you learn the theory before you try to argue in behalf of it.

Sweeps weak in human evolution


Rapid spread of beneficial mutations relatively rare

By Tina Hesman Saey

Web edition : Thursday, February 17th, 2011

Text Size


Humans probably didn’t get swept up in evolution.

Scientists have favored a model of evolution in which beneficial gene mutations quickly and dramatically sweep through a population due to the evolutionary advantages they confer. Such mutations would become nearly universal in a population. But this selective sweep model may not be accurate for humans, a new study indicates. Human evolution likely followed a more subtle and complicated path, say population geneticists Molly Przeworski of the University of Chicago and Guy Sella of Hebrew University of Jerusalem and colleagues.

Sweeps Weak In Human Evolution - Science News

Seriously. Why don't YOU you learn the theory before you try to argue against it?

And, just for a change of pace, why don't you directly address my requests for information in my posts, rather than address something else that you think you're more comfortable with? Really, were we talking about the selective sweep model? No.

But just so you don't walk away with the impression that I'm unfamiliar (or that you're not) with the notion of such "sweeps," the point is not in contention. Just because recent/current population conditions would have a (well explained, BTW) nullifying effect on the propagation of a 44 chromosome Homo- amongst Homo sapiens-sapiens, it does not follow that such conditions were always existent (they most certainly weren't), or will always persist. The point you're clumsily dodging here is that this dramatic change in genetic information actually occurred in a contemporary time frame; though it's potential effect has not (or, considering the current state of human interactions, cannot, I'll grant you) been measured, that potential cannot simply be ignored while the effects of other translocations are well documented. You have held opposition to both of these facts of reality, in effect insisting that since science cannot "prove" such a dramatic genetic change is not lethal or detrimental, there is no evidence what-so-ever that such a dramatic genetic change can have evolutionary significance.

You seem to take the better understanding (as described in the link) of the role that selective sweep in human evolution to be some refutation of the selective sweep model, and/or evolutionary theory entirely.

"Good evidence does exist for some mutations that did undergo selective sweeps in humans, such as those for skin pigmentation, hair and teeth morphology and the genetic change that allows adults in some populations to digest the milk sugar lactose. But those examples are the exception rather than the rule in human evolution.

“We have beautiful examples of selective sweeps. But there are not many of them, and our results suggest [there are] not many more to come,” Przeworski says. “Our results do not suggest that adaptation was rare. Many protein changes in humans may well have been adaptive. What our results indicate is that the dominant mode of adaptation was not the classic sweep,” she says."​

Where Creation "science" finds it necessary to defend its preconceptions--declaring inconsistency with the preconceptions of Creation "science" to be the invalidating standard--evolution science makes no such inconsistencies necessarily mutually exclusive; such that one or the other must be wrong. There is no preconceived conclusion that can be refuted. The conclusions are demonstrated by agreeing with verifiable evidence, rather than "evidence" being demonstrated or verified by agreement with a preconceived conclusion.

So selective sweep is not as common as was thought 35 years ago. So what?

Selective sweep didn't simply "replace" all the other recognized identifiable mechanisms for genetic diversity and the distribution of such diversity. It was not necessary that those mechanisms be replaced by some newly discovered mechanism. This isn't mono-theism vs poly-theism. This isn't believe in this or that jealous god or be wrong. The selective sweep model described a set of observations, just like the other models. Predictions were made based on those models, and the validity of those models was tested. If the resulting evidence indicates more than one mechanism at work, evolutionary theory makes no prohibition from declaring so. Evolution is no religion, it's a description; it's not a god, jealous or otherwise.

If you're under the impression that evolutionary theory considers every identifiable mechanism for genetic diversity and the distribution of such diversity to be mutually exclusive (manifested in the apparent way you present them as refutations of each other), then you really have a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of evolution (of science, really), and should take the time to become informed about it somewhere other than Sunday school, the Discovery Institute, or The Institute for Creation Research.

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

At least provide an intellectually honest reason why you are refusing to do so. Ok?

*(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.)

 

[koshergrl]

Troll.

 

[koshergrl]

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).

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!

Why don't you learn the theory before you try to argue in behalf of it.

Sweeps weak in human evolution


Rapid spread of beneficial mutations relatively rare

By Tina Hesman Saey

Web edition : Thursday, February 17th, 2011

Text Size


Humans probably didn’t get swept up in evolution.

Scientists have favored a model of evolution in which beneficial gene mutations quickly and dramatically sweep through a population due to the evolutionary advantages they confer. Such mutations would become nearly universal in a population. But this selective sweep model may not be accurate for humans, a new study indicates. Human evolution likely followed a more subtle and complicated path, say population geneticists Molly Przeworski of the University of Chicago and Guy Sella of Hebrew University of Jerusalem and colleagues.

Sweeps Weak In Human Evolution - Science News

Seriously. Why don't YOU you learn the theory before you try to argue against it?

And, just for a change of pace, why don't you directly address my requests for information in my posts, rather than address something else that you think you're more comfortable with? Really, were we talking about the selective sweep model? No.

But just so you don't walk away with the impression that I'm unfamiliar (or that you're not) with the notion of such "sweeps," the point is not in contention. Just because recent/current population conditions would have a (well explained, BTW) nullifying effect on the propagation of a 44 chromosome Homo- amongst Homo sapiens-sapiens, it does not follow that such conditions were always existent (they most certainly weren't), or will always persist. The point you're clumsily dodging here is that this dramatic change in genetic information actually occurred in a contemporary time frame; though it's potential effect has not (or, considering the current state of human interactions, cannot, I'll grant you) been measured, that potential cannot simply be ignored while the effects of other translocations are well documented. You have held opposition to both of these facts of reality, in effect insisting that since science cannot "prove" such a dramatic genetic change is not lethal or detrimental, there is no evidence what-so-ever that such a dramatic genetic change can have evolutionary significance.

You seem to take the better understanding (as described in the link) of the role that selective sweep in human evolution to be some refutation of the selective sweep model, and/or evolutionary theory entirely.

"Good evidence does exist for some mutations that did undergo selective sweeps in humans, such as those for skin pigmentation, hair and teeth morphology and the genetic change that allows adults in some populations to digest the milk sugar lactose. But those examples are the exception rather than the rule in human evolution.

“We have beautiful examples of selective sweeps. But there are not many of them, and our results suggest [there are] not many more to come,” Przeworski says. “Our results do not suggest that adaptation was rare. Many protein changes in humans may well have been adaptive. What our results indicate is that the dominant mode of adaptation was not the classic sweep,” she says."
​

Where Creation "science" finds it necessary to defend its preconceptions--declaring inconsistency with the preconceptions of Creation "science" to be the invalidating standard--evolution science makes no such inconsistencies necessarily mutually exclusive; such that one or the other must be wrong. There is no preconceived conclusion that can be refuted. The conclusions are demonstrated by agreeing with verifiable evidence, rather than "evidence" being demonstrated or verified by agreement with a preconceived conclusion.

So selective sweep is not as common as was thought 35 years ago. So what?

Selective sweep didn't simply "replace" all the other recognized identifiable mechanisms for genetic diversity and the distribution of such diversity. It was not necessary that those mechanisms be replaced by some newly discovered mechanism. This isn't mono-theism vs poly-theism. This isn't believe in this or that jealous god or be wrong. The selective sweep model described a set of observations, just like the other models. Predictions were made based on those models, and the validity of those models was tested. If the resulting evidence indicates more than one mechanism at work, evolutionary theory makes no prohibition from declaring so. Evolution is no religion, it's a description; it's not a god, jealous or otherwise.

If you're under the impression that evolutionary theory considers every identifiable mechanism for genetic diversity and the distribution of such diversity to be mutually exclusive (manifested in the apparent way you present them as refutations of each other), then you really have a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of evolution (of science, really), and should take the time to become informed about it somewhere other than Sunday school, the Discovery Institute, or The Institute for Creation Research.

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

At least provide an intellectually honest reason why you are refusing to do so. Ok?

*(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.)

Lest we forget..you aren't doing anything that is productive or positive. You're just trolling.

 

[LOki]

Lest we forget..you aren't doing anything that is productive or positive. You're just trolling.

Look sweetie, all I am asking YWC to do is honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of his (and apparently, 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."

Is that really so much to ask? Is that what "trolling" is? Apparently so.

I accept that you consider asking pertinent questions and requiring intellectually honest answers to be "trolling," but why don't you (for a change of pace from your usual unsubstantiated sniping) do something "productive or positive" in this discussion?

Why don't you pick up the gauntlet, exercise some intellectual courage, and explain this "explanation" you and YWC repeatedly assert without any further demonstration, elucidation, or exposition. Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.*

Or at least provide an intellectually honest reason why you are refusing to do so. Ok?

*(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.)

 

[daws101]

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.

wow! talk about cherry picking!
guess you missed this :His chromosomes are arranged in a stable way that could be passed on if he met a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too. And this would certainly be possible in the future given his family history.

But why doesn't he have any problems? A loss of one let alone two chromosomes is almost always fatal because so many essential genes are lost.

In this case, he has fewer chromosomes but is actually missing very few genes. Instead, he has two chromosomes stuck to two other chromosomes. More specifically, both his chromosome 14's are stuck to his chromosome 15's.

So he has almost all the same genes as any other person. He just has them packaged a bit differently.

This is an important finding because it tells us about a key genetic event in human prehistory. All the evidence points to humans, like their relatives the chimpanzees, having 48 chromosomes a million or so years ago. Nowadays most humans have 46.

 

[daws101]

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.

Yes.

Yes.



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.

bullshit! the Scriptures are not viable evidence ..here's one example:The bible was compiled around 325AD by Emperor Constantine and his hand picked bishops to unionize the christian church and make it a single hierarchy in order to unify the people once again and keep the empire under control.
They decided which books of the bible would be considered sacred and which would be considered forbidden (banned books)
Constantine also made Christianity legal, his predecessor, Emperor Theodosius, made it manditory by outlawing all non-christian religions around 391AD
The bible was compiled to strengthen the Roman Empire... good job Jesus.
p.s.
The idea of a belief in god or Jesus is no different in believing Jim Jonesis your savior.


Read more: Who compiled the Bible

 

[Youwerecreated]

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).

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!

Why don't you learn the theory before you try to argue in behalf of it.

Sweeps weak in human evolution


Rapid spread of beneficial mutations relatively rare

By Tina Hesman Saey

Web edition : Thursday, February 17th, 2011

Text Size


Humans probably didn’t get swept up in evolution.

Scientists have favored a model of evolution in which beneficial gene mutations quickly and dramatically sweep through a population due to the evolutionary advantages they confer. Such mutations would become nearly universal in a population. But this selective sweep model may not be accurate for humans, a new study indicates. Human evolution likely followed a more subtle and complicated path, say population geneticists Molly Przeworski of the University of Chicago and Guy Sella of Hebrew University of Jerusalem and colleagues.

Sweeps Weak In Human Evolution - Science News

Seriously. Why don't YOU you learn the theory before you try to argue against it?

And, just for a change of pace, why don't you directly address my requests for information in my posts, rather than address something else that you think you're more comfortable with? Really, were we talking about the selective sweep model? No.

But just so you don't walk away with the impression that I'm unfamiliar (or that you're not) with the notion of such "sweeps," the point is not in contention. Just because recent/current population conditions would have a (well explained, BTW) nullifying effect on the propagation of a 44 chromosome Homo- amongst Homo sapiens-sapiens, it does not follow that such conditions were always existent (they most certainly weren't), or will always persist. The point you're clumsily dodging here is that this dramatic change in genetic information actually occurred in a contemporary time frame; though it's potential effect has not (or, considering the current state of human interactions, cannot, I'll grant you) been measured, that potential cannot simply be ignored while the effects of other translocations are well documented. You have held opposition to both of these facts of reality, in effect insisting that since science cannot "prove" such a dramatic genetic change is not lethal or detrimental, there is no evidence what-so-ever that such a dramatic genetic change can have evolutionary significance.

You seem to take the better understanding (as described in the link) of the role that selective sweep in human evolution to be some refutation of the selective sweep model, and/or evolutionary theory entirely.

"Good evidence does exist for some mutations that did undergo selective sweeps in humans, such as those for skin pigmentation, hair and teeth morphology and the genetic change that allows adults in some populations to digest the milk sugar lactose. But those examples are the exception rather than the rule in human evolution.

“We have beautiful examples of selective sweeps. But there are not many of them, and our results suggest [there are] not many more to come,” Przeworski says. “Our results do not suggest that adaptation was rare. Many protein changes in humans may well have been adaptive. What our results indicate is that the dominant mode of adaptation was not the classic sweep,” she says."​

Where Creation "science" finds it necessary to defend its preconceptions--declaring inconsistency with the preconceptions of Creation "science" to be the invalidating standard--evolution science makes no such inconsistencies necessarily mutually exclusive; such that one or the other must be wrong. There is no preconceived conclusion that can be refuted. The conclusions are demonstrated by agreeing with verifiable evidence, rather than "evidence" being demonstrated or verified by agreement with a preconceived conclusion.

So selective sweep is not as common as was thought 35 years ago. So what?

Selective sweep didn't simply "replace" all the other recognized identifiable mechanisms for genetic diversity and the distribution of such diversity. It was not necessary that those mechanisms be replaced by some newly discovered mechanism. This isn't mono-theism vs poly-theism. This isn't believe in this or that jealous god or be wrong. The selective sweep model described a set of observations, just like the other models. Predictions were made based on those models, and the validity of those models was tested. If the resulting evidence indicates more than one mechanism at work, evolutionary theory makes no prohibition from declaring so. Evolution is no religion, it's a description; it's not a god, jealous or otherwise.

If you're under the impression that evolutionary theory considers every identifiable mechanism for genetic diversity and the distribution of such diversity to be mutually exclusive (manifested in the apparent way you present them as refutations of each other), then you really have a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of evolution (of science, really), and should take the time to become informed about it somewhere other than Sunday school, the Discovery Institute, or The Institute for Creation Research.

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

At least provide an intellectually honest reason why you are refusing to do so. Ok?

*(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.)

You didn't understand the problem the cambrian explosion causes for the fossil record.

You didn't understand that macro-evolution needs beneficial mutations.

You thought a person having only 44 chromosomes was a different species.

You said that it was evolution the perfectly normal man with 44 chromosomes.

You didn't understand if time had a beginning then life as we know it had a beginning.

Do i need to really go any further ? what is really funny ,you said i am intellectually dishonest the way i am misrepresenting science,and you don't have clue about some of the things discussed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

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.

The only one who does not uderstand what was presented so far was you. Notice how cbirch who is much more intelligent then you when it comes to evolution drops his argument.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Lest we forget..you aren't doing anything that is productive or positive. You're just trolling.

Look sweetie, all I am asking YWC to do is honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of his (and apparently, 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."

Is that really so much to ask? Is that what "trolling" is? Apparently so.

I accept that you consider asking pertinent questions and requiring intellectually honest answers to be "trolling," but why don't you (for a change of pace from your usual unsubstantiated sniping) do something "productive or positive" in this discussion?

Why don't you pick up the gauntlet, exercise some intellectual courage, and explain this "explanation" you and YWC repeatedly assert without any further demonstration, elucidation, or exposition. Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.*

Or at least provide an intellectually honest reason why you are refusing to do so. Ok?

*(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.)

Even though i have answered it many times.

 

[daws101]

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?

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.

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

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.

The only one who does not uderstand what was presented so far was you. Notice how cbirch who is much more intelligent then you when it comes to evolution drops his argument.

if that's not intentional misinterpretation of events there is none.
Cbirch left because he /she tired of your nonsense!

 

[LOki]

You didn't understand the problem the cambrian explosion causes for the fossil record.

I understand you have no idea of what you're talking about. This "problem" and my lack of understanding are both products of your desperate imagination.

You didn't understand that macro-evolution needs beneficial mutations.

Again. Imaginary. Fabricated from nothing. A lie.

You thought a person having only 44 chromosomes was a different species.

Again. A fabrication. Another lie.

You said that it was evolution the perfectly normal man with 44 chromosomes.

Again. A fabrication. Another lie.

You didn't understand if time had a beginning then life as we know it had a beginning.

You simply have no refutation for a single thing I have said, so you just make shit up.

Do i need to really go any further ?

Yes. Please do.

what is really funny ,you said i am intellectually dishonest the way i am misrepresenting science,and you don't have clue about some of the things discussed.

You clearly are. You have proven so just now with this list of yours.

You see, what's really funny is the apparent belief you hold that if you don't substantiate your stupid accusations, then it's impossible for someone to find out that you're just pulling them from your ass.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Yes.

Yes.



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

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.

bullshit! the Scriptures are not viable evidence ..here's one example:The bible was compiled around 325AD by Emperor Constantine and his hand picked bishops to unionize the christian church and make it a single hierarchy in order to unify the people once again and keep the empire under control.
They decided which books of the bible would be considered sacred and which would be considered forbidden (banned books)
Constantine also made Christianity legal, his predecessor, Emperor Theodosius, made it manditory by outlawing all non-christian religions around 391AD
The bible was compiled to strengthen the Roman Empire... good job Jesus.
p.s.
The idea of a belief in god or Jesus is no different in believing Jim Jonesis your savior.


Read more: Who compiled the Bible

So what ?

Every true biblical scholar agrees the books that found their way into the scriptures have supporting manuscripts.

If God exists,and he created everything we see,you don't think he could make sure which books were to be in the bible ?

The bible constantly is under attack, Why ? The bible constantly stands up to scrutiny. The bible is used by archaeologists unlocking the past. You can deny all you like but people like you are being warned,hopefully some will heed the warning.

God be with you my son.

 

[daws101]

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.

bullshit! the Scriptures are not viable evidence ..here's one example:The bible was compiled around 325AD by Emperor Constantine and his hand picked bishops to unionize the christian church and make it a single hierarchy in order to unify the people once again and keep the empire under control.
They decided which books of the bible would be considered sacred and which would be considered forbidden (banned books)
Constantine also made Christianity legal, his predecessor, Emperor Theodosius, made it manditory by outlawing all non-christian religions around 391AD
The bible was compiled to strengthen the Roman Empire... good job Jesus.
p.s.
The idea of a belief in god or Jesus is no different in believing Jim Jonesis your savior.


Read more: Who compiled the Bible

So what ?

Every true biblical scholar agrees the books that found their way into the scriptures have supporting manuscripts.

If God exists,and he created everything we see,you don't think he could make sure which books were to be in the bible ?

The bible constantly is under attack, Why ? The bible constantly stands up to scrutiny. The bible is used by archaeologists unlocking the past. You can deny all you like but people like you are being warned,hopefully some will heed the warning.

God be with you my son.

dodge !
btw you can stfu on that son shit!

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

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.

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

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?

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

The only one who does not uderstand what was presented so far was you. Notice how cbirch who is much more intelligent then you when it comes to evolution drops his argument.

if that's not intentional misinterpretation of events there is none.
Cbirch left because he /she tired of your nonsense!

You don't know Cbirch to well then,let's just say ,he and I had a very long standing debate on this issue. I have to admit he has gotten better ,he only called me a name once this time.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about,i put you in the same category as LOKI a want to be.

 

[LOki]

Lest we forget..you aren't doing anything that is productive or positive. You're just trolling.

Look sweetie, all I am asking YWC to do is honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of his (and apparently, 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."

Is that really so much to ask? Is that what "trolling" is? Apparently so.

I accept that you consider asking pertinent questions and requiring intellectually honest answers to be "trolling," but why don't you (for a change of pace from your usual unsubstantiated sniping) do something "productive or positive" in this discussion?

Why don't you pick up the gauntlet, exercise some intellectual courage, and explain this "explanation" you and YWC repeatedly assert without any further demonstration, elucidation, or exposition. Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.*

Or at least provide an intellectually honest reason why you are refusing to do so. Ok?

*(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.)

Even though i have answered it many times.

Saying you can't prove the existence of God is not explaining this God thing. you have NEVER--NOT ONCE--answered me.

 

[Youwerecreated]

bullshit! the Scriptures are not viable evidence ..here's one example:The bible was compiled around 325AD by Emperor Constantine and his hand picked bishops to unionize the christian church and make it a single hierarchy in order to unify the people once again and keep the empire under control.
They decided which books of the bible would be considered sacred and which would be considered forbidden (banned books)
Constantine also made Christianity legal, his predecessor, Emperor Theodosius, made it manditory by outlawing all non-christian religions around 391AD
The bible was compiled to strengthen the Roman Empire... good job Jesus.
p.s.
The idea of a belief in god or Jesus is no different in believing Jim Jonesis your savior.


Read more: Who compiled the Bible

So what ?

Every true biblical scholar agrees the books that found their way into the scriptures have supporting manuscripts.

If God exists,and he created everything we see,you don't think he could make sure which books were to be in the bible ?

The bible constantly is under attack, Why ? The bible constantly stands up to scrutiny. The bible is used by archaeologists unlocking the past. You can deny all you like but people like you are being warned,hopefully some will heed the warning.

God be with you my son.

dodge !
btw you can stfu on that son shit!

Oh a tough guy on the internet or do you prefer daughter ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Look sweetie, all I am asking YWC to do is honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of his (and apparently, 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."

Is that really so much to ask? Is that what "trolling" is? Apparently so.

I accept that you consider asking pertinent questions and requiring intellectually honest answers to be "trolling," but why don't you (for a change of pace from your usual unsubstantiated sniping) do something "productive or positive" in this discussion?

Why don't you pick up the gauntlet, exercise some intellectual courage, and explain this "explanation" you and YWC repeatedly assert without any further demonstration, elucidation, or exposition. Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.*

Or at least provide an intellectually honest reason why you are refusing to do so. Ok?

*(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.)

Even though i have answered it many times.

Saying you can't prove the existence of God is not explaining this God thing. you have NEVER--NOT ONCE--answered me.

He is a spirit,he is love,he is just,he is all knowing,he is almighty,he is the creator of all things,he has always existed,nothing escapes his attention,he makes the rules,and he enforces the rules,there is no one like him.