Darwin vs DNA

[Youwerecreated]

... the conclusion derived from them is obvious bullshit.

Can you be a little more specific ? Take one of the issues on don't make a blanket statement without anything to back your claim.

The implication you're making here is obvious disinformation. Not at all surprising considering your robust record of intellectual dishonesty.

I have addressed each one of these dopey fallacies for you previously. Shall I provide a link(s)? Just ask.

Yes. Your record of responding with disingenuous evasions is well documented. Shall I provide a link(s)? Just ask.

When you guys make assertions I question you that is how it works.

At least for my part, you get appropriate responses.

Do us both a favor and atleast read your material before you post so I don't have to read it and find out your argument is based on conjecture.

What conjecture? "Don't make a blanket statement without anything to back your claim."

Yes provide these so called links.

Prove my responses are disingenuous.

Conjecture is brought out in both of these videos your side has ignored.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYxaIRDo7oc]Evolution - Considered and Rejected - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wr-lXLGCxQ&feature=related]Forbidden Science - Shattering the Myths of Darwin's Theory of Evolution - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're assuming that because you don't know and/or understand the scientific explanation of evolution and how life started, that it must have been a magic feat performed by an invisible superbeing. There is, as of now, no solid proof for such a theory. IF there is such an invisible superbeing, it appears to me that evolution is part of its plan.
I mean, let's face it, the world wasn't made in six days either, our powerful telescopes confirm that planetary systems don't form that fast. Isn't that part of "scientists proving creation. I love it."? Or are you a delusional cherry picker who pretends to have already figured out the universe and everything in it?

You need to wake up,nobody on your side of the debate knows how life began but the bible has made it clear about the creator because you can't prove the creator exists does not prove he doesn't exist.

As effective an argument as any 12 year old could make.

That is why we can all agree that Amun Ra is just as likely to "exist" as your gods... because you can't prove he doesn't exist.

Thanks. I feel considerably worse for having read your nonsensical comments.

The bible clearly points to the one and only true God.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What you have done is to cut and paste volumes if material from creationist websites or posted videos from similar sources and then demanded that others "refute" that cutting and pasting. It's silly. You cut and paste material you don't understand because it appeals to your fascination with the supernatural.

What is comical is your need to take metaphors from biblical text and infer from that a deep understanding of science when there is none. It's a common tactic of apologists who would believe that their "holy" texts are the only books that anyone needs to read. You may feel that blissful ignorance is to be imposed on all but fortunately, most of the world
has discovered that knowledge can be found outside of ancient books if tales and fables.

I have given many explanations on mutations and cells in my own words in several different threads here that get ignored where your side resorts to rhetorical responses nothing of substance.

I think its false to claim that you have offered explanations for anything regarding cell biology that wasn't cut and pasted from one of the creationist ministries you cut and paste from.

As we see so often with your cutting and pasting, the crestionist ministries struggle to find some inconsistency with the established biological sciences and herald that as an indictment of the entirety of the science community. It's a common tactic of the creationist crowd. They are unable to adhere to principles of the scientific method and peer review as it relates to substantiating their outrageous claims so they are left with flaccid attempts to discredit science.

Then ask Loki he has seen my arguments if you have not seen them.

 

[ima]

You need to wake up,nobody on your side of the debate knows how life began but the bible has made it clear about the creator because you can't prove the creator exists does not prove he doesn't exist.

As effective an argument as any 12 year old could make.

That is why we can all agree that Amun Ra is just as likely to "exist" as your gods... because you can't prove he doesn't exist.

Thanks. I feel considerably worse for having read your nonsensical comments.

The bible clearly points to the one and only true God.

Isn't the bible made up by men?

 

[Hollie]

The discovery of ocean springs ranks as one of the foremost scientific accomplishments of the last ten years. Let us remember, however, that their existence was known thousands of years ago. Surely, God spoke through men by means of His Holy Spirit.

As it has been pointed out by others, your ability to cut and paste volumes of material from the ICR is not in question.

What you fail to realize is that the biblical reference to sea "springs" was simply something borrowed from Greek mythology.

OCEANUS, THE ENCIRCLING RIVER : Greek mythology

In ancient Greek cosmology the RIVER OKEANOS was a great, fresh-water stream which circled the flat earth. It was the source of all of the earth's fresh-water--from the rivers and springs which were fed by subterranean aquifers, to the clouds, which dipped below the horizon to collect moisture from its stream.

 

[Hollie]

You need to wake up,nobody on your side of the debate knows how life began but the bible has made it clear about the creator because you can't prove the creator exists does not prove he doesn't exist.

As effective an argument as any 12 year old could make.

That is why we can all agree that Amun Ra is just as likely to "exist" as your gods... because you can't prove he doesn't exist.

Thanks. I feel considerably worse for having read your nonsensical comments.

The bible clearly points to the one and only true God.

Greek mythology points to many gods as the true gods.

Using your "standards", such as they are, for framing an argument, can you disprove the Greek gods as the only true gods?

 

[Youwerecreated]

What you have done is to cut and paste volumes if material from creationist websites or posted videos from similar sources and then demanded that others "refute" that cutting and pasting. It's silly. You cut and paste material you don't understand because it appeals to your fascination with the supernatural.

What is comical is your need to take metaphors from biblical text and infer from that a deep understanding of science when there is none. It's a common tactic of apologists who would believe that their "holy" texts are the only books that anyone needs to read. You may feel that blissful ignorance is to be imposed on all but fortunately, most of the world
has discovered that knowledge can be found outside of ancient books if tales and fables.

I have given many explanations on mutations and cells in my own words in several different threads here that get ignored where your side resorts to rhetorical responses nothing of substance.

I think its false to claim that you have offered explanations for anything regarding cell biology that wasn't cut and pasted from one of the creationist ministries you cut and paste from.

As we see so often with your cutting and pasting, the crestionist ministries struggle to find some inconsistency with the established biological sciences and herald that as an indictment of the entirety of the science community. It's a common tactic of the creationist crowd. They are unable to adhere to principles of the scientific method and peer review as it relates to substantiating their outrageous claims so they are left with flaccid attempts to discredit science.

Let me give you the three scientific principles that makes macroevolution impossible.

#1 principle

The code barrier,referred to as the DNA Code Barrier,is a scientific principle that one kind of plant or animal only has the genetic information in it's gene pool to produce its own kind.

Example, take a dog as a simple example. While there may exist the genetic data that produces a wide variety of adaptations within the dogs particular DNA,the simple fact is that dogs still only possess the genetic information to produce other dogs.

Darwinist must have a way for dogs to produce non dogs,and this would only be feasible if there were a method for nature to add massive amounts of new and beneficial genetic information to an already existing gene pool.

There is no way for nature to add appreciable amounts of new and beneficial genetic information to any kind of plant or animals DNA. The DNA code barrier is a huge problem for you evolutionist.

#2 principle

Gene depletion is the scientific principle that all adaptations and/or mutations are the result of the sorting or the loss of the parents genetic information. So adaptational variations,as well as mutational changes,are caused by the recombination or loss of the origional genetic information which was inherited from the parents and not by the gain of new and beneficial genetic information. Mutations ans adapted organisms are not genetically stronger as Neo darwinism falsely teaches.

Example, Ranchers managing gene depletion is how ranchers breed out traits to produce meatier cows and cows that produce more milk.

This is done by a loss of genetic information not by the gain of new genetic information in the cows DNA. The loss of genetic information is referred to as the scientific principle of gene depletion.


#3 fact

Natural selection is the scientifically observed process whereby in free competition for resources the weaker of the species tends to be eliminated and unable to compete with the stronger of its kind.This means that the genetically weaker mutations and adaptations are the ones most likely removed from the population.

Lets put the three scientific principles together and show why there is no viable evidence of neo darwinism ever taking place.

The DNA Code Barrier plus Gene Depletion plus Natural selection makes darwinian style change scientifically impossible.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The discovery of ocean springs ranks as one of the foremost scientific accomplishments of the last ten years. Let us remember, however, that their existence was known thousands of years ago. Surely, God spoke through men by means of His Holy Spirit.

As it has been pointed out by others, your ability to cut and paste volumes of material from the ICR is not in question.

What you fail to realize is that the biblical reference to sea "springs" was simply something borrowed from Greek mythology.

OCEANUS, THE ENCIRCLING RIVER : Greek mythology

In ancient Greek cosmology the RIVER OKEANOS was a great, fresh-water stream which circled the flat earth. It was the source of all of the earth's fresh-water--from the rivers and springs which were fed by subterranean aquifers, to the clouds, which dipped below the horizon to collect moisture from its stream.

I provided evidence of springs on the ocean floor and you are ignoring those and trying to say the only one founds are inland that can be viewed by man, You are very disingenuous.

Why did you not quote the whole post ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

As effective an argument as any 12 year old could make.

That is why we can all agree that Amun Ra is just as likely to "exist" as your gods... because you can't prove he doesn't exist.

Thanks. I feel considerably worse for having read your nonsensical comments.

The bible clearly points to the one and only true God.

Greek mythology points to many gods as the true gods.

Using your "standards", such as they are, for framing an argument, can you disprove the Greek gods as the only true gods?

The bible identifies your creator Hollie.

 

[Hollie]

The bible clearly points to the one and only true God.

Greek mythology points to many gods as the true gods.

Using your "standards", such as they are, for framing an argument, can you disprove the Greek gods as the only true gods?

The bible identifies your creator Hollie.

False! The Greek gods identify your creator. Your gods are merely reinventions of the earlier, true gods.

 

[Hollie]

The discovery of ocean springs ranks as one of the foremost scientific accomplishments of the last ten years. Let us remember, however, that their existence was known thousands of years ago. Surely, God spoke through men by means of His Holy Spirit.

As it has been pointed out by others, your ability to cut and paste volumes of material from the ICR is not in question.

What you fail to realize is that the biblical reference to sea "springs" was simply something borrowed from Greek mythology.

OCEANUS, THE ENCIRCLING RIVER : Greek mythology

In ancient Greek cosmology the RIVER OKEANOS was a great, fresh-water stream which circled the flat earth. It was the source of all of the earth's fresh-water--from the rivers and springs which were fed by subterranean aquifers, to the clouds, which dipped below the horizon to collect moisture from its stream.

I provided evidence of springs on the ocean floor and you are ignoring those and trying to say the only one founds are inland that can be viewed by man, You are very disingenuous.

Why did you not quote the whole post ?

I provided evidence of what the bible had borrowed from earlier Greek literature. You are ignoring the obvious similarities.

It is your refusal to accept anything beyond the bounds of your narrow worldview which is disingenuous.

 

[Youwerecreated]

As it has been pointed out by others, your ability to cut and paste volumes of material from the ICR is not in question.

What you fail to realize is that the biblical reference to sea "springs" was simply something borrowed from Greek mythology.

OCEANUS, THE ENCIRCLING RIVER : Greek mythology

In ancient Greek cosmology the RIVER OKEANOS was a great, fresh-water stream which circled the flat earth. It was the source of all of the earth's fresh-water--from the rivers and springs which were fed by subterranean aquifers, to the clouds, which dipped below the horizon to collect moisture from its stream.

I provided evidence of springs on the ocean floor and you are ignoring those and trying to say the only one founds are inland that can be viewed by man, You are very disingenuous.

Why did you not quote the whole post ?

I provided evidence of what the bible had borrowed from earlier Greek literature. You are ignoring the obvious similarities.

It is your refusal to accept anything beyond the bounds of your narrow worldview which is disingenuous.

The old Testament predates Greek mythology which prophesied about Jesus and what he would fulfill.

 

[Youwerecreated]

As it has been pointed out by others, your ability to cut and paste volumes of material from the ICR is not in question.

What you fail to realize is that the biblical reference to sea "springs" was simply something borrowed from Greek mythology.

OCEANUS, THE ENCIRCLING RIVER : Greek mythology

In ancient Greek cosmology the RIVER OKEANOS was a great, fresh-water stream which circled the flat earth. It was the source of all of the earth's fresh-water--from the rivers and springs which were fed by subterranean aquifers, to the clouds, which dipped below the horizon to collect moisture from its stream.

I provided evidence of springs on the ocean floor and you are ignoring those and trying to say the only one founds are inland that can be viewed by man, You are very disingenuous.

Why did you not quote the whole post ?

I provided evidence of what the bible had borrowed from earlier Greek literature. You are ignoring the obvious similarities.

It is your refusal to accept anything beyond the bounds of your narrow worldview which is disingenuous.

This is one of my early arguments you say I never made and I found it in the creationist thread.



Sure I do, I just don't go along with the brainwashing any longer. I have presented the paradigm I support and refuted your claims of mutations but yet you still doubt.

Look I will do it again for you.

Micro-adaptations always produce the same kind of plant or animal.

Micro-adaptations are the result of the sorting or the loss of genetic information. Because of the loss of genetic information adaptations can only produce weaker and weaker gene pools. Call it gene depletion.

When you breed things you breed gentic information out that is why purebreeds have weaker genetic pools because the loss of information and that is why the gene pool of the mutt is stronger because it's a much bigger gene pool and less of a loss of information.

Increasing new & beneficial genetic information scientists know of no way for nature to add appreciable amounts of new & beneficial genetic information to a gene pool. It's only fantasy to suggest otherwise.

If your side was correct they should be able to point to millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information being added to the the gene pool so far they only point to antibiotic resistent bacteria and a few others while there are over 4,500 genetic diseases and disorders from mutations.

Three false assumptions by macro-evolutionist.

1. Mutations create new & beneficial genetic data.

2. Natural selection lets the mutant gene take over the population.

3. Large spans of time millions of years.

After all observed mutations that cause change , They're caused by the sorting or loss of the pre-existing genetic information,once again call it gene depletion. So gene pools get weaker and weaker until they are removed by natural selection. By the way no mutation can take over a gene pool which makes for a problem for macro-evolution. Because according to your theory the mutations must spread through the populations.

Natural selection removes weaker gene pools and preserves the stronger and origional creation of God. That is why left alone species going through micro-adaptations will return to the origional. Just like the finches in the galapagos islands.

Your textbook teaches that natural selection causes macro-evolution, that is a lie. Natural selection is what prevents macro-evolution from being possible because it eliminates the weaker gene pools from adaptations and mutations because the loss of the origional information.

That is why the short beak finches were dying off but once the drought was over they made a comeback and thrived.

Here is the proper theory.

DNA code barrier + Gene depletion + Natural selection = No macro-evolution.

I hope you got it this time.


Care to respond ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Also presented an argument on "mutation fixation" but can't seem to find it.

Why it can't take place but since I can't find it I will provide this article whch pretty much covers my argument.



Please rebuttal this info if you can.




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

 

[Hollie]

I provided evidence of springs on the ocean floor and you are ignoring those and trying to say the only one founds are inland that can be viewed by man, You are very disingenuous.

Why did you not quote the whole post ?

I provided evidence of what the bible had borrowed from earlier Greek literature. You are ignoring the obvious similarities.

It is your refusal to accept anything beyond the bounds of your narrow worldview which is disingenuous.

The old Testament predates Greek mythology which prophesied about Jesus and what he would fulfill.

That's quite a stretch. The OT is Hebrew scripture, not Christian.

What else has christianity borrowed from earlier religions?

 

[CandySlice]

I provided evidence of what the bible had borrowed from earlier Greek literature. You are ignoring the obvious similarities.

It is your refusal to accept anything beyond the bounds of your narrow worldview which is disingenuous.

The old Testament predates Greek mythology which prophesied about Jesus and what he would fulfill.

That's quite a stretch. The OT is Hebrew scripture, not Christian.

What else has christianity borrowed from earlier religions?

It is rather difficult to explain but Greek mythology predates the completed bible. But the writing of the old testament does predate Greek mythology. You have to understand that the Hebrews were slaves in Egypt before the Greeks came to power. Also the Hebrews were freed from Egypt long before the Greeks fought Egypt and stole all of the Egyptians gods So the writing of the first 5 books of the Old Testament does predate the Greeks and their mythology. But that's a matter of timing, not something holy. Christianity borrows from many different religions and belief systems. It didn't spring wholly formed from some sacred source, it was cobbled together and added to as we went along.
Much like fully half the Bible writings never even made it into the Bible as we know it. It was the ultimate case of cherry-picking. Over the centuries this Holy See or that one decided to try his hand at condensing or out right slashing the Bible. So what we have today is the eqivalent of a script that's been edited for time and ease of reading and, of course , to keep us stupid, superstitious and scared to question, much like our friend YWC here who has obviously bought the whole scam hook line and sinker.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not with scientiic evidence. Bible quotations are not scientific evidence, not binding on anyone. Just the way it is.

I have opened the subject of cells and mutations to you and that is not science ? I have pointed out things that the bible claims and is supported by science. I posted a video to you once again you do not respond to the scientific questions raised.If I didn't know any better you want to discuss philosophy not science.

What I thought was really funny that you would deny that many assertions of the bible are scientific in nature and claim they are philosophy.

Springs in the oceans,man made from the dust of the ground,man made of things indiscernible to our eyes but can only be viewed through a microscope et cetera et cetra.

What you have done is to cut and paste volumes if material from creationist websites or posted videos from similar sources and then demanded that others "refute" that cutting and pasting. It's silly. You cut and paste material you don't understand because it appeals to your fascination with the supernatural.

What is comical is your need to take metaphors from biblical text and infer from that a deep understanding of science when there is none. It's a common tactic of apologists who would believe that their "holy" texts are the only books that anyone needs to read. You may feel that blissful ignorance is to be imposed on all but fortunately, most of the world
has discovered that knowledge can be found outside of ancient books if tales and fables.

I have given many explanations on mutations and cells in my own words in several different threads here that get ignored where your side resorts to rhetorical responses nothing of substance.

 

[CandySlice]

Israel is a focus of forces. To even conceive of Israel as being merely passive, the arable fields over which people walked to reach other arable fields you miss the dynamism of their history. Leakey's discoveries in the 60's pretty well prove man originated in Africa at least 2 million years ago, minus or plus, and wandered into Israel rather late, possibly from Asia, probably Africa. Since the area is a natural hiway it's always been a focus of forces, even in geology. It's a fracture point where continents meet and twist. In the 50's archaologists found an area where rocks that had once been horizontal were torn apart and tilted vertically in the air.Fractures like that are common throughout the world but imbedded in the tilted areas Stekelis found parts of skeletons and unmistakable tools that were there before the upper soil had been laid down or the area tilted, say 1 million years ago. Point is even the first men in the area were caught up in violence. And it's always been that way. To the south was Egypt, to the north Mesopotamia. As these great forces pressed against each other the point they met was Israel. After the Egypt /Mesopotamia struggle came the Mediterranean people, the Sea People arriving from the west. The Phonecians, the Philistines with chariots and weapons of iron--opposing the Syrians moving in from the east. More fractures more violence, then the Greeks from the west battling the Persians from the east.Then Romans on their way to fight Parthians and Byzantines against Arabs. Most dramatic were the Crusades, when Christians from Europe fought Muslims from Asia. Israel was always the battle ground. The focus of forces. In more recent times there has been Napoleon battling the Turks in Acre, and in WW2 Rommel's German's trying to capture Jerusalem and Damascus.
It's important because it reminds us of the conflict and the intellectual confrontations time has witnessed. It's a meeting place of dynamisms and because the Jews were always at the focus of forces they became the most dynamic of all.
They had to to stay alive. And it all helped to form what we now call the Bible.

 

[CandySlice]

Not with scientiic evidence. Bible quotations are not scientific evidence, not binding on anyone. Just the way it is.

What you have done is to cut and paste volumes if material from creationist websites or posted videos from similar sources and then demanded that others "refute" that cutting and pasting. It's silly. You cut and paste material you don't understand because it appeals to your fascination with the supernatural.

What is comical is your need to take metaphors from biblical text and infer from that a deep understanding of science when there is none. It's a common tactic of apologists who would believe that their "holy" texts are the only books that anyone needs to read. You may feel that blissful ignorance is to be imposed on all but fortunately, most of the world
has discovered that knowledge can be found outside of ancient books if tales and fables.

I have given many explanations on mutations and cells in my own words in several different threads here that get ignored where your side resorts to rhetorical responses nothing of substance.

YWC uses the Bible in place of actually having to think.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Bible is wonderful, but it is not a science text.