Darwin vs DNA

[LOki]

Your assertion natural selection allows beneficial mutations to exist in the gene pool while eliminating harmful mutations but like I said earlier why if that is true scientists can point to more genetic disorders then benefits from mutations ?

If that is the case why are these harmful mutations not effecting the whole human gene pool ? You can't point to any beneficial mutation that has spread through the whole human population and that is what you need for evolution why is this so difficult for you to grasp ?

You can't even point to a mutant gene that has spread through the whole population whether it was a benefit or harmful to the population.

Your assertions here demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the basic concept of mutations as they relate to the theory of evolution.

Nowhere does any widely accepted theory of evolution contradict the fact that most genetic mutations are harmful to the individual organism displaying said mutation. However, if that mutation makes it harder for that organism to survive, that organism likely dies off.

When a mutation is beneficial, however, that individual organism excells at survival. When it reproduces, it sometimes produces offspring with some variation of that same beneficial mutation. They excell and reproduce, so on and so forth, until that beneficial property is prevalent enough that those without it have a harder and harder time competing for the same resources.

Nowhere does any respected evolutionary theory speculate that a mutation spreads swiftly through an entire species. I don't think anybody with a half a brain and an ounce of knowledge on the subject believes that the same mutation is going to be widespread in one or two generations. . . genes are passed on via reproduction.

I gather that you're getting this a lot, but you can't disprove an argument you don't even understand. Keep at it, tho. Good times.

Here ya go but I suggest you getting his book.

Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue
Dr. Lee Spetner
continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

© 2001 L.M. Spetner. All Rights Reserved.

--ANOTHER RETARDED COPY/PAST VOMIT PILE SNIPPED--

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

"So to summarize, although Spetner's arguments are superficially plausible, a deeper look with some knowledge of biochemistry shows massive flaws. Spetner is wrong in the details of the biology, ligand specificity is not directly governed by binding string length as required by Spetner's theory, and ligand binding is not an "all or nothing affair". This invalidates his analyses. Even then, Spetner's own examples do not support his claims. Furthermore, when using his metrics Spetner swaps metrics when one shows inconvenient changes." LINK

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your evidence does not do what you want it to do. Sorry about that, but . . .

Youwerecreated's arguments just got booted across the parking lot into the gutter.

You are a dreamer.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are not a judge of others' salvation, my friend, and evolution is never mentioned by the Lord Jesus as a requirement to come unto Him.

The issue is immaterial to one's soul eventual destination.

It's good to see what you are doing.

I am saying that the IDers can't disprove evolution. They can't.

I am saying that the atheists can't disprove God. They can't.

I am saying that evolution is not a salvation issue, becuse it isn't.

I am saying that it takes more faith to be an atheist than a believer in deity, because it does.

Tuff beans, Loki.

What strawman? I made no strawman argument. If i did, you should be able to point it out.

Do so. I dare you.

The fact of the matter is you won't. The fact of the matter is, you are stringing along all these red-herrings in order to avoid the simple and valid request I made of you:

What is this "God" thing you keep referencing. I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God".

All I asked for was a rationally valid explanation for this "God" thing of yours. I respectfully (it's clear now, that you don't deserve it) assumed that your "God" thing did not belong to the egregiously anti-rational variety I have already been exposed to, and I generously pointed out the reasons those anti-rational accounts were invalid.

So, this "God" thing; I have no idea what you're talking about. Why won't you explain it to me? You all seem to possess such unqualified certainty. So help me out here.

It could be a salvation issue if the theory is wrong which I believe there is no doubt it is.

2Ti 4:3 For a time will be when they will not endure sound doctrine, but they will heap up teachers to themselves according to their own lusts, tickling the ear.
2Ti 4:4 And they will turn away their ears from the truth and will be turned to myths.
2Ti 4:5 But you watch in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fully carry out your ministry.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Always the sexual innuendos and insults when the sexually insecure are thwarted in their arguments. Tis what tis.

You don't believe in God. Fine. That's up to you and God in the end.

Loki, so you are are getting your butt handed to you. Upsetting for you, yes.

What the fuck are you talking about JakeStarkey?

I'm not the one making fairy-dance evasive maneuvers away from an honestly, and respectfully posed request.

You can't prove that God does not exist, ...

Never claimed I could--but you know this, I've made it clear. It's just a good thing that I don't have to.

... thus atheism is a faith just like any other.

The one, just does not follow from the other. Sorry about your superstitious luck.

Tuff beans.

Eat dicks.

 

[newpolitics]

Sure, it does, because you can't disprove God's existence either empirically or philosophically.

I don't need your approval for what is, ima.

It takes greater faith to believe in no deity than to believe in deity. Tru dat!

No, it doesn't take more faith to disbelieve in god claims. That is logically absurd. That's like saying it takes more faith to not believe that bigfoot exists. If someone can't provide evidence for bigfoot, then there is no reason to believe it. It is the same with god. You said, to believe in "no deity." How can you have a positive belief about a negative proposition? That is logically absurd, as well. Logic 101. I don't believe in "no deity," because that makes no sense. I may believe that no god exists, which I think is what you meant, but even this does not logically follow from atheism. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in god claims, because those making the claim, have not met their burden of proof, and therefore, belief would be unjustified, and you can not use fear or pascal's wager as justification. That is a morally bankrupt tactic.

So, to restate, I do not possess a belief that a god exists, because there is insufficient evidence to justify belief. Also, It matters where you place the word "not." The two sentences "I believe that a god does NOT exist" and "I do NOT believe that a god exist" are two entirely different statements. One describes the existence of a belief, and the other describes the absence of the existence of a belief.

I don't have to. It is not up to me to "disprove" a claim that you make. That is unbelievably stupid. It is up to you to prove it. You can't do that, so you try to shift the burden of proof.

 

[The Irish Ram]

And yet there are those who think Revelation wasn't about the end of the world at all but the fall of the church in Rome that fed christians to the lions.

But we know better, by studying the Bible.
There have been many that have tried to figure the date of Christ's return, (which is the Reveal, that Revelation refers to). Since the Romans feeding Christians to the lions did not culminate in Christ's return, we know that THAT wasn't it, right? And when Christ returns He is going to chain Satan. If that's already happened, then Satan is on an awfully long leash don't you think?
Take those crazy Millerites, who's pastor had them sell everything they owned and sit on a rock at sunrise because he had figured it out........

Here's what they missed:
Matthew 24:33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door.
Christ gave us a litany of thingS to look for. Not one or the other, but, when you see all these things.....
Sadly the Millerites didn't realize that earthquakes had not increased dramatically, or that the countries in Europe had not amalgamated, or that no temple had been rebuilt, or that there WAS NO ISRAEL at that time!

There is no "S" on the end of Revelation. The revelation is Christ returning. The rest is pure prophecy, < (to let us know how not to be caught unaware, or deceived.) There are over two thousand prophecies concerning the end times and Christ's return. There are about 500 left to be fulfilled before He shows up.

And once again, you offer me only ONE reference source for your opinion and that is the Bible itself. You cannot prove a thing by referencing that thing. Yes I know there is plenty of literature written about the Revelation that is not in the Bible, but there has also been much written about the Revelation being what I suggest it is. And the people I'm referencing are not working on faith, they are using rationality. So I think that makes my supposition (and that's all it CAN be since neither of us has empirical proof either way) just as valid as any other.
I appreciate you got as far as the Bible, read it and quit asking and for you that is fine and I say good luck with that but although my faith is strong it isn't bullet proof so I'll keep on searching.

You seem to believe you can reference rational thinking "people" that suggest that the BIBLE was describing Rome's persecution of Christians without referring to the Bible.? Aren't you and I discussing Revelation? The one in "that thing"?? How do you not reference the topic of debate? Since I am referring to the Bible, it will be what I will be referencing. My contention is that the end times have not yet occurred. Your contention is that it has and when.
Let's use, "that thing" vs. your people, to disprove your people: (And remember, all these things, not one or the other, or even a few......)

Bible: the Gospel will preached all over the earth.
Bible: we will watch two prophets return to life in 3 1/2 days.
Bible: the temple will be rebuilt.
Bible: the Jews will return to the practice of sacrificing.
Bible: Damascus will be leveled.
Bible: Israel will be a fruitful producing nation.
People:
People:
People:
People:
People:

^ I can do that over 2, 000 times, but it isn't necessary, because all you have to do is reference the unfaithful for their data on these thingS being fulfilled during the period you think they were. If they didn't transpire, then the people have no case for equating Revelation to the persecution of Christians in Rome.

BUT the most compelling event that can't be ignored by the "people", is at the end of Revelation. Christ returns and takes His place on the throne of David, In Jerusalem, in the temple.

Where are your people hiding my Lord?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The "Man of God" is a heresy practiced in several churches, apparently believed by The Irish Ram as well. God will choose and know His own, and the Man of God will have nothing to do with it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not at all, bright eyes. It's up to you to believe or not. That's your choice. But don't run around pounding on your chest "I Am An Atheist" and dare some to dispute with you.

No one has to, because you cannot prove that God does not exist.

End of story.

\

Sure, it does, because you can't disprove God's existence either empirically or philosophically.

No, it doesn't take more faith to disbelieve in god claims. That is logically absurd. That's like saying it takes more faith to not believe that bigfoot exists. If someone can't provide evidence for bigfoot, then there is no reason to believe it. It is the same with god. You said, to believe in "no deity." How can you have a positive belief about a negative proposition? That is logically absurd, as well. Logic 101. I don't believe in "no deity," because that makes no sense. I may believe that no god exists, which I think is what you meant, but even this does not logically follow from atheism. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in god claims, because those making the claim, have not met their burden of proof, and therefore, belief would be unjustified, and you can not use fear or pascal's wager as justification. That is a morally bankrupt tactic.

So, to restate, I do not possess a belief that a god exists, because there is insufficient evidence to justify belief. Also, It matters where you place the word "not." The two sentences "I believe that a god does NOT exist" and "I do NOT believe that a god exist" are two entirely different statements. One describes the existence of a belief, and the other describes the absence of the existence of a belief.

I don't have to. It is not up to me to "disprove" a claim that you make. That is unbelievably stupid. It is up to you to prove it. You can't do that, so you try to shift the burden of proof.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Oh yeah, and this remark,

You cannot prove a thing by referencing that thing.

I suppose you could wait for Einstein or Hawking, or you could have just read Genesis, or Job or Isaiah, or Rabbi Nachmanides. < He's a person. You like people.

 

[The Irish Ram]

The "Man of God" is a heresy practiced in several churches, apparently believed by The Irish Ram as well. God will choose and know His own, and the Man of God will have nothing to do with it.

Yes, but will you know God?
Emanuel is the only thing it has to do with. You cannot remove sin without Emanuel, and sin does not enter Heaven. Period.

God knows every one of us. The ones guaranteed a seat at His table are the ones that Know Him, not the other way around.

 

[JakeStarkey]

He is telling you that you cannot scientifically prove the Bible.

Tru dat.

Oh yeah, and this remark,

You cannot prove a thing by referencing that thing.

I suppose you could wait for Einstein or Hawking, or you could have just read Genesis, or Job or Isaiah, or Rabbi Nachmanides. < He's a person. You like people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

See, you pretend as if you know the be all and end all of scripture.

You don't because you are not His Man of God, His Prophet.

However, I know Him, I call Him Lord, and He calls me by my first name.

If you have that, Ram, you are OK. Don't sweat the small stuff, don't be a pharisee.

The "Man of God" is a heresy practiced in several churches, apparently believed by The Irish Ram as well. God will choose and know His own, and the Man of God will have nothing to do with it.

Yes, but will you know God?
Emanuel is the only thing it has to do with. You cannot remove sin without Emanuel, and sin does not enter Heaven. Period.

God knows every one of us. The ones guaranteed a seat at His table are the ones that Know Him, not the other way around.

 

[LOki]

Always the sexual innuendos and insults when the sexually insecure are thwarted in their arguments. Tis what tis.

You're awfully generous to yourself asserting that your strawmen, and red-herrings, and intellectual cowardice thwarted anything.

Then again, denial of reality is the hallmark of faith.

You don't believe in God. Fine. That's up to you and God in the end.

Oh, this "God" thing again; I have no idea what you're talking about. Why won't you explain it to me? You all seem to possess such unqualified certainty.

I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God".

They obviosly don't count, right? So help me out here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Loki, tsk tsk, grow up, OK.

You are entitled to your belief and faith, like we all are.

Just don't think you can prove it.

 

[The Irish Ram]

See, you pretend as if you know the be all and end all of scripture.

You don't because you are not His Man of God, His Prophet.

However, I know Him, I call Him Lord, and He calls me by my first name.

If you have that, Ram, you are OK. Don't sweat the small stuff, don't be a pharisee.

The "Man of God" is a heresy practiced in several churches, apparently believed by The Irish Ram as well. God will choose and know His own, and the Man of God will have nothing to do with it.

Yes, but will you know God?
Emanuel is the only thing it has to do with. You cannot remove sin without Emanuel, and sin does not enter Heaven. Period.

God knows every one of us. The ones guaranteed a seat at His table are the ones that Know Him, not the other way around.

oh Lord
So, you know Him, because you are the Man of God and a prophet?
Prophesier! Grace us with some predictions!

ps A while back, were we discussing the ability for demons to deceive, and was it you that commented that you were deceived by them as a child, but that now your eyes are open so that it can't happen again? Was that you? If not, disregard....

 

[newpolitics]

Not at all, bright eyes. It's up to you to believe or not. That's your choice. But don't run around pounding on your chest "I Am An Atheist" and dare some to dispute with you.

No one has to, because you cannot prove that God does not exist.

End of story.

\

Sure, it does, because you can't disprove God's existence either empirically or philosophically.

I don't have to. It is not up to me to "disprove" a claim that you make. That is unbelievably stupid. It is up to you to prove it. You can't do that, so you try to shift the burden of proof.

For the third time, it is not my job to prove that god does not exist any more than it is my job to prove that bigfoot or the tooth fairy does not exist. You, and all believers, claim that a god does exist, therefore the burden of proof is on you. No one have ever demonstrated the existence of god, neither with logical argument or evidence. I don't go around "pounding my chest." I respond to those theists, like yourself, who do "pound their chests" in proclamation of the existence of an undemonstrated being.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, you claim that since you don't believe you get some kind of pass.

You don't. Jefferson would disagree with you. Tru dat.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only a poser man of god misinterpets what someone said.

You will know if you know Him, is what I wrote above and you will be OK.

Don't be like the pharisees.

See, you pretend as if you know the be all and end all of scripture.

You don't because you are not His Man of God, His Prophet.

However, I know Him, I call Him Lord, and He calls me by my first name.

If you have that, Ram, you are OK. Don't sweat the small stuff, don't be a pharisee.

Yes, but will you know God?
Emanuel is the only thing it has to do with. You cannot remove sin without Emanuel, and sin does not enter Heaven. Period.

God knows every one of us. The ones guaranteed a seat at His table are the ones that Know Him, not the other way around.

oh Lord
So, you know Him, because you are the Man of God and a prophet?
Prophesier! Grace us with some predictions!

ps A while back, were we discussing the ability for demons to deceive, and was it you that commented that you were deceived by them as a child, but that now your eyes are open so that it can't happen again? Was that you? If not, disregard....

 

[newpolitics]

Nope, you claim that since you don't believe you get some kind of pass.

You don't. Jefferson would disagree with you. Tru dat.

Pass for what?! You are presupposing that your god exists in reality without demonstrating this to be true.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't have to prove it.

You can't disprove it.

That's the fun of the Constitution, we both get to believe how we want, and no one dare make afraid.