Sure I'll investigate. First of just so you know, another claim of Malcolm Bowden is that the earth is stationary and the rest of the universe tuns around it in 24 hours. Now to the point. You put out a set of arbitrary criterea in order to not have to admit to transitionary homonid fossils. As we have established in Lucy for instance she doesn't have teeth like an modern primate, but even that is not the entire proof that the line is arbitrary Creasionist have played that game before, saying something is either ape or human and something in between doesn't exist. It's an argument wich has been used before and you know what the intresting thing is, Creasionist amongst themselfs can't agree on what criterea to handle.-K I'll first go into your first assertion, the fact that I'm the dishonest one. This has been taken from another conversation I had about gun control, if you can show me anything like it I will immediatly appoligise for calling you dishonest.First of all, it is not about you and Lovejoy, it's about just you. You and your tendency to try and use any and every argument that you think is helpfull, and not being able to admit in the slightest when you say something wrong and get called on it. This whole Lovejoy thing clearly shows that you are willing to try as a source someone who utters a single sentence that you think you can use. You use that 1 sentence and then when I point out, in detail I might add how you misrepresent his position you do anything but admit to your fault.Being wrong at a certain point is inevitable if you have a discussion as long as we've been going at it. Maybe you simply got exited when you saw the title to that youtube video and you didn't take the time to properly check. I'm a grownup and I might find it funny but in the end I get that if your arguing sometimes people get overzealous. In short, If you just would have said you're right and you'd moved on, it wouldn't have been anything but a minor blip. Instead you chose like I've seen numorous times in the course of this discussion a no retreat stance, never ever admit a mistake, or to the other person making his point. Which brings me to the other part of your post. This is such a strawman argument. Your assertion is that there are no positive mutations. I proved that there were. Like I pointed out the fact that both the muscle boy and the ccr-5 mutation have possible drawback is of no consequence from an evolutionary standpoint since the net effect increases survivability. You didn't even attempt to talk about lactose persistence because the net effect is positive accross the board.. Instead you start talking about it doesn't increase information and then put out out a disjointed explanation about anyting but the mutation in general. I disproved your original assertion. Trying to use strawman arguments to distract from that fact makes you dishonest yet again, hence my problem. I can understand people being wrong in a debate. I have no understanding for people who are unable to admit to being wrong. You can correct mistakes, being dishonest is systemic and therefore not correctable.He specifies Lucy when he starts talking about "Unlike any higher primate" Lucy is an Australopithecus so, yes he sais she is unlike any chimpansee. It's deductive reasoning on a 5 year old level. You are not 5 years old, so that means you are dishonest. Hence me questioning the sense in continuing if you are completely unwilling to grant even such a thouroughly debunked statement as claiming "Lovejoy thinks she is a chimpansee like ape"
-Lactose persistence is a positive mutation, the fact that lactose intolerance is not dibilatating with modern medicines is neither here nore there.
-ccr5-delta 32 mutation is positive the fact that it has drawbacks too is of no consequence if the net result is positive wich resistance to 3 of the deadliest diseases in history certainly is.
- Being insanely strong thanks to a mutation is positive, if it might and I stress might because the doctors don't know yet if it is the case, cause problems down the line that is of little consequence. -The only rule evolution really adheres to is. "Does this mutation gives me a higher chance of survival". Digesting something previously undigestable, resistance to diseases and extra strenght qualify that criterea. Btw most medicines have drawbacks are you going to claim that medicines are negative to peoples health? The net result not possible drawbacks determine if something is positive. If you don't your opinion that there are no positive mutations is thouroughly debunked.
This should not be strictly be about Lovejoy and me. What you should consider is what the creation museum is saying and different interpretations -- Lucy | Creation Museum . If what you claim is true, then we should see more and better apemen fossils. We have put together whole dinosaurs. As well as being able to explain the footprints found a thousand miles away. In general, creation states that God made certain traits like feathers, bipedality, being able to breathe underwater and so on for certain creatures. Thus, creation explains the lack of the evidence for transitional forms.
Of course, it is of consequence. That is the entire crux of the matter. All of these mutations do not add genetic information which is what it takes to make your transitional forms. What they do is change the information. That's all and it is negative or neutral. I will give you this. What you call "postive" is questionable. What these evo scientists are doing is taking what they have discovered and exploiting it for their own purpose. Some have become very rich off the sufferings of others. I have to admit for someone like Magic Johnson, taking the ccr5-delta 32 mutation (and destroying his cell receptors?) did prevent AIDS. We'll have to see whether he has liver or other problems down the road. That said, people think ccr5 is the silver bullet. It is not a solution, but a questionable cure. That goes all for these new mutated PED-like products. It may help get people over their immediate health problem, but cause others down the road. Achieving perfection does not work that way.
As for PEDs, we have tests to disqualify or penalize a sports participant. Also, they'll pay a price down the road even if they did get their big payday. Is there a safe PED? I don't know, but it does not involve mutations. I looked into the myostin-blocker supplements (mostly from seaweed extract and considered a PED) and they do nothing but placebo. Better to have a "healthy" diet. Some of these athletes have personal chefs, but one can eat healthy by understanding what is bad for you, i.e what foods to avoid or consume in moderation, and what one can eat regularly.
Again, I can't answer what is optimum for the health-impaired. If it will save their life or make their life better, the maybe taking the PED is the answer. However, I can't recommend it for normal people as the way to go. What about the big payday? There's no guarantee that it will lead to that. Very few athletes get it although it is widely publicized when they do.
It's not me who does what you described, but you. You're the dishonest one. Instead of answering my questions, you avoid them and resort to this kind of post when you clearly have no answers. Where is the mountain of evidence that evos claim? Instead, it's the creationists who have the mountain. If the evidence that you have are true, then we can all use it as a fact. However, we can't use Lucy to believe in evolution because there isn't enough there. That's why people do not care about Lucy the chimpanzee. Nor do they care about Tiktaalik nor Archeopteryx. There isn't enough there. You probably do not even know where the originals are kept.
Instead, people care about finding Noah's Ark, the Holy Grail and Ark of the Covenant. It really isn't about science vs religion, but creation vs evolution and finding the truth. Evolution has done a lousy job of providing the evidence and we can see that it does not have the answers. Otherwise, you would not be frustrated and be able to answer all my questions.
What were you right about? Positive benefits in mutations? You have not proven that. You still have to overcome the side effects. I'll grant you HIV or Ebola blockers, but eventually the side effects will take over. You have not proven that information is added to the DNA. That's the only way evolution would create an evolution. You have not proven how even the basic building block of life is created outside the cell? Even millions of years cannot overcome these issues.
You can continue to believe in your "positive" mutations and keep lying about how you were able to disprove my statements. Certainly, you failed in showing how mutations cause evolution. I hope you practice what you preach on the "positive" mutations. Then you can give us a first-hand lecture on how mutations are "beneficial" and how it increased your "survivability."
I admitted I was wrong is stating 100 million years instead of 1 million years, so you're wrong about that. I did address the lactose persistence with lactase. Or did you just conveniently ignore that?
What argument was strawman? Instead, you continue to use circular reasoning to explain evolution when the so-called mountain of evidence isn't there.
This is the difference between me and you. I put out an assertion. In my quest to find outside confermation I found my assertion wasn't supported by fact. I didn't just give up my objections or admit that I was wrong. I gave him the link. I could have quite easily not said anything, but it wouldn't have been honest. Btw this is also the scientific method, when something isn't supported by the evidence it is given up no matter how much the people who put forth the hypothesis have invested in the idea.I'm gonna do something here you'll probably find weird. I just did a search about the amount of people that actually used a gun to prevent burglary. Now I just said that the government should try to help the most amount of people. I found that statistically it is more likely to stop a crime by owning a gun then it is to be used in a crime. So in light of this I find my objection to handguns in the house untennable. I still have strong objections to asault rifles because they are excessive but I'm someone who tries to be honest even when honest means I have to admit I'm wrong. I'll provide a link with the article.Private Guns Stop Crime 2.5M Times A Year In US
- On your second assertion that I haven't presented a mountain of evidence. The thing is I have, the problem is you don't accept it even if you sometimes admit to it. For instance you don't accept any transitional fossils altough you do admit to certain fossils having traits of different species, what do you suppose a transitional fossil is but a fossil that shows traits of 2 different species? You don't accept positive mutations altough you do admit that having resistance to HIV is positive. So on and so forth. I talked about radiometric dating and the different dating methods that exist and you simply say, I don't accept it. I talked about stars and light and you come back with some weird explanation that astronomers for some reason didn't account for spacetime, an assertion so ridiculous that none of your Creasionist friends try that argument, they use different ones also ridiculous but this one doesn't even have a wisp of credibility. I have used Bioligy ( vestigality), Genetics (mutations),Geoligy (stratas), vulkanoligy and history( the fact that there's is no written record of supervolcanoes or the Siberean traps, events so massive they would have been recorded if they occured during human existence.) and probably a few more that I've forgotten. And I know I haven't used all the arguments available to me. So saying I haven't presented my case is false.
- This is the reason you saying I want Creationism thaught in schools as science makes me shiver. In order for Creationism to be true, litteraly all branches of science have to be fundamentally flawed. You want something thaught as science wich is the exact opposite of science. Creationism wants all critical thinking and the scientific method suspended in favor of blind faith.
- On lactase something I ignored. There's a good reason I ignored it. It's another strawman argument. How does the fact that modern medicine created lactase supplements have anything to do with the fact that Europeans have developed a mutation to tolerate lactose? A mutation that has allowed us to digest different milks when for instance most Asian people can't. It's a mutation that has brought Europeans another source of nutrition previously unavailable. How is that mutation in any way negative? I'm sure your lactase argument is an argument for something just not for what I was talking about.
Too much for me to get into in one post right now, so will stick with Lucy. You put out an assertion that Lucy is an apeman. If we follow what you did with having a gun to prevent burglary and crime, then do you investigate what I said?
My criteria from Malcolm Bowden who states in order to distinguish an ape from human skeleton or fossil 1) a human skull has to have a larger cranium area, over a 1000 cc's, in order to house a brain that is a human brain, 2) the skulls that we are comparing either has to be ape or human (there are no other classes), and 3) have a mouth positioned almost vertically under the nose. Now, you're going to disagree with statement #2, but the creationist argument is the reputed ape-man transitional forms, which are used to support human evolution, are actually distortions or exaggerations of the fossil evidence. Will you investigate this?
Btw using your 1000 cc limit, homo erectus would be an ape since it's brain size is 900 cc. Homo erectus is an advanced toolmaker and theirs strong evidence took care of the elderly so advanced social behavior.Homo erectus | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
. This is how he looked
Last edited:
