Announcement

Collapse

Creation Science Rules

This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective.
Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed.
1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team
2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
See more
See less

Chance or Design (Evolution or Creation)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    Do you know how a person can click a "thanks" button to show appreciation for a post here? It's too bad they don't have a dislike or no thanks button on there because that's what I would have selected for your post.
    Oh, I don't doubt it.

    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    I mean....you just make stuff up for yourself and pretend it's true. Then, you have the nerve to repeat it by writing it down here in the forum.
    Translation: "<Gnashes teeth, having abjectly failed to deal with 7djengo7's rational criticism of Guyver's rank hypocrisies>"

    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    I have no clue whether Barbarian is a Christian or not,
    If what you say is true ("Christians don't like evolution"), and, if The Barbarian "likes evolution", then, by your own criterion ("Christians don't like evolution"), you've necessarily entailed that The Barbarian is excluded from being a Christian. It's only because you refuse to think rationally--that is, deductively--that you can so ignorantly sit there and say "I have no clue whether Barbarian is a Christian or not".

    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    and I couldn't care less.
    I'm not surprised, for nihlism very often goes hand-in-hand with irrational thinking.

    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    His personal religion and belief system are his own, and that's his business unless he wants to share it here.
    But, you've made it your personal business by sharing one of your criteria for whether or not he, or anybody else, is a Christian: "Christians don't like evolution".

    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    Unlike you, I don't believe people go to hell for not being a Christian.
    For what, then, do you believe people go to hell? From where do you derive your doctrine on hell?

    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    PS. Maybe you should think about not judging people so much?
    Maybe you should think about retracting that hypocritical judgment against me?

    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    PSS.
    What does "PSS" stand for?

    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    I said Christians don't like evolution because many of them believe the bible literally.
    Oh, so, when you said "Christians don't like evolution", you meant merely, "SOME Christians don't like evolution", rather than, "ALL Christians don't like evolution"? How cagey of you to not have said what you meant. Of course, it's plain as the noon sun on a cloudless day that someone in your position (being an enemy of the Bible, of Christianity, of Christians) is not going to want to choose to say "SOME Christians don't like evolution" over saying "Christians don't like evolution". The former just doesn't seem to have the effect you want, does it? That adjective, 'some', just has a blunting effect against the brash edginess you're going for. Whereas, the latter, sans the 'some'...now there's something that really conveys your animus against Christianity.

    Your aversion to quantifiers is, also, bound up with your hatred of logic.

    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    ....then the bible story is not literally true. Right?
    Everything God has affirmed in the Bible is true. Your attempt to modify the word 'true' by the word 'literally' is meaningless. What (if anything) would you say it is for something that is true to be "non-literally true"?

    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    In any event, there are plenty of Christians (many of them Catholic) who actually accept science and evolution....so I wasn't speaking for everyone, just in general.
    Why, then, you did a really, really lousy job trying to express what you "really" meant!

    Besides, you already said, above: "I have no clue whether Barbarian is a Christian or not, and I couldn't care less." How is it, then, that you, now, suddenly wish to portray yourself as though you really "could care less" and as though you do "have a clue" that "there are plenty of Christians who [blah, blah, blah]"?? If you can't even say whether or not one, particular person is a Christian, you make a clown of yourself by venturing to call numerous persons "Christians" ("just in general").
    All my ancestors are human.
    PS: All your ancestors are human.
    PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
      The "increasing genetic load", if real, would mean that humans have been declining in ability for hundreds of thousands of years.
      Nope. That's just you assuming the truth of your Darwinism, a common trap for religious fanatics.

      Humans today are measurably more intelligent than humans just a century ago.
      Not with you dragging the average down.

      We seem to be physically better than humans then, and new mutations like the HPAS gene, genes for disease resistance, stronger bones, and so on, continue to appear. Reality is better than anyone's reasoning.
      Notice how when Darwinists are pushed, they run away from their key metric: Reproduction.

      The global birthrate is plummeting. Nothing else matters in the face of the plunge toward extinction, especially a few cherry-picked factors that probably hide much greater decay.

      It's the coup de grace, but usually only after humans have reduced the environment so that it can't have enough individuals for adequate genetic diversity.
      As you learned, genetic diversity is a bad thing. A population that splinters and specializes is observably, demonstrably "less fit" than its parent population.

      Evidence.

      So it's not what whoever told you that story says it is.

      It's noteworthy that almost everyone who actually understands genetics, disagrees with you.
      No, it's not.

      Darwinists love talking about the popularity of an idea. They think it's evidence.

      I do notice that most of the people who talk about the supposed danger of genetic load, are never actually able to define the optimal genotype needed to calculate the load. It's just kind of a intuitive thing for a problem that is deeply mathematical.
      I do notice that Darwinists never define their terms, preferring equivocation and nonsense.

      So there is that. If there's an exception to this, I'd sure like someone to show me.
      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
      E≈mc2
      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
      -Bob B.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Guyver View Post
        Trolling flame bait. Wow. You just revealed yourself. Now you're dismissed. You may go.
        When it became clear that he was just trolling, I tossed him into the "ignore" bin with the other trolls. Give it a try.
        This message is hidden because ...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by User Name
          According to this website, "All of these Philautus species were once native to the island of Sri Lanka, south of India, and all of them were presumably rendered defunct by a combination of urbanization and disease." It says nothing about any shrub frogs having gone extinct due to "genetic erosion," "genetic entropy," etc.

          Do you have any evidence you can link to which says that a species went extinct due to what you call "genetic erosion?" If so, please post and thanks in advance.
          You still are avoiding the main point... Have you watched the video YOU posted, and how is the conclusion reached that differs from geneticists who consider genetic load a problem?

          And, yes of course there is evidence that extinctions are linked to genetic erosion. "By definition, endangered species suffer varying degrees of genetic erosion."
          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_erosion

          "Our hypothesis that the onset of extinction is marked by excessive lethal mutations has experimental support in viruses." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3410861/

          Adaptation and speciation results from mutations and selection. The speciated population has less genetic diversity than parent populations. Island and coral populations are highly adapted but often unable to survive environmental change. Mutations can lead to speciation and speciation can lead to extinction. "Extinction can threaten species evolved to specific ecologies.
          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction
          Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Barbarian
            The "increasing genetic load", if real, would mean that humans have been declining in ability for hundreds of thousands of years.
            Humans have been declining genetically since Adam and Eve sinned. Even secular genecists admit our Stone age ancestors were genetically superior... Exactly as we would expect in the biblical creation model.

            As geneticist J.F. Crow says, he estimates a decrease in viability from mutation accumulation somewhere between 1 and 2% every generation. He says "if war and famine were to force our descendants to a stone-age life, they will have to be content with all the problems their stone age ancestors had, plus mutations that have accumulated in the meantime". https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9237985/
            Last edited by 6days; July 21st, 2019, 05:45 PM.
            Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Guyver View Post
              In any event, there are plenty of Christians (many of them Catholic) who actually accept science and evolution....so I wasn't speaking for everyone, just in general.
              You seem to be confusing common ancestry beliefs with science. All Christians embrace science... after all, science improves our lives through new technologies and advancements in medicine.

              Science often helps confirm the truth of Scripture... and science often exposes shoddy conclusions and false beliefs in the common ancestry belief system.
              Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by 6days View Post
                You seem to be confusing common ancestry beliefs with science. All Christians embrace science... after all, science improves our lives through new technologies and advancements in medicine.

                Science often helps confirm the truth of Scripture... and science often exposes shoddy conclusions and false beliefs in the common ancestry belief system.
                I accept that common ancestry is not proven. If that helps.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                  When it became clear that he was just trolling, I tossed him into the "ignore" bin with the other trolls. Give it a try.
                  I am willing to ignore him now. But, I don’t like to use the ignore function. FWIW. I have to listen to these folks if I want to have them listen to me.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by User Name View Post
                    According to this website, "All of these Philautus species were once native to the island of Sri Lanka, south of India, and all of them were presumably rendered defunct by a combination of urbanization and disease." It says nothing about any shrub frogs having gone extinct due to "genetic erosion," "genetic entropy," etc. Do you have any evidence you can link to which says that a species went extinct due to what you call "genetic erosion?" If so, please post and thanks in advance.
                    Did it ever occur to you that genetic load would cause disease?
                    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                    E≈mc2
                    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                    -Bob B.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                      I am willing to ignore him now. But, I don’t like to use the ignore function. FWIW. I have to listen to these folks if I want to have them listen to me.
                      By definition, trolls are not here to listen. More power to you, if you want to put up with them, in the hope that they might actually gain something from your interaction, or maybe even communicate honestly with you. It does happen. Years ago,one of the worst of them happened to a moment of self-disclosure here, that was both illuminating and sad. I sent him a PM, empathizing. He got much worse after that.

                      But your experience might be different. I'm just pleased that it's so much more pleasant to be here without them.
                      This message is hidden because ...

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                        By definition, trolls are not here to listen.
                        And you go to great lengths to tell everyone all about how many people you ignore.

                        Last edited by Stripe; July 22nd, 2019, 09:18 AM.
                        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                        E≈mc2
                        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                        -Bob B.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                          When it became clear that he was just trolling, I tossed him into the "ignore" bin with the other trolls.
                          Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                          By definition, trolls are not here to listen.
                          By definition, for you to set people on "Ignore" is for you to be "not here to listen" to what they say. You've just admitted that you are "just trolling".
                          All my ancestors are human.
                          PS: All your ancestors are human.
                          PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                            I am willing to ignore him now. But, I don’t like to use the ignore function. FWIW. I have to listen to these folks if I want to have them listen to me.
                            I, for my part, have never used the "Ignore" function.

                            I'm curious as to why, exactly, you are "willing to ignore [me] now". I'm listening.
                            I'm curious as to why, exactly, you "don't like to use the ignore function". I'm listening.

                            Unlike you, The Barbarian seems, heartily, to like to "use the ignore function"; the way he tells it, one might think The Barbarian is actually proud to advertise the fact that he has no recourse but to stop his ears and run away from embarrassing criticism which he has no hope of countering.
                            All my ancestors are human.
                            PS: All your ancestors are human.
                            PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Lon View Post
                              Yet evolution suggest millions of years where man is not present.
                              Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                              As does physics, astronomy, geology, biology...
                              Here, by juxtaposition, The Barbarian acknowledges that whatever he calls "evolution" is not physics, is not astronomy, is not geology, is not biology....in short, is NOT science.

                              And science never gives us millions of years.
                              All my ancestors are human.
                              PS: All your ancestors are human.
                              PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 6days View Post
                                You still are avoiding the main point... Have you watched the video YOU posted, and how is the conclusion reached that differs from geneticists who consider genetic load a problem?

                                And, yes of course there is evidence that extinctions are linked to genetic erosion. "By definition, endangered species suffer varying degrees of genetic erosion."
                                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_erosion

                                "Our hypothesis that the onset of extinction is marked by excessive lethal mutations has experimental support in viruses." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3410861/
                                As I taught you earlier, any time a population falls below a certain point, variability drops and the population tends to go extinct because of genetic failure.

                                Adaptation and speciation results from mutations and selection. The speciated population has less genetic diversity than parent populations.
                                I showed you that, also. I pointed out that speciation tended to happen in smaller, isolated populations with less genetic variability. The "founder effect" was commented on by a number of scientists who noticed the phenomenon. Darwin's finches, for example, evolved from a few migrants from S. America. Would you like to see the evidence for that?

                                Island and coral populations are highly adapted but often unable to survive environmental change.
                                The Grants, on Daphne Major, documented that even smaller populations can increase fitness by mutation and natural selection. As you also learned, a small population of lizards colonizing a very different environment, evolved a number of adaptations that made them more fit for the environment, including a new digestive organ. Should I show you that, again?

                                Mutations can lead to speciation and speciation can lead to extinction. "Extinction can threaten species evolved to specific ecologies.
                                On the other hand, it can go as it went with those lizards. The race is not always to the fit. But mostly, it is.
                                This message is hidden because ...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X