quote:
You never posted a thing to me or any board I've seen "6 months ago" about how you totally flip-flopped on the "directed mutations" schtick that you were a "proselytizer" of.
Then this! -->
quote:
You have alluded to this recently, but I suspect that it is because you are jsut trying to save face - the "I knew it all along" bit that you like to pull out now and then.
Thanks, you just contradicted yourself and proved my case.
I still need to clarify something. I never totally flip-flopped on directed mutations. I still believe they occur! I also said I'm on the sidelines watching the debate. I also said I could be wrong. I also said BFD. Now where I totally flip-flopped, if one can even call it that, is that I no longer think they may be necessary to explain hyper-speciation since the flood. I have stated this many times in the last 6 months. Get that through your thick as coal skull.
Read this post, from 5 months back:
http://
EvC Forum: molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1) -->
EvC Forum: molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1)
From 2 weeks ago:
http://
EvC Forum: molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1) -->
EvC Forum: molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1)
I think my position is quite clear. Perhaps you just have a reading comprehension problem? Even though you were posting around my 5-month ago post and likely read my comments, I could give you the benefit of doubt. But you responded to the two week ago post, even to the very statement I made, so you have no excuse to still be misrepresenting my position.
quote:
As you should know by now, one of Fred's 'debate' tactics is to accuse whoever he is 'debating' of misrepresenting' this or that.
Hmm, I’ve debated a lot of people, and maybe 10% of the time do I think I’m misrepresented. Funny that 10% is about 8% Dr Scott Page. Am I a lone-wolf creationist complaining about your misrepresentations, Scott? You are like this guy at lunch-time basketball who is always the one in the middle of a fight or argument, totally failing to realize perhaps he is the problem and not everyone else.
Regarding Spetner, I did not mean to imply you stated he was YEC. My implication is since I figured he was OEC, it was obvious he would have no reason to push hyper-speciation. I could be wrong on his YEC stance. The bottom line is that to my knowledge he never offered his non-random theory as evidence for post-flood hyperspeciation, ever. I’ve read plenty of his material and have never seen him make this correlation. Thus, you clearly misrepresented him, regardless of whether or not he is YEC. Perhaps you should read his book or his web material before you criticize what you assume he believes.
quote:
However, again only the dishonest zealot would continue to use "directed mutations" as an evolution refuter considering the fact that the overwhelming weight of evidence is against them.
Again you exaggerate my position. I don’t think it refutes something I think is already refuted. As I have said many times before, I don’t hang my hat on them. But I do know they falsify NDT
as defined by evolutionists. I then qualify this by saying the evolutionists will accommodate such a find and incorporate it into their theory, which would demonstrate their test was nothing of the sort. The point is, evolutionary theory has propped itself up to accommodate everything, and thus is not falsifiable (that is a whole other thread).