Faith's Participation in EvC

Faith has made this statement several times in the past few days and is quite proud of it.I even went through the trouble highlighting them below.I will retract the error of associating you with those statements.However notice how she ignored the "on topic" questions here on the invalid basis she has taken in science based discussion. Maybe that is why this topic exists. Edited by troxelso, : No reason given.Edited by troxelso, : No reason given.

Well, at least she is not making the horrendous error of claiming microevolution is macroevolution; that natural selection is a driving force for macroevolution; that mutations are random, etc, etc,....and all the non-factual claims evos have made over the years. She at least have SOME EVIDENCE, although much of subjective, of God. That's more than we can say of many of these evo claims, and moreover, evos go as far as to claim that "evolution is observed"; that microevolution is macroevolution is an observed fact. It's astonishing that even a non-scientist can see this is not the case.When will you guys?

Looks like you insist to go off topic - I will not reply anymore.I challenge you to repackage your's or Faith's strongest position and submit as a topic. Faith is not being called on the carpet here for her factual based arguements, even if you like to think so. She has repeatedly sought refuge behind her unsupported premise and makes claims that facts in the bible are just as valid as facts in the real world so there.

quote:

---

Because the Flood made many creatures extinct. The fossil record is really a graveyard of pre-Flood forms of life.

---

And the pattern of extinction just happened to be in great agreement with evolution ? Come on, you can do better than that.

quote:

---

I didn't claim absolute perfection for my arguments, Paul, I claimed that they are very good answers to the evo claims and they are.

---

But they aren't good answers. They don't really deal with the issue at all. You know perfectly well that you have to avoid discussing the fossil record in anything more than a superificial manner for your claims to even appear to stand up.

quote:

---

The changes just reflect the differential deposition of different types of life. We've been over this a zillion times. I'm going to bed.

---

So you've been shown to be wrong a zillion times. And you stil won't admit it.

It's been declared off topic, but it has been answered sufficiently.

randman, not one of these things have ever penitrated your skull, no matter how many topics we start and how many posts we make, you will never agree with anything the evolutionary commuity puts forth as evidence.
you don't care what science shows or you would read what people come up with and try to understand it and stop making up strawmen of what evolution says
and stop with haeckel for gods sake! no one cares! everyone gets it! he messed up get over it!
the fact that you do not grasp why microevolution becomes macroevolution just shows you don't care about learning about it, you just want to say its wrong, because its just wrong to you
how about learning what science means when they say words before you say its wrong for once?

quote:

---

She did substantiate it as far as she could, discussing well-known processes leading to a loss of genetic diversity

---

...And not discussing the rate of loss at all. In other words "as far as she could" didn't even get close to substantiating it.

quote:

---

You guys claim mutations can overcome that, but you offer nothing to prove that

---

Obviously mutations DO increase genetic diversity. However I should point out that this group does not have access to the whole of human knowledge. If neither side knows enough to resolve the issue then we cannot declare victory for one side. In fact the evolution side had a mild edge on the argument.

quote:

---

I mean what the heck? Can't you see that asserting something as factual when in reality it is an untested hypothesis borders on a fraudulent claim, and if not fraudulent, at least ignorant.

---

Then you're calling Faith a fraud.

quote:

---

What has been proven is observed microevolutionary processes decrease genetic diversity in the long run, correct?

---

No. Because mutation is part of microevolution. We need measurements of rates before we can come to that conclusion - Faith tried to come to the conclusion wihtout bothering to find the evidence - so I guess her argument was "fraudulent".

quote:

---

What we observe thus far contradicts what you assert

---

Completely wrong. We have no observations showing that Faith's "inevitable decrease" really is inevitable - or even common.

So you declare the on-topic subject matter as off-topic but take the off-topic diversion, I stupidly provided, and ran with it? Hmmmm....You have not answered the question...Is any premise, substantiated or not, a basis to make valid arguements about science. This is the claim you made earlier, except in reference to the bibical god. You out of hand will refuse other faith based claims.This is 4th time I have asked in several different flavors. Is Hopi Creationism as valid as Biblical Creationism?No insults to the Christian perspective as Hopi beliefs are complex and interesting.You have even claimed that "facts in the Bible are just as valid as other facts". I tried to get you to come to a common definition of the word "fact" so we could communicate. You ignored that.I give, this is senseless. Edited by troxelso, : No reason given.

So you guys, meaning the entire evo community, have asserted for decades now that beneficial mutational rates are sufficient to overcome the natural decrease in genetic variety through observed microevolutionary processes, but YOU HAVE NEVER TAKEN ANY MEASUREMENTS TO VERIFY THIS CLAIM!!!Unbelievable!And yet you claim this is an empirical-based approach. How can you claim random mutations and natural selection can account for macroevolution without measuring this? Is it more like a faith thing with you guys?

quote:

---

So you guys, meaning the entire evo community, have asserted for decades now that beneficial mutational rates are sufficient to overcome the natural decrease in genetic variety through observed microevolutionary processes, but YOU HAVE NEVER TAKEN ANY MEASUREMENTS TO VERIFY THIS CLAIM!!!

---

In fact we don't know that that is true. All we know is that the people here weren't able to locate anything that directly addressed the issue. And that applies to BOTH sides. Faith claimed that mutation couldn't keep up with loss - and SHE certainly didn't have any measurements.However even if it were true it wouldn't be much help to you. Any theory must have gaps where our knowledge is incomplete. IF the real situation is that nobody knows and we have no good evidence either way - and at least in the case of bacteria it seems that mutations can and do occur with sufficient frequency for lab experiments to turn up beneficial mutations - then it can't be decisive either way. We do have other lines of evidence for evolution - which is why evolution is a well-established theory. To reject it on a "maybe" is not how science works.

quote:

---

And yet you claim this is an empirical-based approach

---

Because it is. We know that mutations happen. We know that natural selection happens. We have strong evidence that macroevolution has happened. So we apply known mechanisms ro explain a known phenomenon. That sounds like an "empiricial-based approach" to me. What else would you call explaining empirical observations in terms of empirically known mechanisms ?

This whole digression with Randman is off-topic.If you want to discuss something other than the specific issue of Faith's participation and standing on the board then start a new thread.This is not the place for rehashing these arguments, especially since a number of the actual threads are still active.So please, Randman, PaulK, Troxelso, stop this line of discussion on this thread.TTFN,AW

Omnivorous already pointed out the problems with this thread in Message 121. I am taking his hint, and closing the thread.

---

Constructive discussion requires that the participants have to genuinely want to be constructive. It only takes a single participant in a message board discussion to sabotage discussion, and it can be accomplished through a variety of techniques, including but not limited to accusations false or not, flamboyant comments, outrageous comments, going off-topic and stonewalling.I've suspended Randman, hover over the suspension icon to see the reason. He has some unfinished business he would like to discuss, and he is free to discuss it to his heart's content in the showcase forum when his suspension expires. Or, if he'd like to be constructive and respectful and on-topic, he can discuss them in the threads here.I'm tentatively reopening this topic, but if the off-topic digression resumes then I will close it again. The topic of this thread is to *constructively* discuss whether Faith's participation here represents a significant obstacle to productive debate to the point where administrative action is warranted.To briefly summarize, I sense a sort of split consensus where on the one hand Faith is considered a staunch advocate of the creationist viewpoint who stimulates many excellent evolutionary explanations, while on the other hand presenting a significant challenge to evolutionary arguments primarily through her inability or unwillingness to comprehend or address them. Those who take the former viewpoint seem to outnumber the latter by quite a bit, though I haven't made anything like an exact count.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

How things change, and change again, by morning! I see Admin has this thread well in hand, and I defer to his judgment in keeping it open.It has become an interesting microcosm of the general issue he originally raised: the difficulty of maintaining constructive debate in the face of perennially off-topic and substantively unresponsive posts.I recommend that any further comments be prefaced by a review of the OP and posted with a narrow focus on its letter and spirit.

You could not have picked a worse example. The foundation of her claims were never substantiated. Even when given an opportunity to back it up: Can Genetic Loss Increase Diversity?the silence became deafening.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)