Evolution Easily Refuted

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
So if there was a mechanism within the gene repair functions
that could effectively mask-out some mutations, perhaps to
later release them all at once ... would that alter your objections.
--Thank you for this excellent mechanism to rebut.
--This mechanism has been reported, hypothesize, purported, purpetrated, etc. in various guises.
--It is a powerful mechanism that would support a ToE, until you go back in time to the pre-existing elements that made such a DNA-repairase/repairase complex (if you will) subsist to begin with.
--Recalling these repairase enzymes as the most complex enzymes on the planet, with millions of precisely arranged atoms somehow interacting to make this awesome function possible. Could they have evolved from even a slightly different pre-existent repairase protein?
Methinks not.
Thus I'd continue to object on these APRIORI grounds.

​

Sincerely,
Philip

---

What about RNA interference or the action of hsp90 (or is it 60?)??

i dunno if Robert is still in here or not. This is Metalpunk37, i haven't been active in a while. also if true creation is there let me know

I think you're registered as Metalpunk 37, Metalpunk57, Winston Smith and Winston Smith Asriel. Please choose which ID you wish to continue with, the rest will be deleted. If I don't hear back within a day or so then all the IDs will be deleted.--------------------EvC Forum Administrator

"i dunno if Robert is still in here or not. This is Metalpunk37, i haven't been active in a while. also if true creation is there let me know "
--I still post here, what would you like?BTW - I hold no authority in this forum, though it may be beneficial for you to know that Percy said what he said because "Participating as more than one ID is extremely strongly discouraged." From the Forum Guidelines page.-------------------

The user IDs Winston Smith, Winston Smith Asriel and Metalpunk37 have been deleted. You may rejoin as any one, but not more than that, of these IDs, or any other available ID that you wish.--------------------EvC Forum Administrator

sorry about that admin. I hadn't been active in a while. True c, Im doing a report on e vs c, and i was wondering if you could help. since this thread seems to be dead it would be eas to speak individually, rather than with others joining in.A basic synopsis of creationism please.------------------
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Pardon me for the interjection, but the burden of proof is on the evolutionist, for they claim it to be scientific when it is in fact religious. On the other hand Creationism is religious, I acknowledge that, it is therefore rediculous to ask one for proof of creation. That is like asking a computer to prove a human created it, the computer cannot comprehend, as we cannot comprehend creation. But that does not mean we cannot find evidence in favor of it. Since both evolution and creation are faiths, the same observation can be held as evidence in both realms."And remember, you can't resort to the bible because it was written long after the fact of creation and is only hearsay."I can't believe I have to point out to you that void in time between the origin of species and the doctrins of Darwin are far greater than the point of creation and the writing of the Bible.

And the burden of proof is on you, to demonstrate reading comprehension, since you just responded to a thread that's been dead over a year and a half.If you think you're up to it, try looking at some active threads, viewing the factual evidence for evolution available there, and mounting an evidence-based challenge to.... ANY of it.

Welcome here, ListenToReason (LTR)Reason is what will work here of course. May I offer a couple of suggestions?Don't be too arrogant. You will only get people's backs up. From what you have posted I can tell you that you have a lot to learn.Try to read a little of some of the threads before you post. Then pick and choose what you want to discuss carefully. One post and you will get 5 or 6 replies to respond to.Don't be too thin-skinned. If you are going to take offence at good hard hitting debate you may as well leaven now.Be careful of what sources you use. Some creationist sites supply what is basically junk which has already been torn to shreds here. You might to well to go to TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy for the rebutals there as they will crop up here right away anyway.Note that we are not arguing with religion and faith (well not everyone is ). We are arguing with creation "science" that pretends to be an alternative to "conventional" science and wants to interfere with the teaching of science in the class room. This means that resorting to miracles as a solution becomes religion and is not going to impress anyone. There are lots of different religions and I'm sure you're as glad that most of them aren't allowed in classrooms as some of us are that creationism isn't.Be aware that you may make assertions as you have in your opening post. You don't have to defend each one as you post it. But if anyone objects you will be expected to defend it with evidence. If you aren't prepared to then don't bother posting.

I've tracked down 3 topics pertaining to "Evolution is a Religion" discussion. "Evolution is a religion. Creation is a religion"
161 messages - last posted 10/24/02 "Evolution: Science or Religion?"
34 messages - last posted 7/22/03 "why 'evolutionism' is a religion
45 messages - last posted 4/2/03You may wish to reactivate one of these, or start a new one of your own.Adminnemooseus------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Is there some rule about reactivating a thread that might be the right place for the topic he wants to discuss?

No rule that I'm aware of, just common sense. There are many equally appropriate threads for this post, threads whose main participants are actually still active here. Choosing this one suggests that he/she lacks the common courtesy to lurk for a while and get a feel for the forum. It's a bad way to start off.