Summations Only

One of the reasons I very rarely post is that even when the "anti-creationists" must admit that one of their pillars of evolution are not sound they respond with silly childist barbs. An example, when discussing mutations that are not random with regards to fitness such as the CRISPRSs system the replys are you don't know what your talking about. Well my question is: is the CRISPRS system an example of a dedicated non random, beneficial change that evolutionary theorists have excluded to this day?If so how can one have a debate when a valid point is ignored by the so called scientific experts, because it does not fit into their theory?

I agree that scientists have discovered they system. Shapiro writes about it in his book. The problem I have is many scientists on this board ignore the facts of the system and merely state all mutations for fitness are random. So why debate with logic like that? I must say that Wounded King is one of the few scientists on this board who will acknowledge that there may "possibly" be some non-random mutations for fitness, and he will also correct others on this board who have the science wrong. But he one of the few.

This is an example of the kind of discussion I believe is necessary from the more "radical evolutionists" on this board. You are not denying the system may be non-random. Almost all on this board would and have. I am not a scientist so I have to rely on papers etc to support my contentions. If your logic. that one must know the science as a trained scientist before expressing support for his or her postion, then there is no room for debate by a layperson. For example when I brought to jury trial a medical malpractice case I had to rely on my experts explanation of what was wrong with the medical treatment and present that to the jury in the testimony of my experts and then in closing argument explain that to the jury. That is what I try to do on this board. But it gets quite annoying when all you get is silly combacks and not argument. Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

The thread is about why the "creationist" are not posting in the Evolution threads.My point is that when I post good science such as the CRISPIRSs being non-random for fitness most evolutionists on this board deny that fact and then ridicule and attack me.Why should we post when there is no acknowledgement of a good scientific point?I do want to say that Taz and Wounded King and a few others will acknowledge good scientific points, but they are in the minority.

I meant TAQ not Taz. Sorry.

When I posted about James A. Shapiro's theory of Natural Genetic Engineering and gave my view of his theory I was told I did not unerstand his theory. Subsequently I discussed this with Shapiro and he told me I had a good understanding of his theory. I posted his reply to me on this board (with his permission) and I was again told by many on the board I had no idea what Shapiro was talking about.How can I rely to something like that?
That's why I have stopped posting in the evolution threads.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

Juries always argue back and always have the last word.

You miss my point. It is not about CRISPR it is that when I make a valid point such as in re Shapiro's writings and theory I am told I don't understand it, by people who have never read Shapiro.Shapiro says I understand it, but the "scientists" on this board, most of whom have never read Shapiro say I don't understand.Whats the point?
If one is set in their beliefs they will not accept any other opinions.That is what they accuse "Creationists" of doing, yet they do not realize that is what they are doing.

thank you for your excellent post.I have never claimed that Shapiro was a denier of evolution.I am of the opinion that he is a an evolutionist whose theory is one of intelligent, organized response to nature and the enviroment. He is not one who agrees with Darwin's or the MS's position that all changes, ie. mutations, et. al are random w/o reagard to fitness.I don't believe he is and ID proponent, but is one who is comfortable in his theory, and does not see the need for the vitrolic Darwinism-Id debate.I am of the opinion that Shapiro's theory is consistent with a continuing creation, that in my opinion, based upon scientific findings, leads to something other than complete randomness.In re Larry Moran, I am of the opinon he has a secular naturalism bias.I thank you for your measured intelligent response and opinions. This is the type of debate I anticipated when I entered this forum.

Do you base those opinons on your discussions with Shapiro?I have read several critiques of his book and he is well regarded as are his theories.

I don't disagree with your comment. However you very rarely see Shapiro disparaged for his science. His opinions and choice of words seems to upset most critics.Perhaps he is ahead of his time.
I guess the future will hold the answer to whether he is correct or not.