|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Challenge to Wordswordman | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6501 days)  Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6501 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6501 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6501 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6501 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6501 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: WS:It appears necessary to repost post #1 above for the benefit of a few who fail to scroll up and change pages. Let me point out that the challenge is NOT for evolutionists to support the first Darwin theory, but for me to SHOW it is false. I chose my initial shot across the bow, the problem with homologous genes as related to production of homologous organs bearing the same ‘patterns’, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes. Wells wrote "Diverse organisms possess homologous features. Homology may or may not be due to inheritance from a common ancestor, but it is definitely not due to similarity of genes or similarity of developmental pathways." Nobody has attempted an answer to that here or anywhere else. I doubt there is even a good guess in the making. I highly doubt there will ever be an answer that fits the scientific method evolutionists are so jealous over. I asked for data, scientific data, supporting an answer to the above problem, also in all fairness asking for a demonstration, an actual observation in nature, of a mechanism that shows the scientific answer to be accurate, quite natural. M: I posted the references and a series of abstracts exactly pertaining to this subject all from scientific journals. WS:I've posted this same question on evolution boards before for years. It is never answered except with wild guesses, without a shred of evidence. Until then I consider biological evolution a pointless debate issue. The "heart" of evolution is violated. If you can't explain this homology/same gene problem, just admit it is a major objection to biological evolution. If so, it remains in the background, making further discussion of little value except to rehearse biology over and over. In summary, he says: "It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find 'homologous' genes, except in closely related species, has been given up as hopeless." "But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts of their normal manner, what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same 'patterns' in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered."" M: And if you read the articles above it should be clear why placing an you can induce limb development. Most genes (not all) code for proteins. Where, when, and at how high a level specific genes i.e. hox genes are expressed determine limb structure, body plan, etc. The proteins are expressed in gradients. Alteration of gene expression by mutation leads to changes in the gradient that either leads to lethal mutation or changed or novel structure. For example in humans, a deletion in the promoter of Hoxd13 leads to digital reduction i.e. instead of a hand you get a single digit. The exact same mutant occurs in mice in the same gene leading to the same phenotype. If you transplant a portion of the gradient (ectopic expression) to another part of the organism you recapitulate the developmental process of the original organ as it already has the established protein gradient in place i.e. de Beers experiment that you refer to. In 1971 this was all unknown. In 2002 this is old hat. The papers I posted earlier demonstrate that the same genes (mostly hox genes) do the same or similar things in most organisms that have them (amphioxus on up through all vertebrates). Changes in gene expression timing, level, etc account for morphological change thus homologous organs are controlled by homologous genes. A further reference on the subjects of gradients and hox genes Nature 2002 Feb 21;415(6874):914-7 Related Articles, Links Comment in:Nature. 2002 Feb 21;415(6874):848-9. Hox protein mutation and macroevolution of the insect body plan. Ronshaugen M, McGinnis N, McGinnis W. Section of Cell and Developmental Biology, Universith of California--San Diego, Jolla, CA 92093, USA. A fascinating question in biology is how molecular changes in developmental pathways lead to macroevolutionary changes in morphology. Mutations in homeotic (Hox) genes have long been suggested as potential causes of morphological evolution, and there is abundant evidence that some changes in Hox expression patterns correlate with transitions in animal axial pattern. A major morphological transition in metazoans occurred about 400 million years ago, when six-legged insects diverged from crustacean-like arthropod ancestors with multiple limbs. In Drosophila melanogaster and other insects, the Ultrabithorax (Ubx) and abdominal A (AbdA, also abd-A) Hox proteins are expressed largely in the abdominal segments, where they can suppress thoracic leg development during embryogenesis. In a branchiopod crustacean, Ubx/AbdA proteins are expressed in both thorax and abdomen, including the limb primordia, but do not repress limbs. Previous studies led us to propose that gain and loss of transcriptional activation and repression functions in Hox proteins was a plausible mechanism to diversify morphology during animal evolution. Here we show that naturally selected alteration of the Ubx protein is linked to the evolutionary transition to hexapod limb pattern. WS:BTW, Well's article has NOT been refuted. Only contrary opinions are offered in various places by evolutionists insisting their interpretation is the right one. Nobody has PROVEN Wells wrong. His critique stands. M: Science does not prove. Hypothesis are formed based on observations and supporting data sought and gathered. If data accumulated supporting a hypothesis and evidence against is not found it becomes a theory. Both hypothesis and theories are subject to constant revision as more data is accumulated and are thus not static. Wells arguments are not supported by the evidence and are misundertandings and misrepresentations of biological principles and thus it is not merely a "my opinion versus Wells opinion" argument. WS:I ask once more before ignoring this thread, what mechanism? I attempt to show the first theory is false because the mechanism of development of homologous organs apart from homologous genes isn't known. The first theory is but a guess around an unknown mechanism that must not exist. M: I have addressed this above. WS:You asked for me to show falsehood, and I think I have. M:I think I have supplied current information that should be taken into consideration. WS:I think this is akin to the debunked evolution theory of recapitulation ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"- still found in modern school textbooks). M: That is not the only error found in modern textbooks nor are errors restricted to scientific books. But this is a different subject. Edit notes: I have removed the outer unclosed UBB quote code, and have set Mammuthus's text to being non-bold (too much bold text makes my head throb ) - Adminnemooseus [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6501 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
WS: How long did that one (PE) last? Most actual mutations have detrimental effects. Once again evolution hangs on mutations rather than natural processes designed into genes. By far the greatest effect of genetics is to continue a species with slight NECESSARY environmental adaptation through normal, natural genetic recombinations without adding genetic information. None of that is necessarily a permanent, irreversible change, given long term gradual changes in environment. Quick changes don't allow the supposed evolution processes to have beneficial effect, resulting in extinction, not improvement. Keep in mind the first priinciple of the first Darwin law which a priori excludes intelligent design/creation. It is not evidenced to be inapplicable.
M: This paragraph falsified..PE is still alive and kicking (see below)And as to no addition of genetic information...syncytin is the envelope gene of an endogenous retrovirus. It is critical to the fusion of syncytiotrophoblasts. If this process does not occur, there is no placental development and hence, no babies. This endogenous retrovirus transposed into the genome only after the split of New World from Old world monkeys. Thus humans and all old world monkeys have it but all other mammals do not. Another gene has to determine syncitiotrophoblast formation..thus new information was gained and replaced identically an old function with a completely novel sequence...not a small reversible change. As to PE.... Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999 Mar 30;96(7):3807-12 Related Articles, Links Genomic evolution during a 10,000-generation experiment with bacteria. Papadopoulos D, Schneider D, Meier-Eiss J, Arber W, Lenski RE, Blot M. Abteilung Mikrobiologie, Biozentrum, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland. Molecular methods are used widely to measure genetic diversity within populations and determine relationships among species. However, it is difficult to observe genomic evolution in action because these dynamics are too slow in most organisms. To overcome this limitation, we sampled genomes from populations of Escherichia coli evolving in the laboratory for 10,000 generations. We analyzed the genomes for restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLP) using seven insertion sequences (IS) as probes; most polymorphisms detected by this approach reflect rearrangements (including transpositions) rather than point mutations. The evolving genomes became increasingly different from their ancestor over time. Moreover, tremendous diversity accumulated within each population, such that almost every individual had a different genetic fingerprint after 10,000 generations. As has been often suggested, but not previously shown by experiment, the rates of phenotypic and genomic change were discordant, both across replicate populations and over time within a population. Certain pivotal mutations were shared by all descendants in a population, and these are candidates for beneficial mutations, which are rare and difficult to find. More generally, these data show that the genome is highly dynamic even over a time scale that is, from an evolutionary perspective, very brief. : Science 1996 Jun 21;272(5269):1802-4 Related Articles, Links Comment in:Science. 1996 Dec 6;274(5293):1748-50. Science. 1996 Jun 21;272(5269):1741. Punctuated evolution caused by selection of rare beneficial mutations. Elena SF, Cooper VS, Lenski RE. Center for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 48824, USA. selena@ant.css.msu.edu For more than two decades there has been intense debate over the hypothesis that most morphological evolution occurs during relatively brief episodes of rapid change that punctuate much longer periods of stasis. A clear and unambiguous case of punctuated evolution is presented for cell size in a population of Escherichia coli evolving for 3000 generations in a constant environment. The punctuation is caused by natural selection as rare, beneficial mutations sweep successively through the population. This experiment shows that the most elementary processes in population genetics can give rise to punctuated evolution dynamics. WS:‘Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.’ (Mini Review: Schwabe, C., 1994. Theoretical limitations of molecular phylogenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol.107B:167—177). WS: On a side note the presence of EXCESS retinoic acid causes deformation of hox genes in humans, not benefits. Birth defects are not enhancements to the population. There is no evidence mutations of hox genes meets the question posed by de Beer. M: This is the hopeful monster argument. What you present is a strawman argument. Nobody proposes that a mutation drastically altering hox gene expression would lead from a whale to a tuna. What IS seen is that related species with slightly different morphology or completely different species with radically different morphology show corresponding differences in hox gene expression. The smaller changes over time and speciation lead to the larger differences seen long after the fact. WS:Research in the six years since Schwabe wrote this has only born out his statement. Changes to homeotic genes cause monstrosities (two heads, a leg where an eye should be, etc.); they do not change an amphibian into a reptile, for example. And the mutations do not add any information, they just cause existing information to be mis-directed to produce a fruit-fly leg on the fruit-fly head instead of on the correct body segment, for example. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ M: Again, a mistatement...you don't change from amphibian to reptile..they shared a common ancestor...you do undertand the difference don't you? If you read the articles I presented in the last post you will see that the last sentence has been falsified...mutations in hox gene control regions lead to differences in hox protein gradients and change morphology....not just makeing an antennae into a leg. WS: So where is the evidence of ADDED information? M: Syncytin is one, hox cluster duplications another, and there are examples of gene loss contributing to differences in cell morphology i.e. humans lack a gene function present in all other mammals... WS:Evolutionists, of course, use the ubiquity of hox genes in their argument for common ancestry (‘Look, all these creatures share these genes, so all creatures must have had a common ancestor’). However, commonality of such features is to be expected with their origin from the same (supremely) intelligent Creator. All such homology arguments are only arguments for evolution when one excludes, a priori, origins by design. M: Please demonstrate 1) how a supremely intelligent creator is a falsifiable hypothesis and then 2) provide evidence for this creator. If step 1 is impossible it is not science and should be excluded when considering the origin of species. WS:Indeed many of the patterns we see do not fit common ancestry. For example, the discontinuity of distribution of hemoglobin-like proteins, which are found in a few bacteria, molluscs, insects, and vertebrates. One could also note features such as vivipary, thermoregulation (some fish and mammals), eye designs, etc. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4205.asp M: How does any of this not fit with common ancestry? Why should a plant have hemoglobin? What is the selective advantage? WS: There is no definitive evidence against ID/creation. Hence, the evolution model is not testable in a way that overwhelms creationist theories. M: There is no testable ID/creation hypothesis so there is nothing one can do with it. WS:The notion of evolution is not a purely scientific subject until all of its tenets are explained with actual science methods and actual data collected scientifically, not just guesses based on some observations. It is often said by evolutionists that science doesn't prove anything. That is because science for the evolutionist is yet a "proto science", much like a philosophy, evidenced by a disparity of beliefs among the constituents of the TofE. M: All tenets of the theory of gravity are not explained. There is more accumulated evidence for the theory of evolution than for the theory of gravity. So is gravity just a non scientific guess? Care to test it by jumping out a window and seeing if you stay in place? If you did you would disprove gravity As to science not "proving" anything...like with gravity, all science is tentative always. WS:Another one adding clarity to this issue is: Human/chimp DNA similarity Evidence for evolutionary relationship? by Don Batten First published in:Creation 19(1):21—22 December 1996—February 1997 ...edited out first paragraph... Similarity (‘homology’) is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution) as against a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen ‘Beetle’ car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities (‘homologies’). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution. M: This argument presents the same logical fallacy as your Seiko watch example. Neither the VW or Porsche is subject to heritable mutation as neither can reproduce and thus evolution cannot occur. Thus in that respect homology is not the proper definition. If your mitochondrial DNA shares the identical mutations with your mothers mtDNA and is different from everyone elses (except your maternal grandmothers) that is identity by descent...or do you deny that genetic information is passed on from parent to offspring? This is evolution by the way... WS:If humans were entirely different from all other living things, or indeed if every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal the Creator to us? No! We would logically think that there must be many creators rather than one. The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True God who made it all (Romans 1:18—23). M: bacteria are completely different from humans...which creator made them? WS:If humans were entirely different from all other living things, how would we then live? If we are to eat food to provide nutrients and energy to live, what would we eat if every other organism on earth were fundamentally different biochemically? How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different from the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for us to have food! M: On what basis is this established? You can get sustenance from water, minerals, and amino acids and sugars as components...none of which are in themselves similar to living animals. Ever eat an archea i.e. Thermophilus aquaticus? This argument supposes we regularly eat everything living. WS:We know that DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. M: However, the above statement conflicts with John Wells (and your) belief that hox genes have nothing to do with embryonic development. How do you know that you are not created instantly and made to appear similar to your parents? WS:In other words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans[1], so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA. M: The above paragraph is in complete conflict with what you stated and attempted to support in your arguments against hox genes guiding development. Why is this a likely prediction if there is creation? The only way to be similar to something biologically is to be related to it..you are more similar to your parents than anyone else because you inherited your DNA from them....if you accept the above paragraph then you accept evolution. If each organism was created there would be no reason to suppose morphological or molecular similarities. And the above also conflicts with the observation of convergent evolution whereby molecular evidence provides completely different results from that of morphology like the marsupial wolf and eutherian wolves. WS:Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living things, so there is even a degree of similarity between the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of humans. Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast can do, we share similarities in the DNA sequences that code for the enzymes that do the same jobs in both types of cells. Some of the sequences, for example, those that code for the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) proteins, are almost identical. M: This again goes against your argument (and de Beers) that genes in different organisms do the same thing. He claims they do not yet here you quote someone who draws the opposite conclusion yet claim both polar opposite view support your agenda. WS:----edited out paragraph.... WS: Any breaking news on the chimp genome? Where did the ‘97% similarity’ come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re—form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA [2]. However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology) [3]. Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the ‘melting’ curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularised then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate. M: This was the estimate from the time that those admittedly crude experiments were performed...as to what is new since then..check out what just came out today using more refined methods.... Published online before print October 4, 2002, 10.1073/pnas.172510699;Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 99, Issue 21, 13633-13635, October 15, 2002 Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels Roy J. Britten* California Institute of Technology, 101 Dahlia Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Contributed by Roy J. Britten, August 22, 2002 Five chimpanzee bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) sequences (described in GenBank) have been compared with the best matching regions of the human genome sequence to assay the amount and kind of DNA divergence. The conclusion is the old saw that we share 98.5% of our DNA sequence with chimpanzee is probably in error. For this sample, a better estimate would be that 95% of the base pairs are exactly shared between chimpanzee and human DNA. In this sample of 779 kb, the divergence due to base substitution is 1.4%, and there is an additional 3.4% difference due to the presence of indels. The gaps in alignment are present in about equal amounts in the chimp and human sequences. They occur equally in repeated and nonrepeated sequences, as detected by REPEATMASKER (http://ftp.genome.washington.edu/RM/RepeatMasker.html). WS:Remaining today in at least one modern biology textbook presented as FACT. When such precise percentages are presented like that, they 'stick' indelibly in the mind. I don't accept the number, but will probably never rid my mind of it, having repeated that figure aloud for too long. No doubt it had a calculated effect. Every time I referred to the shelf of assorted high school and college textbooks for that 'just right' explanation for a lesson, I revisited the many now debunked statements that shaped my own continuing education. If I had my way I would dump all of those books, but they are contributions from personal libraries of many present and former science teachers, and there is little more to refer to in the school library, even less in other local libraries. M: Actually, I remember that scientists going through textbooks found tons of factual errors...sue the publishers. WS:What they covered in my college years is far less than what is available. What is a modern teacher to do? Relying on atheist explanations is no substitute for me. M: Which atheist explanations would those be? wS:There is no time for going back and catching up through continuing ed. courses. It takes every spare moment just to prepare for three classes tomorrow and conclude today's business. So naturally my guidance will be from among the creationist scientists, and that is my suggestion for any Christian science teacher. There are few that I know of. I am aware of only a dozen of about 60 local teachers that admit any religious affiliation, and none among the science teachers. M: Because such people cannot do science as they cannot separate their wished for truths from the actual truth...thus you will find no guidance on these issues that has any value. And it is a cop out to say you have no time to catch up on the subject if you really seem to find it so important personally. WS:Almost all the teachers gather every year at every public school in protest of "See You at the Pole Day" (student-led prayer around the flag pole), often making conversation that drowns out whatever is said by students. No Christian would prohibit prayer, regardless their feelings about separation of church and state. M: I am not sure what this has to do with the current thread. WS:Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data ‘on faith’. Sarich et al. [4] obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies [5]. Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist’s generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical erroraveraging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist. M: Most peer reviewed journals require access to the raw data either by placing it on a website or by request. ....more later..gotta go
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6501 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6501 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6501 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
WS:
Scientific data isn't absolute, subject to constant change, correction, re-correction over and over, being too metaphysical (exemplified in the advent of quantum mechanics and its smashing of reality for many scientists). It isn't the sort of quality knowledge I'm willing to substitute for matters of eternity. M: Religious interpretation is not absolute and varies enormously among groups...at least science is testable and when valid, reproducible which cannot be said of relgion. WS:How could nature, created by God, be "supernatural"? I don't accept that a creationist view of creation is in the supernatural class. A God-directed view of nature might be supernaturally endowed, but the knowledge itself isn't necessarily supernatural. What is labelled as supernatural by evolutionists is simply their way of dealing with knowledge imparted by a God whom they often say does not exist. They hide behind the skirts of science, even though it changes style frequently. At least one fool exists on this forum thread who declares openly the non-existence of God. The Bible identifies him as a fool, and commands me to avoid him and his obviously suspect, distorted rantings. M: Since I am the "fool" you are referring to I can see that you will be avoiding answering my posts or reading what I post but the others here will do so and can judge for themselves which of us is the fool. At least I read the links you posted. Again, your above statement fails to show how creationism is a testable hypothesis or how you go about gathering supporting reproducilbe evidence for god....I have posted this before in another thread but this is an analogy that shows why creationism is not science that I found on the web: Ovulation versus cretinism Two different theories exist concerning the origin of children: the theoryof sexual reproduction, and the theory of the stork. Many people believe in the theory of sexual reproduction because they have been taught this theory at school. In reality, however, many of the world's leading scientists are in favourof the theory of the stork. If the theory of sexual reproduction is taught in schools, it must only be taught as a theory and not as the truth. Alternative theories, such as the theory of the stork, must also be taught. Evidence supporting the theory of the stork includes the following: 1. It is a scientifically established fact that the stork does exist. Thiscan be confirmed by every ornithologist. 2. The alleged human foetal development contains several features that thetheory of sexual reproduction is unable to explain. 3. The theory of sexual reproduction implies that a child is approximatelynine months old at birth. This is an absurd claim. Everyone knows that a newborn child is newborn. 4. According to the theory of sexual reproduction, children are a result ofsexual intercourse. There are, however, several well documented cases where sexual intercourse has not led to the birth of a child. 5. Statistical studies in the Netherlands have indicated a positivecorrelation between the birth rate and the number of storks. Both are decreasing. 6. The theory of the stork can be investigated by rigorous scientificmethods. The only assumption involved is that children are delivered by the stork. WS:He would have us believe it is now essential to understand and keep up with modern genetics in order to comprehend the evolutionist view, ignoring creationist observations that their findings often support the creationist view, though the applications of that knowledge differ. They fail to reach the world with their message, couched in dubious experiments and endless streams of terminology, adding newly coined terms often not yet found in the genetics glossaries. M: To paraphrase your above paragraph, ignorance is bliss. You are stating that it is better to have no understanding of the science that you criticize and make pronouncements on it based on your ignorance. It must be comfortable to dismiss the science I posted from various disciplines that refute the arguments against evolution and genetics you posted. However, it does nothing to support your argument. WS:That is the same agenda of the Gnostics and sorcerers of old. Smoke and mirrors through what is currently called science. It is now far beyond the reach of any high school class, and probably any four year college curriculum, requiring a masters in a narrow science field to adopt particular slices of the evolutionist argument. It isn't worth it. WHY is it necessary that all people accept such an ever-increasingly complex string of explanations as an obvious attempt to prove there is no God? I don't call that education. It's propaganda. M: Cool, never thought of myself as a sorcerer...there should be a stipend with that title If you believe that all scientists goal in life is to prove there is no god, you are being very inconsistent in your belief by using a computer which was after all designed by computer scientists based on physical SCIENCE principles. Again, you used the same argument that it is better not to understand the science and just "feel" like you are right in your uninformed opinion about evolutionary biology. Again, this gives your arguments absolutely no credibility. As to scientists out to prove there is no god...I don't believe there is a god so why would I give a crap about trying to disprove the concept? WS:I distrust any person who subscribes to the evolutionist view while claiming they are Christian. In order to be a Christian one must obviously be a follower of Christ, who verified the holy scriptures. If such a person accepts the Bible is contrarily mostly myth, then he has no real foundation for being a believer, siding with atheists who share the evolutionary views in their claims there is no God based on the alleged faults of the Bible. M: Evolutionary biologists do not base the theory on inaccuracies in the bible...they base it on experimental evidence. I distrust anyone who claims they are a better christian than any other since it is pure hypocrisy...how can you objectively tell? WS:He remains on very shaky sand ready to sink at any moment. There is no middle ground. One either believes or doesn't believe. M: Unless he believes but not the same way as you. Neither of you can make any claims to being on firmer ground. Prove for example that you are a better christian than say the pope. WS:My point is that part a of Darwin's first law is not provable (as you admit here), being a blindly proposed antithesis of an equally unprovable part b that can't be proven. Science can't prove anything, as claimed in this thread. It is all circumstantial evidence and supposition, often revised when advances in science demonstrate former interpretations of data were faulty. M: Too bad that you don't like the way science works but it is infintiely better than the "I believe it is so" non testable, non verifiable, non analyzable infinitely shifting and inconsistency of religion. WS:I propose science is ever moving closer to the real science already suspected by creationists. M: Pseudoscience has always been this way...it is easier than actually doing science. WS:But science will never come to the point of proving or disproving what the Bible says, else the requirement of spiritual faith itself is faulty. Well, that isn't an optiion for me, having accepted the faith requirement long ago, that buttressed by experiential confirmations. That, too, can't be proven as in a case of law in the courts, but is sufficient for me to hold firmly to the report of the Bible, which then requires I take a perspective of reality that agrees with the higher truth of the Bible. M: Sounds like you believe in the bible and not in god..interesting. WS:I came here to deal with the idiotic direct assaults on the Bible, not to debate never-ending arguments around evolution. I am already firmly convinced evolutions is a myth, regardless what scientists have to say about it. M: You can claim it is idiotic but you are the one who said you refuse to actually learn or read what the actual science is and rather remain opinionated but ignorant about a field you feel so strongly about...I would think you would actually want to know your enemy to better fight it but obviously you find that to difficult. WS:I must regard them as sorcerers, those who say there is no God, who claim the Bible is faulty, who plunge into the unknown proposing concepts that are often (too late) later retracted in a child-like level of acountability, never making effort to undo the harm done by their past antics, making excuses "that is the nature of science- self correcting". I subscribe to the perspective of the Bible, never needing correction. M: Considering how many different sects have sprung up around worshipping the bible it seems like lots of people felt it needed correcting...or more likely everybody just interprets it any way they see fit which makes it totally useless. This last post of yours was fascinating WS,1. You claim that creation is not science because science refuses to change its definition to include non testable hypothesis. 2. You claim that bible belief is absolute yet there are lots of christians that do not share your views...your only counter claim is to say they are not real christians which you also fail to support with evidence. 3. After presenting articles (from scientists no less) claiming to support your case, you claim that you have no need or intention to acutally read or learn anything about evolution because it must be wrong because that is what you believe. On the one hand you go to scientists publications to attempt to substantiate your claim but at the same time deny science is in any way valid. 4. You clearly believe in a global scientific conspiracy that is attacking you personally 5. You claim that anyone who opposes your views is a fool 6. You are clearly uncomfortable with the idea that science incorporates new data as it is accumulated rather than remaining a static entity. This seems to be troubling for the Amish as well. You seem to require a world of absolutes which must be very hard for you since beyond science..daily life does not work that way. 7. You have previously claimed to have been (or still are) an educator yet you show an almost violent hatred of study and the quest for knowledge for example refusing to read anything I posted and claiming scientists of all stripes are evil sorcerers. There is so much personal conflict in your posts you must be very upset most of the time. It is a pity to see someone so consumed by hatred and intolerance of others as you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
