Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Just wave the white flag and I will begin teaching you guys something you won't learn in your classes.

I can assure you the Bible blog links you have saved on your computer have never been amazing teaching devices to anyone who takes science seriously on this site.

Follow along drock we are gonna get much deeper into genetics and mutations but first I am showing you microadaptations that your side has extrapolated from to produce your theory of macro-evolution.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Just wave the white flag and I will begin teaching you guys something you won't learn in your classes.

I can assure you the Bible blog links you have saved on your computer have never been amazing teaching devices to anyone who takes science seriously on this site.

Follow along drock we are gonna get much deeper into genetics and mutations but first I am showing you microadaptations that your side has extrapolated from to produce your theory of macro-evolution.

I've already seen your bible blogs viewpoints on mutation, they're not amazing, they're not eye opening, but if you must humor yourself, have at it.

 

[LOki]

Not really, we are just getting in over your head now.

More intentional misinformation.

It's also worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

If you continue watching the thread I am gonna show why your theory don't hold up to scrutiny. And I will explain why macroevolution can't happen the way evolutionist say. Keep watching you might learn something.

Fine. No doubt it will be consistent with all the rest of your intellectually dishonest posting.

And it's still worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

 

[LOki]

By your attacks on Christians and the bible it sure seems to me you have a burning agenda.

He's waving the white flag by playing the victim card.

Simply asking him a question is "attacking christians." Victim card 101.

How is it waving the white flag when I answer the questions put to me.

This is a patent lie.

It's also worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

 

[LOki]

Just wave the white flag and I will begin teaching you guys something you won't learn in your classes.

LOLsome. There is literally nothing to be learned from your dishonesty--it's not even a novel, or otherwise remarkable brand of dishonesty. It's just persistent.

It's also worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

 

[Dragon]

Now when you cross breed you can come up with new offspring. Is that not a way for us to find different looking fossils when two different breeds of the same family cross ?

If you ask that question without narrowing things down, you could say so, but nonetheless the variation we see in the fossil record cannot be explained by cross-breeding. You cannot cross-breed single-celled organisms to produce multi-celled organisms. You cannot cross-breed fish to produce amphibians. You cannot cross-breed reptiles to produce mammals, or dinosaurs to produce birds. You cannot cross-breed nonflowering plants -- well, at all, really, but certainly not so as to produce flowering plants.

 

[Youwerecreated]

He's waving the white flag by playing the victim card.

Simply asking him a question is "attacking christians." Victim card 101.

How is it waving the white flag when I answer the questions put to me.

This is a patent lie.

It's also worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

I have seen no evidence to make me question whether we came into existence through a natural process,and that is why I believe life could not have come into existence by chance but it forces me to accept we were created through design.

I don't know how much clearer I can give my answer. Is that being dishonest by disagreeing with you ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Now when you cross breed you can come up with new offspring. Is that not a way for us to find different looking fossils when two different breeds of the same family cross ?

If you ask that question without narrowing things down, you could say so, but nonetheless the variation we see in the fossil record cannot be explained by cross-breeding. You cannot cross-breed single-celled organisms to produce multi-celled organisms. You cannot cross-breed fish to produce amphibians. You cannot cross-breed reptiles to produce mammals, or dinosaurs to produce birds. You cannot cross-breed nonflowering plants -- well, at all, really, but certainly not so as to produce flowering plants.

But you have no evidence except someones opinion that is what is seen. It's clear genetics decide what the offspring will be.

Morhological change through cross breeding,in one generation the crossing of lion and tiger.

Redirect Notice


http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&...tbnw=207&start=27&ndsp=25&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:27

 

[Youwerecreated]

Now a crossing of a cow and buffalo.

Redirect Notice


Who say's diversity can't happen through cross breeding.

More evidence genetics cause diversity not mutations over many ,many years.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Now if you wish to cover mutations you can see when mutations cause change from a mistake it usually is harmful to organisms.

Beneficial mutations are so rare they cannot do what evolutionist say.

 

[LOki]

Now what would happen to the genepool if you cross two different breeds ?

If you're going to switch gears and ask about the gene pool, which is a different concept, you should acknowledge that. The answer is that you would have a broader pool of genes to choose from. This is generally considered a healthier procedure, which is why "mutts" have, on the average, more robust health than purebreds.

Are you going somewhere with this?

By the way, the answer to my question is not "artificial selection" but "natural selection." We call it "artificial" when it is done deliberately by human beings, but the mechanics are identical.

Or you could call it selective breeding.

Good answer to my question.

Now that we established the genepool is larger in the mutts then purebreeds. We also established genetic information is bred out not in. The only time new information is bred in is when cross breeding happens.

Now when you cross breed you can come up with new offspring. Is that not a way for us to find different looking fossils when two different breeds of the same family cross ?

Let's go with an ape and chimp would their be morphological changes if they cross bred ?

How do we have lions and tigers two different breeds within the same family ? was this by mutations or selective breeding ?

So purebreds only have genetic information to produce their breed. While let's say a mutt has the genetic information to produce diversity.

The one thing all organisms have in common is they can only produce offspring of their family.

Bacteria produce bacteria,dogs produce dogs,horses produce horses,humans produce humans, apes produce apes because they only have the genetic information to produce their kind.

Is this in line with what the bible teaches ?

Gen 1:21. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that crawls, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged fowl, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.

25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.

Gen 6:20. Of the fowl after its kind and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing upon the ground after its kind; two of each shall come to you to preserve alive.

Gen 7:14 They went in, and every animal after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth after its kind, and every fowl after its kind, every bird of every sort.

Here's another question I'm sure you'll avoid:

The use of the term "kind"; some have suggested that it is synonymous with "species," yet here the suggestion seems to be that it means "family." Saying that any gender compatible members of a common species can successfully reproduce is saying one thing (and not in dispute--I think), and saying that any gender compatible members of a family can successfully reproduce is saying something significantly different.

Precisely clarify the term "kind" as it relates to species and/or family if you are going to refer to contemporary taxonomies and taxonomic terminology as compatible with scriptural taxonomy and taxonomic terminology.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Now if you wish to cover mutations you can see when mutations cause change from a mistake it usually is harmful to organisms.

Beneficial mutations are so rare they cannot do what evolutionist say.

In this post you admit that mutations aren't always harmful to organisms.



Sometimes you slip up and accidentally admit to believing science. Because that's exactly what biologists say, that most mutations are harmful or neutral but in minority cases they can be beneficial. Beneficial meaning they increase an organisms chance to survive and breed and pass on the beneficial mutation.

 

[Dragon]

But you have no evidence except someones opinion that is what is seen. It's clear genetics decide what the offspring will be.

You are mistaken. The evidence is overpowering. Note that in what follows I am not going to talk about the model of evolution currently employed in biology; I am simply going to examine your hypothesis of cross-breeding as an explanation for species diversity.

Life first appeared on this planet about 3.8 billion years ago.

Photosynthesis first started about 3 billion years ago. Photosynthetic organisms could not have come about from "cross-breeding" non-photosynthetic life, especially since there was no such thing as sexual reproduction then and so "cross-breeding" was literally impossible.

Multicellular life first appeared about a billion years ago. It could not have come about from "cross-breeding" one-celled organisms, especially since one-celled organisms all reproduce by non-sexual methods and so never "cross-breed."

Fish emerged about 500 million years ago. They could not have resulted from cross-breeding of non-fish.

Amphibians emerged about 360 million years ago and reptiles some 300 million years ago. Both are likely to have evolved from fish (and if we posit "cross-breeding" we must also posit a fishy source), but it is impossible for reptiles or amphibians to have emerged from fish cross-breeding.

And so on.

In order to posit cross-breeding from an original one-time creation, you must have reptiles (for example) existing all the way back to the origin of life, and the fossil record indicates that they did not. It's not just that the specific reptile species we have today did not, it's that there was nothing on the planet 3 billion years ago that could be described as a vertebrate quadrupedal cold-blooded egg-laying land animal with scales -- in other words, no reptiles at all.

There is simply no possible way that the species diversity we see could have come about from cross-breeding. Another explanation is required.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If you're going to switch gears and ask about the gene pool, which is a different concept, you should acknowledge that. The answer is that you would have a broader pool of genes to choose from. This is generally considered a healthier procedure, which is why "mutts" have, on the average, more robust health than purebreds.

Are you going somewhere with this?

By the way, the answer to my question is not "artificial selection" but "natural selection." We call it "artificial" when it is done deliberately by human beings, but the mechanics are identical.

Or you could call it selective breeding.

Good answer to my question.

Now that we established the genepool is larger in the mutts then purebreeds. We also established genetic information is bred out not in. The only time new information is bred in is when cross breeding happens.

Now when you cross breed you can come up with new offspring. Is that not a way for us to find different looking fossils when two different breeds of the same family cross ?

Let's go with an ape and chimp would their be morphological changes if they cross bred ?

How do we have lions and tigers two different breeds within the same family ? was this by mutations or selective breeding ?

So purebreds only have genetic information to produce their breed. While let's say a mutt has the genetic information to produce diversity.

The one thing all organisms have in common is they can only produce offspring of their family.

Bacteria produce bacteria,dogs produce dogs,horses produce horses,humans produce humans, apes produce apes because they only have the genetic information to produce their kind.

Is this in line with what the bible teaches ?

Gen 1:21. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that crawls, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged fowl, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.

25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.

Gen 6:20. Of the fowl after its kind and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing upon the ground after its kind; two of each shall come to you to preserve alive.

Gen 7:14 They went in, and every animal after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth after its kind, and every fowl after its kind, every bird of every sort.

Here's another question I'm sure you'll avoid:

The use of the term "kind"; some have suggested that it is synonymous with "species," yet here the suggestion seems to be that it means "family." Saying that any gender compatible members of a common species can successfully reproduce is saying one thing (and not in dispute--I think), and saying that any gender compatible members of a family is saying something significantly different.

Precisely clarify the term "kind" as it relates to species and/or family if you are going to refer to contemporary taxonomies and taxonomic terminology as compatible with scriptural taxonomy and taxonomic terminology.

Since I hold little hope out for an ingenuous and honest reply, it's also worth reminding you (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Kind can mean both family or breed.

There are many breeds within a family some breeds can't breed with other family members but they are still from the same family or kind.

That's all for today folks have a great day.

 

[Youwerecreated]

But you have no evidence except someones opinion that is what is seen. It's clear genetics decide what the offspring will be.

You are mistaken. The evidence is overpowering. Note that in what follows I am not going to talk about the model of evolution currently employed in biology; I am simply going to examine your hypothesis of cross-breeding as an explanation for species diversity.

Life first appeared on this planet about 3.8 billion years ago.

Photosynthesis first started about 3 billion years ago. Photosynthetic organisms could not have come about from "cross-breeding" non-photosynthetic life, especially since there was no such thing as sexual reproduction then and so "cross-breeding" was literally impossible.

Multicellular life first appeared about a billion years ago. It could not have come about from "cross-breeding" one-celled organisms, especially since one-celled organisms all reproduce by non-sexual methods and so never "cross-breed."

Fish emerged about 500 million years ago. They could not have resulted from cross-breeding of non-fish.

Amphibians emerged about 360 million years ago and reptiles some 300 million years ago. Both are likely to have evolved from fish (and if we posit "cross-breeding" we must also posit a fishy source), but it is impossible for reptiles or amphibians to have emerged from fish cross-breeding.

And so on.

In order to posit cross-breeding from an original one-time creation, you must have reptiles (for example) existing all the way back to the origin of life, and the fossil record indicates that they did not. It's not just that the specific reptile species we have today did not, it's that there was nothing on the planet 3 billion years ago that could be described as a vertebrate quadrupedal cold-blooded egg-laying land animal with scales -- in other words, no reptiles at all.

There is simply no possible way that the species diversity we see could have come about from cross-breeding. Another explanation is required.

Not mistaken,I am saying all diversity of life we see happened in 5,000 years roughly.

I am saying no life emerged from earlier then 13,000 years. It does say in the bible a 1,000 years is but a day to God so I say that is as long as I will go back for the age of the earth and universe.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Now if you wish to cover mutations you can see when mutations cause change from a mistake it usually is harmful to organisms.

Beneficial mutations are so rare they cannot do what evolutionist say.

In this post you admit that mutations aren't always harmful to organisms.



Sometimes you slip up and accidentally admit to believing science. Because that's exactly what biologists say, that most mutations are harmful or neutral but in minority cases they can be beneficial. Beneficial meaning they increase an organisms chance to survive and breed and pass on the beneficial mutation.

Not a slip up, but we can discuss a few so called beneficial mutations and see if they were really beneficial to the whole human race.

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

For honest answers.

Mutations

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have passed on some of Youwerecreated's arguments (not his moniker) to a couple of evangelical Christian scientists in the Bio department at the U. While they aren't thrilled with evolutionary theory, they both say You is in la la land, and that is type of nonsense makes it much harder for them.

Unsubscribe.

 

[LOki]

I have seen no evidence to make me question whether we came into existence through a natural process, ...

Are you asserting that chemical reactions are not fundamentally naturally processes, or parts of fundamentally natural processes?
>>>Trying to throw you a bone here<<<
Is it then your contention that every single chemical reaction not (verifiably) directed (ever) by the agency of human beings is evidently directed none-the-less? Because the only chemical reactions you are aware of in any capacity are those directed by human beings?
>>>Got no more bone for you here<<<<

You've seen no chemical reactions, or evidences of chemical reactions, that were not (verifiably) directed by some conscious agency? Seriously?

... and that is why I believe life could not have come into existence by chance but it forces me to accept we were created through design.

Although there is no evidence of a designer? Literally, and logically speaking, there is no evidence (at least none that I have been presented--including examples of alleged irreducible complexity) that can be identified as evidence of a designer, without first committing to the existence of said designer. Even then, so many of these alleged "designs" are a laughable joke, require more magical rationalizations like "curses" and such.

I don't know how much clearer I can give my answer.

Your answer is clear, but it is also clearly not an answer to the question I asked you.

As far as the question I asked you is concerned, your assertion that life was created was stipulated; restating your conviction in the validity of that assertion fails to answer the question posed. It is a disingenuous diversion.

Is that being dishonest by disagreeing with you ?

No. The dishonesty involves how you claim to have answered a question I asked, when you answered a question I did not ask.

So, It's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

 

[Dragon]

Not mistaken,I am saying all diversity of life we see happened in 5,000 years roughly.

I am saying no life emerged from earlier then 13,000 years.

There is no evidence to support your statement. There is a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

Let me ask you a question now which probably will illustrate what I said earlier: that you are talking with a gun to your head, and so cannot answer honestly.

If the fossil record says one thing, and the Bible, interpreted literally, says another, which is wrong, the fossil record or that interpretation of the Bible?

A related question. If the mummified corpse of Jesus were to be discovered, would that change your view on how to interpret the story of the Resurrection?

 

[koshergrl]

"There is no God because I don't believe it!"

Lol...

"My evidence is BETTER than yours, therefore my faith is more valid! Cuz I say so!"

Lol...