Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Your hatred for Christians a person would think you would have understood the sacrifice of Christ.

Except that there's no actual proof that Jesus even existed.

You would like to think so.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What breeders have reached a dead end?

So you want an example,european greyhound breeders started crossing their greyhounds with american greyhounds bloodlines because over breeding became a problem in europe. What happens from over breeding is the gene pool starts decreasing in size because as i have said earlier when breeding takes place you are breeding out genetic information not breeding in genetic information and that is how you get a new breed is by breeding out genetic information. When the gene pool decreases then more genetic disorders are passed on to the offspring and as the gene pool gets smaller and smaller the chances of the offspring having a genetic disorder increase.

The term you might want to learn is "genetic bottlenecking"It comes from over breeding or when a population gets smaller.

The mutts of the world are much healthier because they are genes from a much larger gene pool.

You don’t have a grasp of the terms you’re hoping to describe. The term that describes what the European breeders are doing is called “line-breeding”, which is a term used to soften the unscrupulous practice of in-breeding.

Your description has nothing to do with “reaching a dead end”. That’s ridiculous. Similarly, you use “over-breeding” incorrectly. That term has no relevance to breeders who use in-breeding as a way to capture specific physical traits of a dog breed.

Every breeder is a line breeder,you don't make money raising mutts. You're completely clueless. I described the problems for linebreeding.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I thought the science link would send the Christian fundies scrambling.

As it turns out, their only option is to link to another Christian fundie. From the fundie link:

"I am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin. More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God."

Well sure, "the gawds did it"


Anti-evolutionist Ashby Camp has penned a critique of these "29 Evidences of Macroevolution," which can be found posted at TrueOrigin. Camp's critique is well-written, very thorough, and quite lengthy (the criticism is longer than the original article). Although I intend to address Camp's concerns in totality, currently I can only devote a limited amount of time to this effort. In the meantime, this partial response will suffice. I would like to thank Camp for his congenial criticism. It has given me the impetus to rework and expand the "29 Evidences," and the result is a more comprehensive, clearer, and stronger article.

My response has been two-fold. First, I have incorporated new material into the original essay that specifically addresses many of Camp's points, and thus much of his response is now superfluous. Second, in the following sections I rebut the more egregious errors found in Camp's criticism, especially ones that would interrupt the flow and thrust of the original article if they were included there. In the following response, Camp's words are indented in grey boxes, set apart from mine. Material that Camp has quoted in his criticism is also in the grey boxes, surrounded by quotes, and followed by the pertinent external reference.

Mr. Camp's critique is error-ridden in various ways, and is primarily characterized by:

1. Straw man arguments 2. Red herrings 3. Self-contradictions 4. Equivocation 5. Two wrongs make a right 6. Fallacies of accident and converse accident 7. Ignoratio elenchi 8. Naive theological assumptions 9. Insufficient knowledge of basic biology, molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics 10. Misunderstanding of the scientific method 11. Forwarding of untestable competing "hypotheses" 12. Mischaracterization of evolutionary theory 13. Misleading mis-quotes 14. Fallacies of accent 15. Distortion of scientific controversies 16. Arguments from authority 17. False analogies

The repeated use of these errors and others in Camp's "Critique" will be abundantly clear in the following rebuttal.

Note: Since the time I wrote this reply, Mr. Camp has responded to this in a shorter article entitled "Camp answers Theobald." The elements which I felt deserve some mention are included here enclosed in green boxes.

How many times are you gonna post this article filled with conjecture ? how many times has dawkins been hit with this question where is this evidence for macroevolution and his answer has been macroevolution takes to long to be observed in nature. If your article presented real evidence don't you think dawkins would have cited it ?

As I noted previously, christian creationist tend to run for the exits when their sacred cows are sent to the barn.

So yes, I know there are those who will close their eyes, cover their virtual ears and screech in a haunting falsetto to avoid the modest retrospective but...


...allow me the occasion to whack-a fundie.

I am asking you why dawkins and many well known evolutionist do not cite Theobalds work ? whack yourself.

 

[Hollie]

So you want an example,european greyhound breeders started crossing their greyhounds with american greyhounds bloodlines because over breeding became a problem in europe. What happens from over breeding is the gene pool starts decreasing in size because as i have said earlier when breeding takes place you are breeding out genetic information not breeding in genetic information and that is how you get a new breed is by breeding out genetic information. When the gene pool decreases then more genetic disorders are passed on to the offspring and as the gene pool gets smaller and smaller the chances of the offspring having a genetic disorder increase.

The term you might want to learn is "genetic bottlenecking"It comes from over breeding or when a population gets smaller.

The mutts of the world are much healthier because they are genes from a much larger gene pool.

You don’t have a grasp of the terms you’re hoping to describe. The term that describes what the European breeders are doing is called “line-breeding”, which is a term used to soften the unscrupulous practice of in-breeding.

Your description has nothing to do with “reaching a dead end”. That’s ridiculous. Similarly, you use “over-breeding” incorrectly. That term has no relevance to breeders who use in-breeding as a way to capture specific physical traits of a dog breed.

Every breeder is a line breeder,you don't make money raising mutts. You're completely clueless. I described the problems for linebreeding.

You were floundering around with descriptions of terms you know nothing of. Line-breeding is specifically mating littermates or mating a dog / ***** to one of its own offspring. As we see, you are the clueless one. Try and understand the definition of terms you use before posting such nonsense as "over breeding".

 

[Hollie]

How many times are you gonna post this article filled with conjecture ? how many times has dawkins been hit with this question where is this evidence for macroevolution and his answer has been macroevolution takes to long to be observed in nature. If your article presented real evidence don't you think dawkins would have cited it ?

As I noted previously, christian creationist tend to run for the exits when their sacred cows are sent to the barn.

So yes, I know there are those who will close their eyes, cover their virtual ears and screech in a haunting falsetto to avoid the modest retrospective but...


...allow me the occasion to whack-a fundie.

I am asking you why dawkins and many well known evolutionist do not cite Theobalds work ? whack yourself.

What requirement are you assigning to Richard Dawkins as speaking on behalf of "evolutionist". Are you aware that "evolutionist" in the context you describe is plural?

I understand Dawkins causes creationist real angst, but the science of evolutionist is not tied exclusively to Dawkins. You will be surprised to learn that evolutionist comprises many, varied sciences such as biology, chemistry, paleontology, geology and others. The science stands on its own merits. Although, I do acknowledge that on the part of Christian creationist, all the science and infidel hatred can be neatly encapsulated in one word: "evilution".

What "well known" evolutionist have not cited the work of Theobald?

 

[newpolitics]

Hollie how come the science community can genetically alter food and animals but they cannot show macroevolution in doing so ? Why do these genetically altered plants and animals not survive and produce a new sustainable species that would survive on it's own ?

Why do breeders reach dead ends???

Yep another question they will avoid like the plague.

The answer to YWC's question is simple. There isn't a discernible, consistent selective pressure to push one species towards any particular traits for a long enough period of time, in the context of labratory trials or on the timescales we are used to. Evolution is not deterministic. There is no pre-determined set of reproductive events that will eventually produce a "macroevolutionary" event. The fact that we have witnessed speciation both in the lab and in nature should be evidence enough.

Funny that you ask such probing questions of evolution, and yet, no such questions can even be asked of your intelligent designer, because it has no ontology, other than its "intelligence." This is a cover up for "god." Plain and simple. The sooner you admit this, the sooner we can end this thread.

 

[Youwerecreated]

As I noted previously, christian creationist tend to run for the exits when their sacred cows are sent to the barn.

So yes, I know there are those who will close their eyes, cover their virtual ears and screech in a haunting falsetto to avoid the modest retrospective but...


...allow me the occasion to whack-a fundie.

I am asking you why dawkins and many well known evolutionist do not cite Theobalds work ? whack yourself.

What requirement are you assigning to Richard Dawkins as speaking on behalf of "evolutionist". Are you aware that "evolutionist" in the context you describe is plural?

I understand Dawkins causes creationist real angst, but the science of evolutionist is not tied exclusively to Dawkins. You will be surprised to learn that evolutionist comprises many, varied sciences such as biology, chemistry, paleontology, geology and others. The science stands on its own merits. Although, I do acknowledge that on the part of Christian creationist, all the science and infidel hatred can be neatly encapsulated in one word: "evilution".

What "well known" evolutionist have not cited the work of Theobald?

Are you saying dawkins is not well respected in the evolutionist community ? Also I didn't just point out dawkins did I. I have seen no well known evolutionist cite Theobalds work.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You don’t have a grasp of the terms you’re hoping to describe. The term that describes what the European breeders are doing is called “line-breeding”, which is a term used to soften the unscrupulous practice of in-breeding.

Your description has nothing to do with “reaching a dead end”. That’s ridiculous. Similarly, you use “over-breeding” incorrectly. That term has no relevance to breeders who use in-breeding as a way to capture specific physical traits of a dog breed.

Every breeder is a line breeder,you don't make money raising mutts. You're completely clueless. I described the problems for linebreeding.

You were floundering around with descriptions of terms you know nothing of. Line-breeding is specifically mating littermates or mating a dog / ***** to one of its own offspring. As we see, you are the clueless one. Try and understand the definition of terms you use before posting such nonsense as "over breeding".

line breed·ing
Noun
The selective breeding of animals for a desired feature by mating them within a closely related line.

Now let's look at the results of linebreeding and over breeding a particular breed. We will use an article from a site you support.

Top 10 Most Over-Bred Dogs | PETA.org

 

[Youwerecreated]

You don’t have a grasp of the terms you’re hoping to describe. The term that describes what the European breeders are doing is called “line-breeding”, which is a term used to soften the unscrupulous practice of in-breeding.

Your description has nothing to do with “reaching a dead end”. That’s ridiculous. Similarly, you use “over-breeding” incorrectly. That term has no relevance to breeders who use in-breeding as a way to capture specific physical traits of a dog breed.

Every breeder is a line breeder,you don't make money raising mutts. You're completely clueless. I described the problems for linebreeding.

You were floundering around with descriptions of terms you know nothing of. Line-breeding is specifically mating littermates or mating a dog / ***** to one of its own offspring. As we see, you are the clueless one. Try and understand the definition of terms you use before posting such nonsense as "over breeding".

You gave a poor explanation of linebreeding.

 

[Hollie]

I am asking you why dawkins and many well known evolutionist do not cite Theobalds work ? whack yourself.

What requirement are you assigning to Richard Dawkins as speaking on behalf of "evolutionist". Are you aware that "evolutionist" in the context you describe is plural?

I understand Dawkins causes creationist real angst, but the science of evolutionist is not tied exclusively to Dawkins. You will be surprised to learn that evolutionist comprises many, varied sciences such as biology, chemistry, paleontology, geology and others. The science stands on its own merits. Although, I do acknowledge that on the part of Christian creationist, all the science and infidel hatred can be neatly encapsulated in one word: "evilution".

What "well known" evolutionist have not cited the work of Theobald?

Are you saying dawkins is not well respected in the evolutionist community ? Also I didn't just point out dawkins did I. I have seen no well known evolutionist cite Theobalds work.

Dawkins being "well respected" has no discernible affect on the veracity of evolutionary sciemce.

Who cares whether you have or have not seen any well known evolutionist cite Theobalds work.

I will simply identify that neither you or other christian creationist have a meaningful rebuttal to the disassembly of the creationist argument for gawds that typify creationist rhetoric.

 

[Hollie]

Every breeder is a line breeder,you don't make money raising mutts. You're completely clueless. I described the problems for linebreeding.

You were floundering around with descriptions of terms you know nothing of. Line-breeding is specifically mating littermates or mating a dog / ***** to one of its own offspring. As we see, you are the clueless one. Try and understand the definition of terms you use before posting such nonsense as "over breeding".

You gave a poor explanation of linebreeding.

Your feelings were hurt at being derided for your uneducated, silly and ineffectual description of "over breeding" and not at all understanding the terms and definition s you were writing out.

 

[Hollie]

Every breeder is a line breeder,you don't make money raising mutts. You're completely clueless. I described the problems for linebreeding.

You were floundering around with descriptions of terms you know nothing of. Line-breeding is specifically mating littermates or mating a dog / ***** to one of its own offspring. As we see, you are the clueless one. Try and understand the definition of terms you use before posting such nonsense as "over breeding".

line breed·ing
Noun
The selective breeding of animals for a desired feature by mating them within a closely related line.

Now let's look at the results of linebreeding and over breeding a particular breed. We will use an article from a site you support.

Top 10 Most Over-Bred Dogs | PETA.org

Your post largely described what I corrected you about.

 

[newpolitics]

Wait, how is ID falsifiable?

 

[Youwerecreated]

What requirement are you assigning to Richard Dawkins as speaking on behalf of "evolutionist". Are you aware that "evolutionist" in the context you describe is plural?

I understand Dawkins causes creationist real angst, but the science of evolutionist is not tied exclusively to Dawkins. You will be surprised to learn that evolutionist comprises many, varied sciences such as biology, chemistry, paleontology, geology and others. The science stands on its own merits. Although, I do acknowledge that on the part of Christian creationist, all the science and infidel hatred can be neatly encapsulated in one word: "evilution".

What "well known" evolutionist have not cited the work of Theobald?

Are you saying dawkins is not well respected in the evolutionist community ? Also I didn't just point out dawkins did I. I have seen no well known evolutionist cite Theobalds work.

Dawkins being "well respected" has no discernible affect on the veracity of evolutionary sciemce.

Who cares whether you have or have not seen any well known evolutionist cite Theobalds work.

I will simply identify that neither you or other christian creationist have a meaningful rebuttal to the disassembly of the creationist argument for gawds that typify creationist rhetoric.

Hollie wake up now,if your article was credible and Theobald did prove a case of macroevolution he would be the most famous guy in science. Yes even more famous then Darwin. Do you actually reason from what you learn ?

 

[UltimateReality]

Hollie how come the science community can genetically alter food and animals but they cannot show macroevolution in doing so ? Why do these genetically altered plants and animals not survive and produce a new sustainable species that would survive on it's own ?

Why do breeders reach dead ends???

What breeders have reached a dead end?

Google it. This happens all the time with genetically modified crops.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You were floundering around with descriptions of terms you know nothing of. Line-breeding is specifically mating littermates or mating a dog / ***** to one of its own offspring. As we see, you are the clueless one. Try and understand the definition of terms you use before posting such nonsense as "over breeding".

You gave a poor explanation of linebreeding.

Your feelings were hurt at being derided for your uneducated, silly and ineffectual description of "over breeding" and not at all understanding the terms and definition s you were writing out.

Both line breeding and overbreeding are not good for the breed for the reasons I stated.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You were floundering around with descriptions of terms you know nothing of. Line-breeding is specifically mating littermates or mating a dog / ***** to one of its own offspring. As we see, you are the clueless one. Try and understand the definition of terms you use before posting such nonsense as "over breeding".

line breed·ing
Noun
The selective breeding of animals for a desired feature by mating them within a closely related line.

Now let's look at the results of linebreeding and over breeding a particular breed. We will use an article from a site you support.

Top 10 Most Over-Bred Dogs | PETA.org

Your post largely described what I corrected you about.

You didn't correct me on anything you have just failed to understand that article supported what I said.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why do breeders reach dead ends???

What breeders have reached a dead end?

Google it. This happens all the time with genetically modified crops.

I read an article on both sugar beets and corn they ran in to this problem.

 

[UltimateReality]

One can only marvel at the Simpleton Syndrome that afflicts evolutionists. They never learn from their mistakes, logical fallacies and bad analogies that define “Darwin did it” arguments. Fundies insist they know that randomness designed and created our universe. They don't deduce it, assume it, or conclude it in any way. They just know it to be true because evolution can't be wrong and therefore, because evolution is true, everything else has to fit.

The convenient element about this kind of simpleton, mind-numbing argument is, it explains everything perfectly. One cannot confront a blatant contradiction in the world of the evolutionist because there are none. When darwinism is self-refuting and self-contradictory, it’s because natural selection intended it. When darwinism is dimension-less toward actually explaining anything, that never stops them from declaring it is scientifically proven. When darwinism fails at every opportunity to offer rational explanation for existence, darwinists protest that origins isn't part of evolution.

We see with regularity how evolutionists will invert their positions, and thus their “reasoning” to account for their confused, befuddled theories, but in the worldview where matter is the only reality, this hardly matters because the conclusion is foregone. When all of the evolutionists’ arguments are pre-configured to prove materialism, there's no particular reason or need to be fussy about their details.

It would certainly be more honest of evolutionists to simply say "I Believe, therefore reason and evidence are meaningless," rather than keep trying to pretend their belief is based on any empirical evidence. But evolutionists are darwin-smacked with hate for the Creator, and you cannot hope to hold them to honest or consistent standards. And why would they, since their materialistic worldview lacks any basis for ethics, lying is no more wrong than abortion. If honesty is a detriment to "fitness", it must be thrown out along with anything that does not support the party line.

 

[Hollie]

Why do breeders reach dead ends???

What breeders have reached a dead end?

Google it. This happens all the time with genetically modified crops.

So, you're clueless. You can't even define the terms you use.