Jump to content


Photo

Protein Sequence Homology


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
201 replies to this topic

#201 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 31 October 2011 - 02:27 PM


Yes, believer55, you are wrong…

Firstly, as I have stated before, if you want to use the word “evolution”, as in “microevolution” to mean “adaptation within a kind species”, than I would totally agree with you wholeheartedly. I would further assert that the word “adaptation” is a more apt description than “evolution” OR “microevolution”, as it does not force the absurd and unproven connotation of “microevolution” + “millions of years” = “macroevolution”.

But, if you are attempting to propagate “evolution” as in “macro evolution”, than “Yes” you are wrong, because you have absolutely NO empirical scientific evidence of an “ape-like” creature “macro” evolving into a man via a gradual and transitional series of “creatures”. OR a “fish-like” creature, “macro” evolving through a “fish”, then through a “dinosaur”-like creature into a dinosaur via a gradual and transitional series of “creatures”. I could further make this even harder by siting all the hypothetical sequences that claim that a whale use to be a “wolf-like” creature; which also means that the whale FIRST had to be a “fish-like” creature, to become a “wolf-like” creature, before it could eventually become a whale! Micro-evolution is nothing more than a hypothesis


Secondly, it doesn’t matter what ANY Pope has to say about macroevolution, because without the empirical scientific evidence evolutionists attempt to claim they have supporting macroevolution, until they (the evolutionists) produce the empirical scientific evidence for macroevolution, “Micro-evolution” remains nothing more than a hypothesis…

Now, believer55, SHOW me where I’m wrong! But you better have the empirical scientific facts to back up your assertion that macroevolution is a fact!


And let me add (since you like quotes): “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.” Dr. T. N. Tahmisian Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes by N.J. Mitchell

Thousands of papers that support evolution don't mean nothing, what the pope says means nothing, what nobel prizes say means nothing...
But what you say means everything? Ehmmmm why?

I like that micro and macroevolution idea. can you explain me where microevolution begins, where it ends, and where macroevolution starts? i would like to have also have something like nanoevolution? wich is less then microevolution. or mesoevolution, a bit more then microevolution?

according to most scientists there is more then enough empirical evidence for evolution. the problem is that you want to decide what is empirical data and what is not!
and why don't you show me empirical evidence of creation? can you show me creation happening in the lab (or outside the lab)? why do i have to show you a scientific proof? and you not?
i have always to proove that i'm right and you don't? everything you do is try to prove "they are wrong" so that consequentely you are
right (this is your logic). and if logic is not enough there is always the bible (by the way can you show empirical proof of what is written in the bible?)
Fortunately science does not work that way.

another thing. a lot of young scientists work with the instruments of what they call "evolution" more then 60 hours a week for a low salary, to heal sicknesses to find cures etc etc. and they are never sure if they will find new financed projects, and often they have to move to other countries because once a project finished they just stand there and don't know where to go. Just a small portion of them is lucky enough to get a stable job at university. they study the methabolism in mice and yeast to find something that can heal our illnesses. It's also thanks to them that a lot of lifes can be saved today. all those i know, do what they do because they belive in it. and all that ones i know belive in evolution. every saturday and every sunday they are in the lab. sometimes they make 80 hours in one week but always more then 60. they have no privat life. and as a phd student you have to attend also classes. so once you finally get your holidays you probably go nowere because you are not allowed to skip the lessons. and after 2 years if there are still no results you start having a lot of pressure (plus frustration)! because no result=no degree.... so some of them have to continue to work on a project without getting payed regularly. i know why i left biochemistry institute after my master. there it would be too tough for me.

and what do you see when you look at them? you just see that they don't belive in creation. even if they save millions of lifes you just see: they try to convince us that the bible doesn't tell the truth. they are funny evo babblers who do not understand anything.
i find this is quite "comical/sad"

don't you think they deserve YOUR respect?



As everyone will notice here, I asked believer55 to provide “the empirical scientific facts to back up his assertion that macroevolution is a fact!”, and I leave it up to you, the viewers of this debate, where did he such.

I submit that all he has done is him-haw around with prevarications, equivocations and logically fallacious “might makes right” Argumentum ad Populum defense for his assertions. He further wants ME to prove that macroevolution isn’t a fact; while IN FACT he is the one asserting that it is! So his Assertum Non Est Demonstratum claims have to be disproved by me, because he cannot provide evidence other than “the majority of evolutionists “BELIVE” that its true?

Is this how logic, science and debate proceed?
This is the bottom line; Believer55 has violated nearly half of the forum rules. But I have given him numerous opportunities to provide empirical evidence for his claims OR admit that he is dealing in hypotheses. But, he has done neither. A fact that I knew would happen based upon previous experience. I did this, for the main reason of providing examples of two things; that Believer55’s hypocrisy, AND so that we have evidence of a standard of how “NOT TO ACT” when debating honestly with others here.

Believer55 is now gone. But, as I said, I provided wide latitude for him to be honest. Much more latitude than should have been allowed; but since he made such bold claims (which he also never proved) concerning the banning of his friends, I wanted to ensure that no one else could claim that he was unjustly banned.


SO:

Thousands of papers that support evolution don't mean nothing, what the pope says means nothing, what nobel prizes say means nothing...
But what you say means everything? Ehmmmm why?

So, here we go… I requested that ‘believer’ provide “the empirical scientific facts to back up his assertion that macroevolution is a fact”, but does anyone see ANY facts in his statement above? What does he provide? Opinion and nothing more, then he attempts to say is that I’m purporting that what I say means everything. Dodging the facts never helps someone’s case.

I like that micro and macroevolution idea. can you explain me where microevolution begins, where it ends, and where macroevolution starts? i would like to have also have something like nanoevolution? wich is less then microevolution. or mesoevolution, a bit more then microevolution?

I requested that ‘believer’ provide “the empirical scientific facts to back up his assertion that macroevolution is a fact”, but does anyone see ANY facts in his statement above? NO! He attempts to side step by convoluting the issue even further. This is a tactic that evolutionists use all the time! But his problem is that he cannot prove any facts about macroevolution in the first place, let alone where it might start. So he simply adds nanoevolution and mesoevolution to hide from macroevolution.


according to most scientists there is more then enough empirical evidence for evolution. the problem is that you want to decide what is empirical data and what is not!
and why don't you show me empirical evidence of creation? can you show me creation happening in the lab (or outside the lab)? why do i have to show you a scientific proof? and you not?

I requested that ‘believer’ provide “the empirical scientific facts to back up his assertion that macroevolution is a fact”, but does anyone see ANY facts in his statement above? NO! Once again, ‘believer55’ has failed to provide ANY empirical scientific evidence AT ALL! He has only talked about opinions and ideas. Further, in his attempt to hide from providing the facts for macroevolution, is the FACT that the exact same evidence he claims FOR microevolution CAN be claimed FOR Creation (or science in general). As I provided numerous times previously, adaptation simply means change within a kind/species. There is absolutely NO empirical scientific evidence that adaptation + millions of years = macroevolution! That is a fact, and it is the MAIN FACT that ‘believer55’ has been dodging all this time (maybe for millions of years?)

So, to his last question “why do i have to show you a scientific proof?” BECAUSE HE IS MAKING THE CLAIM! And I am only calling on him to provide actual evidence to support his assertions. At this point it must be reiterated that he has totally failed to do so, he has only prevaricated, bloviated, equivocated and side-stepped the issue.

i have always to proove that i'm right and you don't? everything you do is try to prove "they are wrong" so that consequentely you are
right (this is your logic). and if logic is not enough there is always the bible (by the way can you show empirical proof of what is written in the bible?)
Fortunately science does not work that way.


Yes! ‘believer55’ indeed needed to prove he was right because HE made an assertion as if it were factual. I at no time claimed I was right; I simply called on him to provide the evidences to support his assertions! But, he ran from that at every turn. Had he provided his “claimed evidences”, we could have discussed those; and maybe then moved on to discussing my point of view on the evidences supporting creation. But, this is the main stumbling block for the macro-evolutionist (as evidenced over-and-over again), they cannot even provide evidence for their worldview, and therefore are doing nothing more than providing faith statement after faith statement… They cannot get past this first step, to get to the next step (and beyond). So their only recourse is to run from their own worldview when it comes to facts.

another thing. a lot of young scientists work with the instruments of what they call "evolution" more then 60 hours a week for a low salary, to heal sicknesses to find cures etc etc. and they are never sure if they will find new financed projects, and often they have to move to other countries because once a project finished they just stand there and don't know where to go. Just a small portion of them is lucky enough to get a stable job at university. they study the methabolism in mice and yeast to find something that can heal our illnesses. It's also thanks to them that a lot of lifes can be saved today. all those i know, do what they do because they belive in it. and all that ones i know belive in evolution. every saturday and every sunday they are in the lab. sometimes they make 80 hours in one week but always more then 60. they have no privat life. and as a phd student you have to attend also classes. so once you finally get your holidays you probably go nowere because you are not allowed to skip the lessons. and after 2 years if there are still no results you start having a lot of pressure (plus frustration)! because no result=no degree.... so some of them have to continue to work on a project without getting payed regularly. i know why i left biochemistry institute after my master. there it would be too tough for me.

and what do you see when you look at them? you just see that they don't belive in creation. even if they save millions of lifes you just see: they try to convince us that the bible doesn't tell the truth. they are funny evo babblers who do not understand anything.
i find this is quite "comical/sad"

don't you think they deserve YOUR respect?



You can respect persons all day long, BUT respect is not simply trusting in statements that provide absolutely no factual support; that is known as FAITH. Therefore your entire argument is render moot, until you provide said empirical scientific evidences.

#202 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 31 October 2011 - 04:24 PM

Believer55 said:
So concluding we should agree that the publication itself is not scientific at all. From the layout it looks somehow like a scientific review but when in the abstract you read:
"As a first step for self defense against imminent permanent human and biosphere mass extinction, the evolution movement must be expunged worldwide"
you can see, he isn't thinking like a scientist, he is emotionally crying like a baby. those things just don't belong into a scientific review.


Are the numbers correct or not? Of course they are and that empirically establishes the fact that Muller's Ratchet will eventually lead to the extinction of our species, which is recognized as very real science even to the majority who are not creationists.

The reason that evolution is hindering research is the fact that some scientists believe (Despite the empirical numbers provided) that natural selection eliminates detrimental mutations from the population and will some how "Miraculously" fill our genomes with beneficial mutations instead while our species goes extinct.

according to most scientists there is more then enough empirical evidence for evolution. the problem is that you want to decide what is empirical data and what is not!
and why don't you show me empirical evidence of creation? can you show me creation happening in the lab (or outside the lab)? why do i have to show you a scientific proof? and you not?
i have always to proove that i'm right and you don't?


Mendel proved that Darwin's pangenesis hypothesis was wrong, so they rejected Mendel's research for 35 years. We can show you all the math in the world that proves your wrong, but you'll likely ignore it like everybody else.

Follow the link to see seven pages of empirical dating methods that support a young earth alone. Many more links in different areas of science can be provided as well. Yet, you can't provide 1 single empirical example of macro evolution. <_<


http://www.evolution...indpost&p=23507




Enjoy.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users