Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Vs Creation: What Can We Agree On?


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

#21 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2012 - 05:54 AM

1. No, I explained it in my first response and you went "la la la la I can't hear you". Like you always do.

2. You're just being childish,

3. obviously natural selection and mutation go hand in hand. Do I need to explain everything about basic biology in every single comment? Bear in mind you also criticized me for failure to explain that my views are my views. This is the hyper-critical nonsense people focus on when they have no argument.


4. No, his laws do not state that as they were published many years before the discovery of DNA, long before "DNA" was even coined as a term, and over a century before the sequencing of the first genome.


5. First of all, no you haven't. Second of all I posted a brief video in one of my responses to you that deals specifically with with the fusion and separation of human chromosomes which you refused to watch.


6. The beginnings and ends of chromosomes changing due to mutation and having a chromosome be copied twice are two different things,

7. as the video you demanded I post

8. and then refused to watch

9. explains chromosomes are just chunks of DNA separated during mitosis.

10. Duplication mutations are common and cause harmful effects depending entirely on the placement of the DNA duplicated and the content of the DNA duplicated.

11. Many duplications are completely neutral

12. and to give an example of this there are organisms that contain multiple entire copies of their genome - wheat has I think six copies of it's entire genome and some microbes have genomes over 100 times the size of the human genome due to duplication mutations.

13. The video I posted at your request

14. which you refuse to watch gives specific examples of duplicated DNA in our genome.

See no evidence, hear no evidence, speak no evidence.


1. Sigh... Actling like a child really doesn't do any good on a public forum... I already rebutted your point, the only reply I could find was that you believe that evolution is the "unifying theory in Biology" (but doesn't tackle abiogenesis though... right ;) hypocritical ;) )... This doesn't DEMONSTRATE HOW a doctor who believes we "evolved" from a bacteria is better than one who doesn't believe this.

Therefore your reply here is either, you don't understand what demonstrate means, or you are yet again avoiding to answer.

Like I always do? Please quote where I have went "la la la la la not listening" (since you put quotation marks I assume you are claiming I actually said this)


2. How is pointing out your fault being childish? Or was this a jab?

3. Just like yourself who didn't even bring an argument, rather you waxed philisophical on semantics. Considering that your high priest Mr Dawkins cannot answer this, I understand why you'd prefer to debate semantics rather than the actual question... Evidence below




4. Care to try again? The age of his law is irrelevant unless you want to use the argument from age, which is a logical fallacy....

Law of Segregation (The "First Law")
The Law of Segregation states that every individual possesses a pair of alleles (assuming diploidy) for any particular trait and that each parent passes a randomly selected copy (allele) of only one of these to its offspring. The offspring then receives its own pair of alleles for that trait. Whichever of the two alleles in the offspring is dominant determines how the offspring expresses that trait (e.g. the color and height of a plant, or the color of an animal's fur).

5. Firstly you have no idea if I watched the video or not hence your claim here is baseless slander, (which I ask you to retract), additionally you should have posted the video here. Perhaps state a few of the major points since a forum is sharing ideas not videos.

6. Care to give evidence of this? Or do you think that a just-so-story is scientific evidence?

7. I made no demand of a video, I asked you to share evidence.. I was hoping you'd post it yourself since it means you cannot back away from it when it gets debunked.

8. Again, baseless slander, I ask you to retract this.

9. I know how mitosis works, that isn't evidence of what you are claiming.

10. duplications are almost always harmful since they result in a frameshift meaning the entire chromosome is "out of whack" for example

ATT,ATC,GCT

separated into codons, when I add a G at the start

GAT, TAT, CGC, T

Totally different chromosome across the rest of the length of the chromosome.

11. No they are not, as I have shown.... Go study Genetics.

12. I already addressed plants, I don't care about plants I care about animals, this was one of my stipulations prior to your reply.

13. I never requested you do anything, all I have asked is for evidence, the medium you choose to give it is entirely up to you.

14. Again more slander, I ask you to retract this unfounded statement.

#22 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 15 November 2012 - 06:13 AM

I'm not going to bother with you since you still refuse to look at evidence presented, but I will contradict your lie about dawkins just because I do not like lies.

Or rather will let him do it:



#23 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2012 - 06:27 AM

I'm not going to bother with you since you still refuse to look at evidence presented, but I will contradict your lie about dawkins just because I do not like lies.

Or rather will let him do it:



What evidence have I refused?

I demonstrated to you how mutations actually work......

Additionally your video says nothing about what I said about Dawkins so it is YOU who is "lying for Dawkins" since you've called me a liar without evidence that I was lying.

Lennox never said that Dawkins believed in a deist God just that Dawkins thought there was a good case for it... and that was exactly what Dawkins said.


In fact its hard you can say that I was lying since Dawkins was in the video and he was the one who couldn't answer the question.... Meaning you are just "lying for Dawkins" since you refuse to accept the video posted and would rather call it my lies, when its obvious that the video was of Dawkins and not manufactured by me.

#24 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 15 November 2012 - 06:36 AM

Sorry, wrong video. Apparently the one where he refutes the video and shows multiple different deceptively edited versions of it from youtube has been deleted, probably due to false copyright claims by creationists.

#25 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2012 - 06:38 AM

Sorry, wrong video. Apparently the one where he refutes the video and shows multiple different deceptively edited versions of it from youtube has been deleted, probably due to false copyright claims by creationists.


Again you make sweeping slanderous statements about creationists... You simply cannot complain about this forum anymore, since by doing so will make you a hypocrite. (Despite the fact that atheist forums are worse...)

#26 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 15 November 2012 - 12:41 PM

Creationists routinely censor atheist videos on youtube with false censorship claims, which is why many atheists now print in the video description "this video is copyright free for educational purposes" to try to protect themselves from censorship, and almost every video critical of kent H*vind begins by playing the clip of him saying "feel free to copy our videos and distribute them" (because the H*vind ministry and his fans are especially notorious for this sort of censorship). You can verify it to your heart's content. But I doubt you care if it's true or not, you just want to cry foul.

#27 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2012 - 04:23 PM

Creationists routinely censor atheist videos on youtube with false censorship claims, which is why many atheists now print in the video description "this video is copyright free for educational purposes" to try to protect themselves from censorship, and almost every video critical of kent H*vind begins by playing the clip of him saying "feel free to copy our videos and distribute them" (because the H*vind ministry and his fans are especially notorious for this sort of censorship). You can verify it to your heart's content. But I doubt you care if it's true or not, you just want to cry foul.


Yet more sweeping claims of which you have no evidence.....

Can we get back to the topic at hand ie- my post which you have refused to address in its entirety, (you claim I hide from evidence, your attempt at derailing the thread can liken to that as well)

In fact this is why I want you to post rather than merely put up a video since you backed out of the video after it was shown to be wrong... Ergo when you post a video you should write about the main point/s and give a summary, that way you are accountable for the video and its contents since you have written about it.




1. Sigh... Actling like a child really doesn't do any good on a public forum... I already rebutted your point, the only reply I could find was that you believe that evolution is the "unifying theory in Biology" (but doesn't tackle abiogenesis though... right Posted Image hypocritical Posted Image )... This doesn't DEMONSTRATE HOW a doctor who believes we "evolved" from a bacteria is better than one who doesn't believe this.

Therefore your reply here is either, you don't understand what demonstrate means, or you are yet again avoiding to answer.

Like I always do? Please quote where I have went "la la la la la not listening" (since you put quotation marks I assume you are claiming I actually said this)


2. How is pointing out your fault being childish? Or was this a jab?

3. Just like yourself who didn't even bring an argument, rather you waxed philisophical on semantics. Considering that your high priest Mr Dawkins cannot answer this, I understand why you'd prefer to debate semantics rather than the actual question... Evidence below




4. Care to try again? The age of his law is irrelevant unless you want to use the argument from age, which is a logical fallacy....

Law of Segregation (The "First Law")
The Law of Segregation states that every individual possesses a pair of alleles (assuming diploidy) for any particular trait and that each parent passes a randomly selected copy (allele) of only one of these to its offspring. The offspring then receives its own pair of alleles for that trait. Whichever of the two alleles in the offspring is dominant determines how the offspring expresses that trait (e.g. the color and height of a plant, or the color of an animal's fur).

5. Firstly you have no idea if I watched the video or not hence your claim here is baseless slander, (which I ask you to retract), additionally you should have posted the video here. Perhaps state a few of the major points since a forum is sharing ideas not videos.

6. Care to give evidence of this? Or do you think that a just-so-story is scientific evidence?

7. I made no demand of a video, I asked you to share evidence.. I was hoping you'd post it yourself since it means you cannot back away from it when it gets debunked.

8. Again, baseless slander, I ask you to retract this.

9. I know how mitosis works, that isn't evidence of what you are claiming.

10. duplications are almost always harmful since they result in a frameshift meaning the entire chromosome is "out of whack" for example

ATT,ATC,GCT

separated into codons, when I add a G at the start

GAT, TAT, CGC, T

Totally different chromosome across the rest of the length of the chromosome.

11. No they are not, as I have shown.... Go study Genetics.

12. I already addressed plants, I don't care about plants I care about animals, this was one of my stipulations prior to your reply.

13. I never requested you do anything, all I have asked is for evidence, the medium you choose to give it is entirely up to you.

14. Again more slander, I ask you to retract this unfounded statement.

#28 eclectic1993

eclectic1993

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • South Carolina

Posted 15 November 2012 - 10:52 PM

agno,

The claim that "I've learned recently that evolutionist no longer like to discuss primordial ooze and the development of proto-life. It has been assigned to a field of abiogenesis and that the poor chemists have taken this hot potato from biologists. Consequently this no longer 'valid' in the EvsC debate." is not accurate. It was never considered a valid part of the debate, as darwin said in On The Origin Of Species "How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated".


My 8th grade teacher, Mr. Gregor was good teacher and ardent supporter of evolution. We began the series with 'oooooozzze'. And he explained how life emerged from that 'ooooooozzzze'. He them moved from proto-life, up the biological chain to apes. Then we spent days on 'transitional' forms of ape (neanderthal, cromagnon, peking man, java man, etc.). I asked if we would have 'large bald heads' like those aliens on star trek one day. He responded "Possibly!". I was excited.

I really enjoyed that class. It got me really thinking about science. So yes, primordial ooze was covered in public school text books in the 60's and 70's. It was part of our standard curriculum. It was subsequently covered in high school biology.

agno, I wish I had a copy of that textbook or one from that time period. You might be interested to see how much the topic has changed. Remember, changing details within a theory or debate is not bad, it simply happens as we make more discoveries which open more doors.

Regards,
Chuck

#29 eclectic1993

eclectic1993

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • South Carolina

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:05 AM

Another hijacked topic.

I'll try posting another topic.

Regards,
Chuck

#30 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:23 AM

Another hijacked topic.

I'll try posting another topic.

Regards,
Chuck



Sorry!

#31 Raisemeup

Raisemeup

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 58
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Wisconsin

Posted 20 November 2012 - 07:24 AM

Some of the comments in this thread appear to be getting off of the main subject. Nevertheless, I need to respond to agnophilo123’s objections to my post. Perhaps a different thread should be started.

Agnophilo123, on 13 November 2012 - 09:14 PM said:

“To claim that the holocaust happened because darwin wrote a book is just as ignorant as claiming it happened because of the bible. The holocaust was justified by countless lies in all areas of science, philosophy, politics and racist ideology. “



Of course, I never claimed that the “holocaust happened because darwin (sic) wrote a book”. That’s a great oversimplification and unnecessary sarcasm on your part. However, let’s go with that. I guess Christianity doesn’t exist because someone wrote the Bible either. You claimed earlier that understanding “Evolution…is important for treating bacterial infections”. So to be consistent, apparently making the claim that this happens because Darwin wrote a book is just as ignorant as saying it happens because of the Bible (regardless of my opinion that the latter is true). So if there were no consequences to Darwin writing his book, why did he do it and why do evolutionists make such a big deal about it? Or will you just claim positive consequences and deny there are any negative consequences despite the evidence?

In point of fact, ideas have consequences…and bad ideas have bad consequences. Are you suggesting when aborigines were hunted down, murdered, beheaded and the skin boiled off their skulls which were then sent to museums, that this had nothing to do with them being considered evolutionary missing links at the time? Do you deny that Darwin wrote in “descent of man” that the superior white races would someday exterminate and replace the savage races like the “negro” and the gorilla? Did you not know that the biology textbook which was defended by atheists at the scopes trial divided humans into inferior and superior racial groups and advocated eugenics?


It has long been accepted as fact and most historical scholars agree that Hitler’s actions were linked to evolutionary thinking of the day. It is only a few quote mining atheists that are looking for ways to deny the obvious that disagree. I have extensive documentation to support this fact and many books have been written on the subject. Darwinian principles are behind many of the world’s most hideous extermination programs. I would be glad to share more facts and references regarding Hitler if you care to see them. I’ve left them out now because I feel this is fairly obvious to the open minded and to keep this initial response as brief as possible.

The only reason this history is important, is that these horrible events were completely consistent with evolutionary thinking. While most but not all scientists now agree that the various “races” of man are essentially and surprisingly equal (which is strong evidence for creation theory), there is nothing in evolutionary theory itself which would rule out the possibility that the various races of mankind developed at different times throughout history and that some are inferior to others and that we could advance our evolution by selective breeding instead of allowing the inferior to survive (as Darwin first suggested).

Even today, this thinking survives. Many students leaving evolutionary programs in college feel Hitler was neither right nor wrong in his actions since morality is simply a byproduct of our evolution anyway. Mrs Sanger’s (founder of Planned Parenthood) grandson in a recent book discussing abortion said “We cannot repeal the laws of natural selection…Humanity uniquely, and to its benefit, can exercise some dominion over this process”. He also argues that infanticide and euthanasia are permissible. Dawkins has expressed support for involuntary euthanasia. This same type of thinking is found in many leading evolutionist’s writings and organizations today and it is eerily similar to the thinking that drove the atrocities of the past.

Besides the non-persons, inferior or useless in society, will anyone who objects to the forcing of atheist evolutionary philosophy down our throats such as Christians be next? For example, the suggestion by some evolutionists that Christian parents should be thrown in jail and punished for teaching their kids that God is real, historical revisionism found in many textbooks today (as Hitler did) along with the irrational purging of Christian principles from society in the name of separation of truth and state is all simply scary.

#32 Raisemeup

Raisemeup

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 58
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Wisconsin

Posted 20 November 2012 - 07:35 AM

Ok, just figured out how to do the quote thing (after the fact), so no one needs to help me on that if anyone was thinking about it. :)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users