Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
I am American and my business is in America. I don't actually "work" in Ghana.
In a global village we now are, disgusted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Wise decision in every case except with Irish Setters. ; )I thought about giving a name from the list to my dog, but decided against it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Your claim is as factually wrong as saying 2+2=5.
Ah. You think heredity in Mendelian inheritance represented in Punnet squares is like addition. Lol. You are wrong homer. Mutations are recessive, and recessive genes do not get expressed in offspring at a .50% ratio when only one parent carries the mutation. The ratio is .25%.
As I said to your other self-praising zealot, no one cares what you think of me. You are wasting your time when you prattle on about how your wonderfulness eclipses mine. No one cares. Least of all, me.
If I thought it was fact, I would have stated it as such, not called it a suspicion.
And what is the functional difference to you between your suspicion and fact? Because youy behavior for both looks the same.
A new study of fifty bird species from the Andes now rules out any possibility of predicting evolution on a single genetic mutation.
That sentence (and the study) has nothing to do with the probability of inheriting mutations.
What if when it's a single genetic mutation? Lol. Cue the jargon.
All it is saying is that you can't predict the effect a single mutation will have on a trait, because traits result from many mutations acting in concert.
No sir. It is saying that a key assumption in evolution theory is false. But you deleted that part. Wonder why? If you delete it, it doesn't exist huh?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FaustianJustice
Err. You will have to guide me on your thought process there cause I can't see how you got there.So Trump himself was calling his accomplishments a joke?
Dude, reality is different, check it out.
Different from what? What Trump said, what the audience did, or what I said?
He touts 'accomplishments', crowd murmurs, unsure of what he is talking about, he says 'No, its true', doubling down, and the crowd laughs.
Ah. You have your own reason for the crowds behavior.
They are either laughing at his 'accomplishments' (that being the subject of his joke), or they are laughing at him trying to pawn of his accomplishments, which, again, is no better a joke.
As I said, "They were quiet because his success drives them nuts." And obviously not all of them are in the UN audience.
This was akin to him trying to claim his victory as some sort of land slide,
I don't know, the libtards sure behaved like the land slid from under their feet.
(claims, as in, not a joke).
The only one claiming he made a joke here is you. Do you debate yourself often?
Lastly, 'tax cuts'. Before I eviscerate this,....
I'm still waiting for you to eviscerate it. And the more than $2,500 in my pocket feels pretty good. As I said, "...they can't counter it. Things like the employment figures and the tax cuts are empirical."
According to the libtards, America by now was going to be a nuclear wasteland. With them surviving in Canada where they all moved to once Trump won.
Dude, reality is different, check it out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I've always loved traditional Gaelic names. The whole culture is just mesmerizing to me.
Guinevere for a girl and Cyprien for a boy being my favs from your list.
Aryelle and Lorelie also work for me. Do you have kids? Did you get to test drive any of your names?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Hey Goldy. Given up on your mission?
Bird study reveals a key assumption in evolution theory is false
If you read the article, you would find that everyone involved supports evolution....
Despite the fact that a key assumption in evolution theory is false. But let's not address the point.
I saw nothing indicating that blogger was a microbiologist.
Then you didn't read the parts of the article where he quoted a microbiologist. What a surprise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
I mean. Can you imagine the absurdity of some dumb senator grilling the Judge on his yearbook from when he was 17, some 36 years ago?The obstruction failed and it only made the Dems look pathetic AF.
My god that was idiotic.
Created:
Posted in:
I've never played before. Ever. Seems interesting, but I'd probable suck and stumble all over the game.
BTW, can I see a NP convo between scum? What do they talk about?
I want to get the old religion board not to be so isolated this time, and I thought mafia would be a good way, but I can't recommend it to my pals if I've never played.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
(I suspect you know you can't)
You evolutionists sure do suspect a lot. And let me guess, your suspicions are the same as reality right?
A new study of fifty bird species from the Andes now rules out any possibility of predicting evolution on a single genetic mutation.
Shhh! If you say nothing about it, it'll be like it doesn't exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DrChristineFord
1. People are assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That doesn't mean that people are actually innocent until proven guilty, though.
Oh sorry. I ment in America, not Iran.
2. Do you believe a person should be convicted on an accusation alone?
No.
Contradiction. If people are not innocent until proven guilty, then they can be convicted on accusations alone.
3. It's not for me to judge the credibility of my own account. I can only state the facts as I know them to the best of my ability.
Well, the Senate evaluated your account and found it not credible enough to stop his nomination. You aren't alone in not thinking your account credible.
4. The hearing so far was in relation to Brett's job interview. So far there has been no question of conviction and I agree there should not be without substantial investigation, which I would support.
The Judge is not applying to you. And claims that aren't credible do not warrant investigation. That way, not any whacko can hamper your life with a bogus accusation and demand an FBI investigation.
5. Kavanaugh's name was not mentioned by you till 2012. Not even to your husband or your therapist. Does that help or hurt your credibility?
Please refer to my response for q3.
No need to. I can tell you. It hurt your credibility.
6. Brett has the burden of proof to show that he is qualified and suitable for the supreme court position.
Not to you though. You have nothing to do with his evaluation. The burden of proof for your accusation is on you. And if you cannot present proof, your accusation will be dismissed as trash.
7. Who do you think leaked your letter to the press?
I don't know.
And you have not asked for an FBI investigation. How unusual.
8. My account is evidence, and I don't personally need corroboration for something I know to be true.
No one else knows it to be true snowflake. Not even your own witnesses. This is why it was dismissed.
9. I didn't begin this process with expectations for any particular outcome. In fact, I expected a poor outcome. It just felt to be my duty to put this before the committee for them to consider. That was the extent of my duty, and where people take it from there is out of my hands.
OK then. Go home. They considered it and found it wanting.
10. The worst consequence Brett is facing is not getting accepted for a desirable job. I can understand that that would be disappointing for him. Nevertheless, we also need to think of the consequences to the country of having a supreme court justice who is unsuitable for the role. Whether or not Brett us unsuitable is not my decision to make, but I don't believe that providing information about his character is unfair.
What you provided was hearsay. Baseless accusation. Nothing about his character. If you think the worst consequence for the Judge is facing is not getting accepted for a desirable job you are a brainless fool. I have 3 daughters and would rather die than put them through what you jackals did to him.
You did not provide proof of your accusation, as such, his character is fine. Go and tell the people paying your lawyers you've done all you can do. Wipe your eyes and blow your nose. You can stop crying now.
Created:
Posted in:
>Yes: you’ve already dismissed me.
And like a cockroach, you keep coming back.
>You haven’t, however, said anything that holds up to any scientific or logical scrutiny
Right. Because for people like you, the only right is agreement with you. Your approach to evolution is like that of true believer in a religion. The nerve of me to commit heresy!
All your posts a thinly veiled bloated self praise. The only thing you're interested in is polishing your ego. You depend on the fact that only a few people can see through the jingoistic nonsense you post.
>As I mentioned: you’re simply being unreasonable and largely dishonest.
Yes. Your progression was boringly predictable. First I was just uninformed. Then I was dishonest. Finally when you saw I knew what I was talking about, you pulled out the worst insult true believers like you can muster; I became a creationist.
Never mind that I used only science to shame you. So, you keep pandering to the gallery, I'm more interested in truth than making the Gentle Reader think I hold credentials.
Tell them once again how you are the only one correct and how I'm in a bad place cause I won't bow to your alter. I'll keep posting things you'd rather they didn't see. Win win no?
Bird study reveals a key assumption in evolution theory is false
October 28, 2016 - 06:15
A new study of fifty bird species from the Andes now rules out any possibility of predicting evolution on a single genetic mutation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
What about modern evolution?
They're still tweaking it. You know the old story, evolution always changes, but that just means it improves. (wink,wink)
Discovery Institute first published its Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list in 2001 to challenge false statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS’s “Evolution” series. At the time it was claimed that “virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.”
“Darwinists continue to claim that no serious scientists doubt the theory and yet here are 500 scientists who are willing to make public their skepticism about the theory,”
Other prominent signatories include U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell; American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; evolutionary biologist and textbook author Stanley Salthe; Smithsonian Institution evolutionary biologist and a researcher at the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Biotechnology Information Richard von Sternberg; Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum –the oldest still published biology journal in the world — Giuseppe Sermonti; and Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov.
Bums, all of them.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
And somehow you never get a clue.They always run away.
Created:
Posted in:
Good, as I've already dismissed you.I have no intent of engaging with this sort of petulant childishness.
Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
Created:
Posted in:
The Placenta Problem: How Common Descent Fails
Like politicians and pastors, they overstate their cases, and imply any disagreement is immoral. Don't be fooled.
Created:
Posted in:
Here are the questions I would have asked Mrs Ford.
1. Do you believe people are innocent until proven guilty?
2. Do you believe a person should be convicted on an accusation alone?
3. The FBI investigates credible accusations. How is your accusation credible? You do not remember the time, the place, or the witnesses. You have no corroboration. Your witnesses do not verify your story. Unless you think the FBI should investigate every accusation no matter how absurd, your accusation is not credible.
4. Given that your accusation has no objectively verified facts, do you think a person should be convicted based on accusation alone?
5. Kavanaugh's name was not mentioned by you till 2012. Not even to your husband or your therapist. Does that help or hurt your credibility?
6. Who do you believe carries the burden of proof? The accuser or the accused?
7. Who do you think leaked your letter to the press?
8. Do you think it was fair to Judge Kavanaugh to publish your accusation without any evidence or corroboration?
9. If an FBI investigation was done and found your accusation false, would you have accepted that?
10. Do you think it's fair to ruin a persons life for something they did once 35 years ago when they were 17 years old?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Is there a length limit? What's too long? What's too short?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
All his points ignore the text.Your first point ignores the text:
Really? You can't tell that Stephen is just a flamer? And a clumsy, silly one at that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mhykiel
Good argument, but a little above most of the posters here.
I have debated many time that free will is not violated by omniscience. But going at it from the idea of quantum entanglement is something I never did.
Of course, this is just one of the technical scientific ways of saying that the omnipresent and eternal nature of God make human free will and God's omniscience not mutually exclusive.
Created:
Posted in:
The Lie
(Said to MoPac on this page earlier.)
One way of determining this, is trying to find different ways of measuring relatedness of different organisms - if the tree is indicative of descent, then any way of measuring relatedness should match the tree too.
If the tree says humans and chimps are the closest related extant species - yet another way of measuring relatedness is shoes apples and humans are closer than chimps and humans - if valid this would
Falsify evolution.
Evolution predicts a very specific pattern:
However, that wasn’t the case, and Cytochrome C showed the expected evolutionary patterns, and so was one of the most famous evolutionary tests conducted.
The Truth
To reiterate, the basic problem is that one gene or protein yields one version of the “tree of life,” while another gene or protein yields an entirely different tree. As the New Scientist article stated:The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes rather than just RNA. Everybody expected these DNA sequences to confirm the RNA tree, and sometimes they did but, crucially, sometimes they did not. RNA, for example, might suggest that species A was more closely related to species B than species C, but a tree made from DNA would suggest the reverse.3Likewise, leading evolutionary bioinformatics specialist W. Ford Doolittle explains, “Molecular phylogenists will have failed to find the ‘true tree,’ not because their methods are inadequate or because they have chosen the wrong genes, but because the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Something is only worth as much time as you are willing to put in. Not sure what all would go down but I'd trade for tangible assets as soon as possible, and a beer.
Lol. Most would, that is why the amount needs to be large enough to make this cumbersome.
I'd assume that it would ultimately benefit the upper class in a position to take advantage in the changing times and screw everyone else.
The upper class would not have any added benefit as everyone would be getting the same amount.
That would defeat the purpose of the exercise. Done that way, inflation would have immediately set in and there would be no way to show to people that it was only in their heads.It would have been benevolent to make your currency out of a nationally owned commodity or something.
Prices would spiral out of control and the IOU's would become worthless. Worse, it would have a similar effect on the old money supply and wreck the country's GDP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mhykiel
Mhykiel! Glad to see you here buddy. Wanted to send you an invite but you had been AWOL on DDO for a while before the spampocalypse. I hope we will be seeing your logically deft post here. The site greatly needs posters like you.
I think if that was done, the cost of milk would hit 20 dollars. And gas 100 a gallon.
I think that is the intuitive reaction, but though some prices might rise, they will not rise as high, and would quickly stabilize.
The ability to buy goods would create shortages and price would adjust accordingly.
True, but the added assets would allow supply to quickly ramp up to meet the increased demand. The higher the demand, the greater will be the incentive to increase supply.
There is a reason poverty exists, and I doubt it has much to income.
Again, I agree. As I said earlier, despite the title of the thread, this is not an exercise to cure poverty. Rather, it is an experiment to show people that inflation exists only in their minds.
I used to teach a class where in one exercise, I press a penny into the forehead of a volunteer and ask him to contort his face till the penny falls off. What he doesn't know is that I did not leave the penny on his face, but pretended I had. The pressure sensors in his forehead though tell him the penny is there.
Pressing the penny into his skin made him feel as if the penny was still there even after it had been removed by me. So the subject would stand before the class, hands cupped under his head, contorting his face thinking the penny was there, to the howls of laughter of the people watching him contort his face.
Then, before he suspected the truth and touched his face, I would hold up a mirror before him. Seeing the penny not there, he would immediately stop contorting his face.
But then the crux. Everyone, and I mean everyone, I did this test on, would touch their face even after seeing in the mirror that there was no penny there.
Why? Because they were getting conflicting sensory information. The penny felt as if it was there, but did not look as if it was there. The hand to touch forehead could not have been predicted. The subject is actually trying to break the tie between to conflicting senses (pressure/sight) with touch. He is not even aware this is what is happening.
By keeping the IOU system separate from the money system, I could hold up a mirror to the population showing them that the inflation pressure they feel on their foreheads, cannot be seen with their eyes.
And like all subjects, and this is critical, they will lift up a hand to touch where their pressure sensor is telling them inflation is. After this, they begin to ignore the information coming from their pressure sensor.
In this state, the normal human reactions and responses in economic theory no longer hold. People act differently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
>it seems your unable to do much more than vitriolic rants about how wrong I am.
Lol. Vitriolic rants?
>I’m trying to actually disentangle what those reasons actually are.
No you aren't. You're using emotive language to insinuate an image of me. You do this because your case isn't strong.
>Despte you shouting at me that I am wrong....
How am I shouting at you? Did I use caps? If you perceive me "shouting" at you, it could be your conscience. You are wrong, I said so. How was wrong in saying so?
>...you claim that the pattern in Cytochrome C does not match more than a couple of species that I mention. That is also factually incorrect.
It isn't. In your comments to MoPac you contradicted yourself. For example, according to Cytochrome C, the snake is equally distant from an earthworm and a bird.
>The original tests - and subsequence gene sequencing shows the expected evolutionary pattern across the board.
Untrue. You get different patterns depending which gene you use.
>you’re parroting from the biologist…
Again with the innuendo. When I quote a biologist, you say I'm parroting. But if I use my own knowledge, you claim it isn't peer reviewed.
I can and will beat you without the smarmy innuendo. My case doesn't need emotional misdirection.
>Because yeast didn’t stop evolving the moment the branches diverged. We’re not testing the animal at the time genes diverged, but their descendants alive today.
False. Nothing has stopped evolving. All organisms have had an equal amount of evolution. You, in your comments to MoPac, brought up the divergence issue. It was basically incorrect.
>CytC is a measure of how log ago two species diverged.
And you get different times depending on which gene you use. That is why you showed only the results which agree with you.
National Academy of Sciences biologist Lynn Margulis has had harsh words for the field of molecular systematics, which Hillis studies. In her article, “The Phylogenetic Tree Topples,” she explains that “many biologists claim they know for sure that random mutation (purposeless chance) is the source of inherited variation that generates new species of life and that life evolved in a single-common-trunk, dichotomously branching-phylogenetic-tree pattern!” But she dissents from that view and attacks the dogmatism of evolutionary systematists, noting, “Especially dogmatic are those molecular modelers of the ‘tree of life’ who, ignorant of alternative topologies (such as webs), don’t study ancestors.”
Unfortunately, one assumption that these evolutionary biologists aren’t willing to consider changing is the assumption that neo-Darwinism and universal common ancestry are correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
>Here is an illustration where only one parent has the mutation in one gene copy. Observe that two of the four children have the mutation.
You did not use the Punnet square. Wonder why? And we agreed that the mutation needed to occur in a zygote or gamete. You seem to have forgotten that in your misleading example.
Look. I don't care to convince you. Anyone who wants to know can look it up on the net. I will leave you to close unopposed.
Gentle Reader, here are some good credible links that do not try to hoodwink you.
The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution
Seven fundamental, unsolved questions in molecular biology.
Cytochrome oxidase: some unsolved problems and controversial issues.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
>Its a non peer reviewed blog posts.
Right. Let’s not consider the content.
>I can post you a peer reviewed article by microbiologists that show the details of why Cytochrome C is excellent evidence. As you expect me to believe your blog posts on its own authority - that would be enough to convince you, right?
I expect you to know evolution enough to be able to consider his reasoning without needing someone to hold your hand. As it is, you say nothing about the article's content, but prattle about it being a blog post. If he said 2+3=5 in a blog post, would you need a peer reviewed journal to evaluate it?
In the article, he posted exactly what was wrong about your claims.
>Now: I explained the detail of why the patterns in Cytochrome c are highly specific and match inferred relatedness.
Untrue. You tried to misdirect. Cytochrome c matches only the few examples you showed us. It does not match all animals.
If the existence of cytochrome C in “higher forms” of animals is the result of evolution from a common ancestor, then one would expect to see a logical progression. That is, the cytochrome C of an invertebrate (like a worm) would be slightly different from a bacteria. A “primitive” vertebrate (like a fish) would have those same differences, plus a few more. As you progress along the presumed evolutionary path to amphibians, reptiles, mammals, primates, ending with humans, you should see the changes in cytochrome C accumulate.
>Your blog post doesn’t bother to challenge that at all.
Untrue. It challenges it on several points.
>If your blog post doesn’t challenge the pattern, nor why the pattern was relevant, there’s not too much to say.
Untrue. Here is a part.
….as more protein sequences began to accumulate during the 1960s, it became increasingly apparent that the molecules were not going to provide any evidence of sequential arrangements in nature, but were rather going to reaffirm the traditional view that the system of nature conforms fundamentally to a highly ordered hierarchic scheme from which all direct evidence for evolution is emphatically absent.
>As I pointed out though, this microbiologist makes two fatal and scientific errors. Firstly this microbiologist seems to think that Cytochrome C can undergo lots of changes which as I pointed out (and you ignored), means there is a functional constraint.
>Secondly, the microbiologist moves the goal posts by trying to misrepresent what Cytochrome C actually showed - which I already explained - and you seem to ignore.
You are good at listing the things you mentioned, but very poor at showing the things you mentioned. You showed no such thing.
>My post on Cytochrome C actually provides the detail of what it is intended to show, why the pattern is relevant, and why it supports evolution.
And you are wrong, because you show only those animals that match your pattern. You can't show the complete picture. You must use subterfuge and fakery.
>This person only seems to have made these two arguments, and simply claiming the evidence is absent as a result is not scientific and illogical. Especially as I have explained in detail what the evidence Is and why it is relevant.
Untrue. Absent evidence is a good reason to doubt. But here is what is absent. Here is evidence you are wrong.
….as more protein sequences began to accumulate during the 1960s, it became increasingly apparent that the molecules were not going to provide any evidence of sequential arrangements in nature, but were rather going to reaffirm the traditional view that the system of nature conforms fundamentally to a highly ordered hierarchic scheme from which all direct evidence for evolution is emphatically absent.
….according to evolutionary theory, one would expect the cytochrome C of a bacterium to be closer to the cytochrome C of a tuna (fish) than a horse (mammal). Furthermore, the horse should have the same mutations as the tuna, plus a few more. This is not what the molecular data shows.
>Perhaps you would care to offer more details, rather than simply writing posts emphatically telling everyone how wrong they are, but providing no detailed explanation or justification of why.
One of your shortcomings of darwinists is that you underestimate people, and think you can confuse them with fake charges. People are not stupid. Here is part of the detailed explanation and justification of why your claim is incorrect.
However, the most striking feature of the matrix is that every identifiable subclass is isolated and distinct. Every sequence can be unambiguously assigned to a particular subclass. No sequence or group of sequences can be designated as intermediate with respect to other groups. All the sequences of each subclass are equally isolated from the members of another group. Transitional or intermediate classes are completely absent from the matrix. 4
If evolution were true, and creatures gradually evolved from one to another, there should be intermediate forms. Intermediate forms should be found in living creatures, in the fossil record, and in proteins. It should, in at least some cases, be hard to classify things because the boundaries are blurred.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
700 billion to military this year716 billion to military this year
Notice the emphasis he put on that point? Hear anybody laughing after that? Wonder why 😏.
Many of them knew some of that 716 billion was for them.
Trump was asked about them laughing at him and he said they weren't laughing at him but with him.
The reaction Trump expected was booing. He is aware that the UN is full of libtards.
He just wanted an excuse to tout his accomplishments for his American audience. They were quiet because his success drives them nuts. But they can't counter it. Things like the employment figures and the tax cuts are empirical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Hey Darwin,
The mutation is not eye color.
We can use y to represent the mutation, and 0 to represent the absence of the mutation. One parent has one copy of the mutated gene (By) and the other has no mutated copy (BO).
Here it is corrected.
B y
B BB By
O OB Oy
Our mutation is not a change of an existing quality like brown eyes to blue, but a wholly new quality. There is no gene representing its absence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Same amount as were on the ban list. He-haw, He-haw, He-haw, He-haw!!BTW how many were amputees
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Eh. If you need to appear smart that bad. I don't care as I don't need your agreement. You are wrong whether you know it or not.Replace "you" with "one of us" and I would agree.
You are conflating carrying the mutation with having blue eyes.
No sir. The principle works with any similar example. The particular configuration of the genes doesn't matter.
To do this, we use uppercase Y to represent the mutated gene and lowercase y the original gene.
Funny then that when experts do it, the mutation is represented with the lowercase letter. Do you know why? Because mutations are almost never dominant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
I thought you told me to tale a hike? Can the class say confused?
Personally, I think when people are this removed from reality, it should be a crime for his family not to commit him. But perhaps they don't have that service in his country.
Dumbell >< effectDumbell >< scenario42 million in US who lack morals scary.42 million, ---not your two + two + two--- in US who lack morals and yes that is scary.42 million in US who lack morals scary.42 million in US who lack morals scary.Idio-ump is largest cry-baby on Earth.....
Lol. Are you scared bastardness?
.....yet some 42 million immorals voted for him.
Yeah. And more than a year later you're still wailing like a crybaby. Get over it foreigner. We elected whom we wanted.
We should be afraid, very afraid of those 42 million irrational, illogical lack of common sense peoples.
I agree. Loony liberals, progressive sjw's, and general morons should be really, really afraid.
Ignorance is bliss....
Not in your case. You're afraid. Very afraid. Living in fear. Without the bliss, give up the ignorance or give up the fear. Why live like a rat in a hole?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
It was written by a micro- biologist. I'm sure he will be grateful for your insight into his expertise.
all direct evidence for evolution is emphatically absent.
This is not what the molecular data shows.
evolutionists touting Cyto-C as evidence for evolution are either wittingly or unwhittingly selling snake oil to their listeners.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
The Punnett square is a square diagram that is used to predict the genotypes of a particular cross or breeding experiment. It is named after Reginald C. Punnett, who devised the approach. The diagram is used by biologists to determine the probability of an offspring having a particular genotype.
The Punnett square is a tabular summary of possible combinations of maternal alleles with paternal alleles. These tables can be used to examine the genotypical outcome probabilities of the offspring of a single trait (allele), or when crossing multiple traits from the parents.
The Punnett Square is a visual representation of Mendelian inheritance. It is important to understand the terms "heterozygous", "homozygous", "double heterozygote" (or homozygote), "dominant allele" and "recessive allele" when using the Punnett square method.
Example table here
>Our fundamental disagreement thus far is whether a mutation arising in individuals can spread through a population, so why don't we concentrate on that point for now.
OK, but that isn't our fundamental disagreement.
>I assume you accept that mutations can and do occur in individuals. But you assert that such mutations must always die out within a few generations.
In cases where a single individual enters the population with no other individuals carrying the mutation, and no external gene manipulation occurs, yes.
>One thing that may help to convince you is that the rate of inheritance is 1/2, not the 1/4 that you are using.
No sir. Please study the link at the beginning of this post. It is ¼ for the 1st generation. 1/8th for the second, 1/16th for the third, and so on.
>That is because each parent has two copies of a gene.
No. Only one parent has the mutated gene, and only onePlease look up Mendelian inheritance, it will help you.
>A child gets exactly one of those copies. If one of the parents copies has a mutation, there is a 50% chance a child will inherit it (assuming the other parent does not have the mutation).
Incorrect. It is only 25% chance and only for the 1st generation.
>All it takes for a mutation to begin spreading is for the first individual with the mutation to have more than one offspring with the mutation. If the first individual has two offspring, then there is a 25% change both will have the mutation.
This is untrue. You must be unfamiliar with hereditary science. You are also incorrectly assuming that the two siblings will mate and will be the right genders. Neither is likely.
>Three offspring, and there is 50% chance at least two will have the mutation (and 12.5% of the time three will).
This is incorrect. Until you learn how heredity works, it will be silly to continue along this track.
>For a mutation to increase, all it takes is for the average number of offspring produced by each individual with the mutation to be greater than 1. Fewer than 1 and the mutation decreases.
>Does anything about this not seem plausible?
Yes. It is incorrect and not representative of what happens in reality.
Here is the math on it from the site.
The probability of an individual offspring's having the genotype BB is 25%, Bb is 50%, and bb is 25%. The ratio of the phenotypes is 3:1, typical for a monohybrid cross. When assessing phenotype from this, "3" of the offspring have "Brown" eyes and only one offspring has "green" eyes. (3 are "B_" and 1 is "bb")
Please, I asked you to look at this 2 posts ago.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
He meant he would be getting rid of ANY corruption, even if in his own administration.
And he didn't "bring" them unless you mean he was aware they were less than savory.
I like the times....
Big tax cut
EU and China no longer defrauding us
North Korea getting some sense
UN no longer treating Israel like terrorists
Our money no longer going to M.E. terrorists
Stock market soaring
Employment up
Unemployment down
Black employment up
China not dominating south China Sea
Environmentalist wackos not killing our jobs
Illegal immigration down
Business climate good
Consumer confidence high
Fake news media exposed
Supreme court getting sensible judges
President on the side of police instead of criminals
Military strong
FBI deep state whackos exposed
Watching liberals and progressives have conniptions
Trump winning in court on liberal biased lawsuits
The hypocrisy of antifa and the left in general exposed
Complainers identify themselves as the enemies of America.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I liked it. Popular chord progression, and cool beard.
Goldtop's problem is that you evoked the name of Jesus in the song. Pay no attention to his opinion. Notice he disappeared when challenged to show his skills. Telling.
Watching the other vids now.
Created:
Posted in:
I met a lady once, who did not like music. None of it. Music of any kind irratated her. Strange.
Her name was Lena. Sweet as an angel. Would go out of her way to help anyone. Smart as a whip. But did not care for music.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
As would happen with your proto-chicken. Its genes would have been mixed with those of non proto-chickens .….since no other individual in the population has the mutation yet. Just using your words buddy.
Even with multiple individuals with the genes, it did not expand at an exponential rate, but is disappearing. Yet you think a single individual could change an entire gene pool.
>Yes, they mated enough with Europeans to spread genes for lighter skin throughout the population. Certainly nowhere near a majority of black offspring had a European parent, however.
But that supports my point. In your proto-chicken scenario, there were no other individuals with the mutation. The majority of offspring would have parents without the mutation. If the low rate of mixing as with blacks in America could not sustain black skin, why would you think the high rate of mixing with your proto-chicken could sustain the mutation? It doesn't make sense.
Your correct answer to 3C shows that your theory of a proto-chicken is incorrect. That cannot be how chickens descended from dinosaurs. Maybe, chickens did not descend from dinosaurs at all.
>Again, I think you did not take into account that individuals can have more than one offspring.
I did. The laws of heredity kick in. Only ¼ of its offspring would carry the mutation regardless of how many offspring it had. And most of those offspring would mate with individuals not carrying the mutation. In this way gene pools are protected from random bad mutations in single individual.
>By the "proto-chicken idea," I assume you mean mutations arising in single individuals. Now that I've explained it, I hope you understand how it works.
If you think, “mutations arise and spread into the gene pool” is an explanation of how it works, then it's no wonder you believe evolution.
>If not, consider this simplified example. Mutation A occurs in one individual. That individual produces two offspring with the mutation.
Odds are, it would have to produce 8 offspring to get 2 with the mutation. And those two would have to happen to be male and female to be able to mate. But siblings generally do not mate. Neither do mothers and sons.
Each of those 2 individuals would only have offspring at the rate of 1 to 8 with the mutation. The mutation would quickly die away.
>There are now two individuals in the population with the mutation (not counting the parent). Each of these then produces two offspring with the mutation.
For this to happen, they would Have to have 16 offspring on average to get 2 with the mutation, because they would likely be mating with individuals that do not carry the gene.
>There are now four individuals with the mutation. Each of these produces two offspring with the mutation....
And they would have to have 32 offspring on average to get 2 with the mutation.
>see where this is going?
Do you?
>Of course it is more complicated than that, since the number of offspring varies, and other individuals in the population are producing offspring too. But that is a synopsis of how a single individual with a mutation can spread it over successive generations.
Sorry, it is unrealistic in nature, and it flies against mathematical odds. This is why evolutionists like to keep it general and vague. Examining the details shows that evolution just doesn't make sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
>I have noticed a pattern where, when you misunderstand something, and someone tries to clarify, rather than attempting to understand their explanation, you question their honesty. It doesn't foster a productive discussion.
Do you know what I've noticed? When you misstate something, and someone tries to clarify, rather than attempting to understand their explanation, you question their understanding. It doesn't foster a productive discussion.
Check out the TYPES heading. Read and learn.
>So you meant expression of phenotypes. Are you really asserting that phenotypes can be predicted exactly?
The rate which individuals will have the mutation will follow a ratio. Don't worry if you don't get it right away.
>It should be evident to anyone that that is not the case, from the simple observation that two children with the same parents can look quite different.
But the ratio of children who carry a certain gene will follow a pattern that can be predicted. Maybe you never got to do those simple charts in high school of hereditary science.
The single proto-chicken theory is dead Stronn. Mutations are not spread by single individuals.
>Sure they are. Maybe you are not considering that an individual with the mutation can have more than one offspring, and each of those offspring can in turn have more than one offspring. In this way a mutation can increase in a population, potentially at an exponential rate.
Untrue. Each time the individual with the mutation mates with an individual without the mutation, only one out of 4 of the offspring will carry the gene. And the 1 in 4 offspring from that mating that carries the mutation, only 1 out of 8 of his offspring will carry the mutated gene, if he mates with another individual that does not have the gene.
Mutated genes in a single individual are extremely unlikely to spread throughout the gene pool.
When one adds in that other mutations can erase the original one, and that the dominance or recessiveness of the gene can affect it's expression, the idea is ludicrous.
Whether its one mutation or not, the principle is the same. Please tell us how animals change species. By your own admittal, It cannot begin by a single animal, and multiple animals cannot carry the same mutation at the same time. Can you explain the mechanics?
>First, animals don't change species, populations do.
Again, this is evolution doublespeak. Populations are comprised of individuals, and we are speaking mostly to laymen, we should not try to use jargon to obfuscate.
>Speciation occurs when one segment of a population becomes isolated. Over a long period of time, two things happens. First, new mutations arise and spread through the isolated population, and second, the frequency of existing alleles changes in the population, with some alleles dying out.
This again is the general picture where you breeze over the illogic with a flippant, “new mutations arise and spread through the isolated population”. You are being asked to break this down. How do new mutations arise and spread? It cannot be by a single individual.
Yet, in reality, as with even the imperfect example of blacks in America, we see its not a big if.
>Seriously? Are you asserting that blue-eyed people only mate with brown-eyed people, or that blacks only mate with non-blacks?
No. But even the low rate of mixing in the US with multiple individuals was enough to begin to erase the genes for dark skin. If a single black had been brought to the US, do you think dark skin would have spread at an exponential rate?
>If not, then how can you possibly disagree that assuming either one is a big if?
I know science.
Nice misdirection, but I mentioned no "black gene" or "white gene".
>You said "gene for dark skin" which I unintentionally misquoted,….
Uh huh.
>Again with the dishonesty insinuation.
This is America. Language has more than just the dry meaning of words. Gene for dark skin is not race specific, black gene is. You intended a negative connotation about my understanding of genes. Plus, it was not necessary to specify genes over gene. There is no need to be anal. We are posting for a general science board, not the National Academy of Sciences.
>No reasonable person would conclude that I changed "gene for dark skin" to "black gene" on purpose as some sort of misdirection tactic.
One wonders then what “reasonable person” means to you.
>…..the only point I was making was that there is not just one gene controlling the trait.
What trait is that? The one for darker skin or the one for black skin?
Created:
Posted in:
Cytochrome C
Apart from the single gene controlling the constitution of cytochrome-c, humans and chimpanzees differ in many thousands of other genes. As a conservative estimate, let us say 5,000.
What the theory of evolution is saying is that while humans and chimpanzees have evolved independently from a common ancestor so as to now differ in these 5,000 genes, there has been no change in the 93 amino acids specified by the cytochrome-c gene, and this in spite of there being no functional constraint on change in any of the latter. I find this to be an unacceptable claim.
If you look at Cytochrome C for instance, an enzyme vital to all life forms, it has 38 amino acids in its sequence which are invariant, so those 38 amino acids must be essential for its function. Therefore, Cytochrome C cannot have arisen step-by-step.” Vij Sodera, author of the book, One Small Speck to Man.
….as more protein sequences began to accumulate during the 1960s, it became increasingly apparent that the molecules were not going to provide any evidence of sequential arrangements in nature, but were rather going to reaffirm the traditional view that the system of nature conforms fundamentally to a highly ordered hierarchic scheme from which all direct evidence for evolution is emphatically absent.
….according to evolutionary theory, one would expect the cytochrome C of a bacterium to be closer to the cytochrome C of a tuna (fish) than a horse (mammal). Furthermore, the horse should have the same mutations as the tuna, plus a few more. This is not what the molecular data shows.
If an analysis of cytochrome C showed an evolutionary pathway from bacteria to man, you can be sure it would be widely published. Such a report has not been published because the molecular evidence is against evolution. It favors a designer.
This is a classic case of snake oil, a con where they show you only the data they want you to see.
What this proves is neither side can use Cyto-C as evidence to support their version of “common decent”. It also proves that evolutionists touting Cyto-C as evidence for evolution are either wittingly or unwhittingly selling snake oil to their listeners.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Nice misdirection, but I mentioned no "black gene" or "white gene".
>You said "gene for dark skin" which I unintentionally misquoted,….
Uh huh.
If mutations spread through populations only by its carrier(s) producing offspring, where are all the very dark black offspring?
>Why would you expect there to be very dark offspring in American blacks?
I don't. Just as I don't expect there to be any proto-chicken offspring.
>As I explained, they are lighter skinned because their genes have been mixed with those of Europeans.
As would happen with your proto-chicken. Its genes would have been mixed with those of non proto-chickens .….since no other individual in the population has the mutation yet. Just using your words buddy.
>The lighter skin of U.S. blacks is, in fact, an example of genes that promote lighter skin spreading through the population over the generations.
Yes. Like your proto-chicken, black slaves had few mates with their genes, so the incidence of dark skin in the gene pool virtually dispeared in 10 generations. And 10 generations is nothing in evolutionary terms.
>Where do you get that black slaves had few mates with their genes?
From the fact that 2 African blacks back then could not have had a fair offspring. There must have been mixing.
>Most slaves had offspring with other slaves. Even today, most blacks have offspring with other blacks.
But they did mate enough with others who did not share their genes for dark skin to begin to fade away. It isn't a perfect example, but it is telling. Imagine how much more it happened when there was only one individual with the mutation.
Your correct answer to 3C shows that your theory of a proto-chicken is incorrect. That cannot be how chickens descended from dinosaurs. Maybe, chickens did not descend from dinosaurs at all.
Without your proto-chicken idea, do you have an alternative? This is what I mean when I say if you examine evolution closely, it falls apart. Most people accept the proto-chicken illogic without any critical thinking. But there is no way it can work given the beliefs of evolution. It is illogical.
>It only falls apart if you misunderstand one or more key concepts.
We are all ears. I have asked you questions and used your answers. Which key concept do you misunderstand?
As genetic studies on your proto-chicken would also quickly show that they were as much as 30% non-proto on average, and 100% given enough time.
>I have no idea what "30% non-proto" means, since every member of the population is a proto-chicken.
How did they come about? By a single individual with a mutation, or many individuals with the same mutation? Can you say?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
We are talking hereditary genetics and it is a precise science. If I know the gene makeup of the parents, the rate of expression of the gene in offspring can be calculated. Let's forget the "ifs".
>I meant "if" in the formal, logical sense.
Uh huh.
>I don't know what you mean by "rate of expression". Gene expression is the process of genes coding for (usually) proteins. Perhaps you mean genetic makeup? If so, you cannot predict it exactly.
Check out the TYPES heading. Read and learn.
So we can eliminate the single proto-chicken theory. A single individual could not have been the answer.
>I don't know what you mean by "single proto chicken theory." Do you mean a mutation starting in a single individual? If so, you have no basis to eliminate it as an option.
You said...
>While occasionally the same mutation might appear independently in different individuals, it happens so rarely that it is probably not a significant driver of evolution.
>This was in answer to your question about whether mutations occur in multiple individuals at once. They do not.
And…
>…since no other individual in the population has the mutation yet.
The single proto-chicken theory is dead Stronn. Mutations are not spread by single individuals. Thus you must explain how multiple individuals can carry the same mutation at the same time. The odds of this are astronomical. Ultra astronomical. Do you have a mechanism for how the same random mutation would occur in multiple individuals at the same time?
>No one mutation created the proto-chicken. I'm not sure where you got that idea. A proto-chicken was just your name for some species that was ancestors to modern chickens.
It wasn't my name. When I asked, “All I want to know is who did your proto-chicken mate with?”
You answered, “It mated with other proto-chickens.”
Whether its one mutation or not, the principle is the same. Please tell us how animals change species. By your own admittal, It cannot begin by a single animal, and multiple animals cannot carry the same mutation at the same time. Can you explain the mechanics?
3C. If an individual and successive offspring of that individual keep mating with individuals that lack the gene for blue eyes, will the rate of blue eyed offspring resulting from these matings rise, stay the same, or fall within the population?
>If blue-eyed individuals only produce offspring with brown-eyed individuals, then the rate of blue-eyed offspring will tend to decrease.
Then your proto-chicken genes would quickly die out in the gene pool, as there would be no mates with the gene. Each 1st gen offspring would be less likely to carry the gene by a quarter, 2nd gen by 50% less, 3rd gen by 75% and so on.
>See what you did here?
I see what you did. You are trying to be dishonest. Watch.
>You asked what would happen if X was true. I answered that Y would happen. You then assumed that Y would happen, without ever bothering to consider whether X was indeed true. It isn't.
>In other words, it is true that if every individual with allele A only produces offspring with individuals with allele B, then allele A becomes less frequent and eventually dies out. But that is a huge "if".
Yet, in reality, as with even the imperfect example of blacks in America, we see its not a big if.
If this/these proto-chicken(s) mated with an earlier generation that did not have the mutation, would that not hinder or stop the propagation of the mutation within the gene pool?
You answered,
>Nope, makes no difference.
Now you are admitting that it does make a difference.
>See how you asked the question (I bolded the relevant part). Since I answered one of your previous questions by saying a mutation starts in a single individual, I interpreted your question it to be asking whether it made a difference whether that individual mated with members of previous generations. Again, it doesn't, since no other individual in the population has the mutation yet.
Exactly! So if speciation begins with mutated genes, it cannot begin with single individuals. It MUST begin with multiple individuals. But multiple individuals having the same random mutation at the same time is mathematically impossible. So how does speciation begin?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I'm not the one using vulgarities and capital letters and exclamation marks.Are you sure you are not annoyed. You seem like you are very annoyed, to me, ethang5.
We disagree.Doesn't matter. The passage says he doubted. What you say is incorrect.
It was a question that I see no doubt in it .God did. So your opinion is nonsense, based on nothing.
Who was he punished by?
The story makes it appear that god or this angle punished him by striking him dumb .
It was God genius. You are wrong.
You called it a punishment. We asked you, "so what?" You couldn't answer.
See above. I have answered that question a few times now.
Saying he shouldn't have been punished does not answer so what? You don't think he should be punished. So what?
....why , were they not punished or penalised by being struck"dumb"?
Why should they have been? Can't answer? God is not a machine. Not an algorithm. When you can answer why God should have behaved like an idiot, let us know.
Show me where and when a single one of those I have mentioned ever gets punished for "doubting".
Why should I show you something so stupid? God did not need to behave like a robot.
I am not annoyed at all.
Good , Then get over yourself you self righteous buffoon.
Lol. No, you're not annoyed at all.
Take it or leave it. It is thatsimple.
Yet you keep posting the nonsense.
Why should we take your story on face value?
I haven’t asked you orany “WE” to believe what I wrote or believe or even to listen to my personalopinions.
But if we don't believe, you say...
It is glaring and bias. hypocrisy at it worst, if the story is to be taken at face value and as you believe it.
Hypocrite much?
I would be a complete idiot to give your version any respect.
Then don’t. I am not forcing to am I.
Yes you are. You insult and throw a tantrum if you aren't believed.
You, Mr. Nobody, comes on to say, he did not doubt, and should not have been punished.
That is correct.
We believe God's version, no matter how you spit and fume, no matter how much you insult. He did doubt because God says he did. God knows. You don't.
I have made it clear I am not trying to force anyone to agree withme.
No, you only throw a tantrum, become vulgar, and start typing in caps showing everyone that you're crass and annoyed.
I DON’T CARE IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE ME.
Is that why you're screaming? Because you don't care? Ooo k.
The angel, speaking for God, says Z doubted. Z is struck dumb, proving it was in fact God's judgement. You, Mr. Nobody, comes on to say, he did not doubt, and should not have been punished.
And we should go, "Oh yes! God was mistaken, and you are right Stephen. God is wrong."
If that is what you expect, you aren't just deluded, you are legally insane.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
They can, but that was not the question. Cells are found in individuals. Please address the question.
I thought I did.
No, you didn't.
If a mutation occurs....
We are talking hereditery genetics and it is a precise science. If I know the gene makeup of the parents, the rate of expression of the gene in offspring can be calculated. Let's forget the "ifs".
While occasionally the same mutation might appear independently in different individuals, it happens so rarely that it is probably not a significant driver of evolution.
So we can eliminate the single proto-chicken theory. A single individual could not have been the answer.
Thus the mutation you say created the proto-chicken must have occurred in multiple individuals at the same time! The odds of this are astronomical. Ultra astronomical. Do you have a mechanism for how the same random mutation would occur in multiple individuals at the same time?
I find this answer surprising, so I must ask some questions to understand better. I will use eye color as a placeholder example.
3A. Was the blue eye color in humans caused by a mutation?
Yes.
3B. If yes, is the gene for blue eyes recessive?
Yes,....
3C. If an individual and successive offspring of that individual keep mating with individuals that lack the gene for blue eyes, will the rate of blue eyed offspring resulting from these matings rise, stay the same, or fall within the population?
If blue-eyed individuals only produce offspring with brown-eyed individuals, then the rate of blue-eyed offspring will tend to decrease.
Then your proto-chicken genes would quickly die out in the gene pool, as there would be no mates with the gene. Each 1st gen offspring would be less likely to carry the gene by a quarter, 2nd gen by 50% less, 3rd gen by 75% and so on.
But when I asked you,
If this/these proto-chicken(s) mated with an earlier generation that did not have the mutation, would that not hinder or stop the propagation of the mutation within the gene pool?
You answered,
Nope, makes no difference.
Now you are admitting that it does make a difference.
Skin color is actually a good example of the process. But first, realize that there is no "black gene" or "white gene."
Nice misdirection, but I mentioned no "black gene" or "white gene".
If mutations spread through populations only by its carrier(s) producing offspring, where are all the very dark black offspring?
Africans who were brought to America have lighter skin because they produced offspring with people of European descent.
Yes. Like your proto-chicken, black slaves had few mates with their genes, so the incidence of dark skin in the gene pool virtually dispeared in 10 generations. And 10 generations is nothing in evolutionary terms.
Your correct answer to 3C shows that your theory of a proto-chicken is incorrect. That cannot be how chickens descended from dinosaurs. Maybe, chickens did not descend from dinosaurs at all.
Without your proto-chicken idea, do you have an alternative? This is what I mean when I say if you examine evolution closely, it falls apart. Most people accept the proto-chicken illogic without any critical thinking. But there is no way it can work given the beliefs of evolution. It is illogical.
Genetic studies, in fact, have shown that blacks in some parts of the south are as much as 30% European on average.
As genetic studies on your proto-chicken would also quickly show that they were as much as 30% non-proto on average, and 100% given enough time.
Sorry. What you believe is not representative of reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
And yet you said he did not doubt. You said there was no indication in the passage that he doubted. You were wrong.
Yes I did, And there isn't.
The angel said he did Pinocchio. That was the indication.
He simply asked a question, you and the angle say he doubted.
Exactly. Yet you accept the part of the bible's account that he asked a question, but not the part where the angel says he doubted. Illogical. If you can disregard any part of the account you want, your analysis becomes rubbish.
The telling part is, you have no rational for doubting the account of the angel saying he doubted. You just do, no logic, no reason. Just your loony ideas. You also have no reason for accepting the parts you do, you just accept them because they do not contradict your loony ideas.
and for this perceived doubt on the angels part, he was punished by being struck dumb.
Who was he punished by?
You called it a punishment. We asked you, "so what?" You couldn't answer.
It was a PUNISHMENT.
So what?
An unjust punishment even if he had doubted.
So your judgement disagrees with God. So what?
I did answer your "so what" on many occasions, you just ignored my response. SO HERE IT IS AGAIN.
Your answer makes no sense unless we agree that your judgement supercedes God. Your judgement has no authority and is your personal opinion. It is rubbish.
If Zacharias, AND Sarah, And Thomas AND John the Baptist AND Jesus AND Simon Peter all doubted, why , were they not punished or penalised by being struck "dumb"?
Sometimes they were. Sometimes we are not told if they were. But the question is impressively stupid. Their doubt was each different under different conditions. God does not need to do the same thing each time. When we ask you why do you stupidly assume God must react the same way to different situations, you can't answer.
This is why the story makes absolutely no sense whatsoever UNLESS it is as I say, that Zacharias was ORDERED to stay silent and why his wife - who was supposed to have been barren - was told to hide herself away.
The story makes no sense to you because you stupidly reject parts of the story for no logical reason, and assume God must act in an irrational way.
I am failing to see why you are so annoyed about this.
I am not annoyed at all. Telling you that your argument lacks logic is not anger. Telling you that it is stupid to reject the same passages you rely on as proof is not annoyance. Telling you that your imagination is not as authoritative as scripture is reasonable. Why do you think I'm annoyed? Because I point out you lack of logic?
It is glaring and bias. hypocrisy at it worst, if the story is to be taken at face value and as you believe it.
Why should we take your story on face value? Of course I am biased to God's version of the story. Your version not only lacks authority, it isn't even rational. I would be a complete idiot to give your version any respect.
And not as I believe it, as it clearly says. The angel, speaking for God, says Z doubted. Z is struck dumb, proving it was in fact God's judgement. You, Mr. Nobody, comes on to say, he did not doubt, and should not have been punished.
And we should go, "Oh yes! God was mistaken, and you are right Stephen. God is wrong."
If that is what you expect, you aren't just deluded, you are legally insane.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Can you answer these questions?
Not if 4 years of watching his drive-by posts are any indication.
Don't hold your breadth.How will you answer them? Let me see, even though they are off-topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Lol.
You ask him to comment on the fossil record, he insists he'd rather comment on the genetic record. When you object, he claims he is formally extending an offer to expound on any specific area of the evidences for macroevolution, though he is at the same time refusing to address your question. So the you repost the OP and allow him to pick any point on the list, and all of a sudden he insists on his own list, not the OP's.
He will only answer questions he's supplied you. Funny. What? Did you think he was going to risk you asking him anything?
Created:
Posted in:
Mopac, I must say I respect you for asking questions on this topic, it is VERY refreshing to see that here rather than the usual faith based denials. Keep at it and you'll do very well! Kudos!
If you're attempting to target Theists why is this in the science forum? If you wish to argue this against creation then you will have to show how evolution is not compatible with the PROCESS of creating things. That is precisely what creation means, it's a process.
I am doing no such thing and there isn't anything I've said to lead to that conclusion, hence you're just making that up.
Untrue. You said,
....it is VERY refreshing to see that here rather than the usual faith based denials.
There have been no faith "based denials" in this thread.
There is no such thing as the process of creating things in nature as far as living things are concerned, you are just making that up.
But evolution is a process? That is like saying a strip of movie film is movement.
Created: