Science against evolution

reply to post by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

i thought i made it pretty clear. the amount of information the first organism started with, how it even got genetic information, and it's reproduction cycle are key pieces of the puzzle. it effects how mutations occur and their rate.

Nope what you made clear was that you claimed creation was left out of the theory for convenience to promote a lie.

Now you are asking a different question without addressing my reply. Do that.

the claim you need to back up is that certain types of finches cannot breed, and this lack of ability to breed needs to be grounded in the addition of beneficial, information adding mutations.

British Finches

During the Victorian era, it was found that if a British finch, e.g. a Goldfinch, was crossed with a Canary, the result was an attractive looking, good singing bird. The resulting birds were sterile, but continue to be bred to this day under the name of Mules. Many clubs specialise in Mules.[3]

On rare occasions fertile cross breeds do occur. These are aviary kept birds and though rare in captivity would stand even less chance to live long enough to breed when the environment becomes the keeper.

But let’s say that anything is possible and a hybrid goes on to reproduce. What does it reproduce with? Most likely the traits of the bird that are the most dominant so his genes would be passed into the local population. Isn’t that what you claim is impossible?

it reflects his position that evolution is wrong.

Exactly. Isn’t that what I said.

attacking the title and ignoring all of the substance is a logical fallacy.

I didn’t so you are wrong again

the source of information has no bearing on the validity of the information itself.

Do what?!!!! You have written many times your hatred and mistrust of scientists and you write that? Come on you accused me of double standards remember.

accepting sources as credible only if they agree with what you already agree is also illogical and dangerous.

Poppycock. Accepting without question sources with known bias especially those like creationist sites with a long history of deception and outright lies may be what you do but I don’t. I keep Dawkins at arm’s length for the very same reason

furthermore, the information in the article comes from a paper written BY PEOPLE YOU'VE ALREADY SAID MEET YOUR WACKY STANDARDS OF CREDIBILITY.

If wacky standards of credibility means they have a long track record of good scientific investigation and highly regarded then you are correct.

try googleing "circumstantial ad hominem fallacy" here, i'll help you.

I tried googling Fred Williams, that helped more.

step 1: open the paper in your browser step. 2: notice the blue tinged numbers after different sentences. step 3: click them to find the source document.

Step 4. compare it to what the original papers contained

Tell me what you base your accusations on.

see above example on circumstantial ad hominem logical fallacies.

Nothing then. No surprises.

What I have found out about him means he is not what I consider a reliable source

Another circumstantial logical fallacy.

Nope another informed choice

why would i care for others in any way if evolution were true, death was final, and nothing mattered?

That old cherry. Religious type do not have a monopoly on morality and if you need the threat of eternal damnation to keep you on the right road it is a sorry world you live in.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by idmonster
i noticed that you didn't answer the elephant in the room, being the required birth rate.

The reason for not addressing the elephant in the room is due to not being able to see where the figures a derived. i mean, I can see where he got his numbers from, but the argument he extrapolates of 40 births per generation is based on a biased reading of the source material.

The numbers come from two studies of genetic material, one that only consisted of 4 people, two of which had severe genetic malformations and the other from "The Biotic Message" which I have addressed in my previous post. I'm sure his maths is probably right but his interpretation of the figures in the 2 studies is questionable.


With regard to Einstein, yes his theories were ignored initially, but the field of Maths is either right or wrong, and he was right. You still haven't told me if you get medical advice from your electrician/

reply to post by stereologist

False. The bible is not history. It does not relate what happened. It's fiction.

Add an English course to your schedule.

This is where you need to educate yourself on the title of books and know that the bible is prefaced as a supernatural book, thats not fiction, not non fiction, not fantasy, not sci fi.

The bible is the ONLY book we have that holds this title, so your attempts to catagorize it with other books is completly false.

You are correct that scientists avoid fiction and lies in their work. They avoid fairy tale explanations and the illogical.

In other words we are human, we are the strongest, the best, the smartest and we know it all. I'm sorry but I don't share that point of view. You are wrong about scientists avoiding fiction and lies, as is mentioned in Mitochondrial Eve in wiki.
mtDNA eve
If you read this article you will notice there is something very important missing from its facts. They are making it obvious that they have mapped out the genome but they are witholding our true age. The only thing they are sharring is a common ancestor that dates back to 200,000 years ago. and this is a blow to the religious community as well as evolution because the time lines weren't matching up for homo erectus and homo sepiens.

However it appears that the mistake of not publising our true age was on purpose. It would appear that our true age out dates earth and as a result they couldn't dare publish it. They would look stupid and everyone would be wondering what in the hell it means. I'll tell you exactly what it means, we aren't from here and our lineage proves it.

Another falsehood.

Well your just going by the notion that evolution is dead on about how we progress or even digress on earth, but its not, and you have no proof.

Another silly claim from someone pushing a lie called target foods.

It's a common sense fact, that if there is not balance, there will be death and extinction, just like we are having today.

More unsubstantiated claims. Which orifice was this number pulled from?

The largest orfice there is, wikipedia.

Excuse me its suppose to be 98% not 99%.
Extinction event

But here is where the gorry facts are...

Largest mass extinction in 65 million years underway, scientists say

The top predators do not live through extinctions.

Sure they do.

Apex preditor

Another falsehood about extinction. I am amazed at ow many falsehoods can be tossed out by someone.

On a balanced planet you would be correct, but your making that same assumption that scientists are which is why they are so baffled from our extinctions right now that all life thats here is from here and belongs here, and they are wrong.

With all of the mistakes being made here on a wide range of subjects I can believe that you think something that wrong is common sense.

Thanks for demonstrating that squirrels do not support your silly claim of target foods. Good job showing that target foods is poppycock.

No hardly no one here has their proper food with them. The abalone is a good one. Poppycock is man made so I don't think it is a target food.

Take an intro class in biology.

Those classes as you call them still fail to produce reasons that explain why there is never an experimental stage, and also fail to explain how it is that species all choose the same food without teaching each other.

Animals experiment all of the time. Not all members eat the same food. You just showed that squirrels do not eat all of the same food.

They do within that diet. You never hear about a squirrel eating a dog or a cat or a cow as an example. They allready have a menu planned out.

You just proved yourself wrong with the case of squirrels.

I guess I failed to share that hardly nothing here has target food because most if not all species here are not from here.

This statement makes it clear that this was a lie: " I went straight for college level info"

Answer the question, can a pregnant smoking woman change evolution?

You have no idea how foolish this looks, do you? There is no evidence for supernatural and magic is certainly supernatural.

Magic is trickery and deception, supernatural is not. If I had special vision that allowed me to see through clothing thats not magic.

Again, you need to take a basic biology course and fi

OK, I get it you don't like people stating that the source material is biased. BTW pointing it out is not a logical fallacy.

on the contrary, i have no problem with you saying that some source material is biased, i did so already. (this assumes that you provide evidence that the source material is actually manipulating evidence to suit their agenda). what i won't tolerate (because it is a logical fallacy) is when the material is rejected just because the source holds particular views. do you understand what i'm saying? an example would be someone saying 1+1=2, but you replying "he's biased, therefore what he said is incorrect". go after the information all you want, but to reject something just because the author holds certain beliefs is illogical.

part of what you quoted from the article is incorrect. today we know that upwards of 80% of the genome is functional. some estimates go to 90%. source

now around .001 of mutations are beneficial (though the benefit they give is so ridiculously small, they can practically be thought of as neutral), but the problem for evolution is that the rate of deleterious mutations is somewhere between U=3 and U=5. U=5 is based off of more realistic parameters. U=3 assumes that all offspring with new mutations die without reproducing due to natural selection.

even if we take the value known to be false (U=3), 40 children per female are required, and then the two that don't have any new mutations would have to find two others out of 40 with no new deleterious mutations. this would have to continue indefinitely.

U=5 (using the poisson distribution formula) would require every female to produce 297 children.

both of these numbers are beyond what is possible for human reproduction, and i think we both agree that every human female doesn't have 40 children, with 38 of them dying. therefore, evolution isn't possible.

the only argument that addressed the issue of birth requirements was based on an unsubstantiated theory of sex, and also required the functional genetic information in a human to be around 10%. it argued that sex swapped genes around, and that statistically most would land in the unused genome, but we now know that humans use almost all of our genome, rendering this explanation false.

reply to post by stereologist

Again, you need to take a basic biology course and fix some very basic issues.

[quote[So I guess all of the labs and those involved are all liars too. and all of the peer reviews that were in the workings was all a lie too. What exactly are you basing this on?

I already posted the evidence that Pye is a liar. No amount of unsubstantiated whining on your part counters that.

What you are saying is that everyone else is lying and you are the only one telling the truth, now I see what I'm up against here.

No. I thought I was being quite clear that you have no idea what is meant by evolution. You're absolutely clueless and should take an intro biology course.

Well was I wrong, something that creates over a billion species is NOT a creator? Evolution has never been witnessed, no one has ever watched a species change into another species, so its an assumption.

Science does not believe that. You are free to have your own definition, but do not confuse that with what science does.

Science ??? Meh, There is no science that has proven a species can even change into another species, thats science.

That has no bearing on the discussion. If you think it has some bearing then you really need to take a biology course when you get to high school.

You mean it has no bearing when it proves you wrong.

The starchild skull has been shown to be 100% human. You are misrepresenting the wikipedia article. Nowhere does it state that only 50% of the DNA was human. The DNA showed both an X and a Y chromosome. That's human and human.

Thats because that article was working off the old primer test, which would show it to be human. The old primer test can't show unknowns.

You need to go back to his site and read why, it sounds like you have fallen behind the times a tad, the old primer technique is way out dated.

The star child skull has been deemed an alien hybrid by Pye, Peers, and lab assistants.
star child project

There are those that will accept the idiocy from people like Pye without a second thought. They do this to buck anything they see as authority. They come up with stupendously nonsensical ideas like target foods. Further studies hope to find out why people do this although it appears to be connected to a refusal to learn rather than an inability to learn.

I have learned from the best source possible, people right here on ATS directing me to sites, that all say evolution has never been proven.

If you don't read the posts showing how completely wrong you are then how are you ever going to learn.

I have already posted how you were wrong about abalone. In the past I showed you were wrong about deer, squirrels, anteaters, and other life on Earth.

Well then you failed in your quest, because there isn't anything that is to be proven wrong. It's more like this is a challenge to you to prove something wrong but I haven't shared anything that can be proven wrong. An animals diet is their diet and thats it unless your bringing your faith into the picture.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


It's funny (not to mention ironic) how they always say the source material is biased when it does not conform to their current belief system.

reply to post by idmonster

The reason for not addressing the elephant in the room is due to not being able to see where the figures a derived. i mean, I can see where he got his numbers from, but the argument he extrapolates of 40 births per generation is based on a biased reading of the source material.

it's 40 births per individual female to maintain an equal population and genetic equilibrium. this assumes that the 38 other children die without reproducing and several other ideal conditions that don't reflect reality.

the science journal genetics states:

For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size.

This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher.

The genomic deleterious mutation rate is likely much larger given our estimate that 80% of amino acid mutations are deleterious and given that it does not include deleterious mutations in noncoding regions, which may be quite common

if you're wondering how U=3.1 is converted into 40 births, you can use a poisson distribution calculator. put the average rate of success as 1 and the random variable as 3.1, you should end up with .051% (the chance that a child will be born without any deleterious mutations) if you multiply this result by 40, you end up with 2.

if you're wondering how he got 3.1 instead of 1.6, it's because the evolutionists (being biased) fudged numbers and assumed the genome was smaller than it actually is, THEN they assumed natural selection removed 38% of the deleterious mutations (yes, they literally made the number up). farther down in their paper, they admit that when using the standard size genome, they arrived at U=3.1

other evolutionists have since done studies and found it may be as high as U=5

reply to post by itsthetooth

So what are you saying? It sounds like she has speciated?

Totally clueless and getting worse.

It's all in a bible, you should pick one up someday and see for yourself.

I have read that fictional account. It's a fairy tale.

Someone on ATS made this claim to me, I wanna say it was Barcs but not sure. /quote]
Not true. That was just more unsubstantiated rubbish it seems.

Well did I understand correctly that a species has never been witnessed changing into another species? Did I also understand correctly that there is no evidence that a species can change into another species?

Take that high school biology course.

Anyone with half a brain knows what happened here. Water was added to this planet. There is no way you could move such vast amounts of water from the ocean using natural causes. Supernatural powers were certainly at work. If you want to believe god flooded the planet like the bible says, its probably close. We do seem to have a close by planet missing a lot of water

So you resort to site well known for its lies.

Geologists admit that they do not know how the Grand Canyon formed

That is the first lie. It goes downhill from there. An easy to read intro is listed below.
www.nps.gov...

There are about 14 points that all say it was an abduction. You just don't know the first thing about this subject so its difficult for you to grasp and probably sounds like I'm just grasping at possibilities.

Abduction is one of the idiotic ideas ever. It makes no sense and has no supporting evidence.

What we do know is that it seems to be difficult for you to grasp the meaning of evolution. When you get that worked out things can move forward.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

OK, I get it you don't like people stating that the source material is biased. BTW pointing it out is not a logical fallacy.

now around .001 of mutations are beneficial (though the benefit they give is so ridiculously small, they can practically be thought of as neutral), but the problem for evolution is that the rate of deleterious mutations is somewhere between U=3 and U=5. U=5 is based off of more realistic parameters. U=3 assumes that all offspring with new mutations die without reproducing due to natural selection.

even if we take the value known to be false (U=3), 40 children per female are required, and then the two that don't have any new mutations would have to find two others out of 40 with no new deleterious mutations. this would have to continue indefinitely.

A little more research:

not only would it appear that figure U=3 wrong. Its based on the mutation rate of a per cell division and not on the "germ-line". I am getting a better idea of Fred's research techniques though.

Although the human per-generation mutation rate is exceptionally high, on a per-cell division basis, the human germline mutation rate is lower than that recorded for any other species.

Link

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

It's funny (not to mention ironic) how they always say the source material is biased when it does not conform to their current belief system.

edit on 21-1-2013 by vasaga because: (no reason given)

Not once have I said the source material is biased. I maintain that the interpretation of it is.

reply to post by itsthetooth

This is where you need to educate yourself on the title of books and know that the bible is prefaced as a supernatural book, thats not fiction, not non fiction, not fantasy, not sci fi.

No matter how you try to paint the book, the bible describes fictional events such as exodus, the flood, and genesis. Those things never happened. The evidence is quite clear. They are made up fairy tales. That is called fiction.

The bible is the ONLY book we have that holds this title, so your attempts to catagorize it with other books is completly false.

That is a silly argument. Bible means book. It's a book. The only difference between that and other books is people's unwillingness to test the stories in there like they would other stories. It's a book with the less than illustrious title of "book".

In other words we are human, we are the strongest, the best, the smartest and we know it all. I'm sorry but I don't share that point of view.

Irrelevant commentary unrelated to anything I stated.

You are wrong about scientists avoiding fiction and lies, as is mentioned in Mitochondrial Eve in wiki.
...
If you read this article you will notice there is something very important missing from its facts. They are making it obvious that they have mapped out the genome but they are witholding our true age. The only thing they are sharring is a common ancestor that dates back to 200,000 years ago. and this is a blow to the religious community as well as evolution because the time lines weren't matching up for homo erectus and homo sepiens.

However it appears that the mistake of not publising our true age was on purpose. It would appear that our true age out dates earth and as a result they couldn't dare publish it. They would look stupid and everyone would be wondering what in the hell it means. I'll tell you exactly what it means, we aren't from here and our lineage proves it.

You conclusion is so odd and off the mark and completely unrelated to the material you reference that you really need to take a basic course in biology.

Well your just going by the notion that evolution is dead on about how we progress or even digress on earth, but its not, and you have no proof.

Commentary unrelated to anything discussed.

It's a common sense fact, that if there is not balance, there will be death and extinction, just like we are having today.

Nonsensical stance based on nothing but your opinion.

Excuse me its suppose to be 98% not 99%.

In other words that number is just a number which has not been shown to be relevant to anything being discussed. You selected that number for no logical reason.

Apex predators do not survive extinctions. You have not shown your claim to be true by showing a definition.

On a balanced planet you would be correct, but your making that same assumption that scientists are which is why they are so baffled from our extinctions right now that all life thats here is from here and belongs here, and they are wrong.

Repeating mistakes simply shows a close minded unwillingness to learn.

Those classes as you call them still fail to produce reasons that explain why there is never an experimental stage, and also fail to explain how it is that species all choose the same food without teaching each other.

Evidencing your personal lack of knowledge through repeated posting of fallacies is good reason to tsake a course and learn.

They do within that diet. You never hear about a squirrel eating a dog or a cat or a cow as an example. They allready have a menu planned out.

I am the one that showed you were wrong about squirrel diets. I am the poster that showed you they eat meat. You denied that vehemently. Squirrels experiment with food. Squirrels do not have target foods as you showed yourself. Thanks for proving yourself wrong.

Answer the question, can a pregnant smoking woman change evolution?

First you need to learn what evolution means. That's step 1. How can I answer a question when you do not know the meanings of the words you write.

reply to post by itsthetooth

What you are saying is that everyone else is lying and you are the only one telling the truth, now I see what I'm up against here.

How can someone get so much wrong? I am saying that the evidence against has been posted and you simply disregard that evidence.

Well was I wrong, something that creates over a billion species is NOT a creator? Evolution has never been witnessed, no one has ever watched a species change into another species, so its an assumption.

Again you are clueless about the meaning of evolution despite dozens of posts by many posters. Evolution has been witnessed and the evidence posted in this thread. Evolution is not a creator. There is no creator. That is the realm of the creationist, not reality. Take that biology course.

Science ??? Meh, There is no science that has proven a species can even change into another species, thats science.

Evidence already posted showing you are wrong.

You mean it has no bearing when it proves you wrong.

Wrong again. It is irrelevant and based on your argument from personal ignorance. That's okay. Take that biology course.

The star child skull has been deemed an alien hybrid by Pye, Peers, and lab assistants.

Pye has never released any evidence. Thus it is an unsubstantiated claim and what we see of Pye we kow he is a teller of lies.

I have learned from the best source possible, people right here on ATS directing me to sites, that all say evolution has never been proven.

Repeating a lie does not change it from a lie.

reply to post by idmonster

i am afraid you misread. when someone says U=3, they're referring to the average amount of new deleterious mutations incurred at birth and added to the average total amount possessed by their parents, not mitosis, meiosis. sexual reproduction.

fred didn't do the research.

germline mutations occur in sex cells (which means they're passed on), i.e. sperm and eggs. it is dramatically higher in males and increases with age.

people with genetic mutations were studied so that the source could be traced, and a viable rate established.
www.pnas.org...
this paper, by james crow (an evolutionist) is a good read on mutations. i shall add a few quotes because it is lengthy and some parts are quite technical.

This seems like a large mutation load, even for flies, and would surely be an excessive load for the human population. Furthermore, it is likely that our total mutation rate is greater than that of flies. So, we have a problem.

i'm feeling pretty sick, so i'll have to come back to this later, sorry :/

reply to post by stereologist

No matter how you try to paint the book, the bible describes fictional events such as exodus, the flood, and genesis. Those things never happened. The evidence is quite clear. They are made up fairy tales. That is called fiction.

Where do you get fiction from? There isn't any part of the bible that claims to be fiction. The bible is a historical document.

Even among those scholars who adhere to biblical minimalism, the Bible is a historical document containing first-hand information on the Hellenistic and Roman eras, and there is universal scholarly consensus that the events of the 6th century BCE Babylonian captivity have a basis in history

bible wiki

That is a silly argument. Bible means book. It's a book. The only difference between that and other books is people's unwillingness to test the stories in there like they would other stories. It's a book with the less than illustrious title of "book".

I don't think we are talking about the same things. You seriously need a better historical education. There are supernatural things that happened in the bible, I want to know how YOU are going to test those things ??????

su·per·nat·u·ral
/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Adjective
(of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.


Noun
Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.


Synonyms
preternatural - unearthly - weird - miraculous

Supernatural google Once again as I have allready pointed out to you that it's Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. In other words you can't test them using our standards, so I would like to see you give it a go.

Irrelevant commentary unrelated to anything I stated.

You have taken a position where your claiming there isn't anything we don't know or understand.

I'm sorry but I always believe there is room for learning.

You conclusion is so odd and off the mark and completely unrelated to the material you reference that you really need to take a basic course in biology.

Ya I was way off which is why they even stated that we need to turn to new pioneering avenues to learn more about our existance.

Commentary unrelated to anything discussed.

What I'm saying is the ONLY reason you reject my claims is because you have a faith standing in the way.

Nonsensical stance based on nothing but your opinion.

Don't take my word for it, read the wiki about how we are in our 6th mass extinction looking at a loss of 98% of all life that we know of.

In other words that number is just a number which has not been shown to be relevant to anything being discussed. You selected that number for no logical reason.

The 99% yes the 98% was posted in the wiki, and I gave you the link to read it for yourself.

Apex predators do not survive extinctions. You have not shown your claim to be true by showing a definition.

True but no apex predator will go extinct from being at the top of the food chain.

Repeating mistakes simply shows a close minded unwillingness to learn.

Or are you in denial because I just explaine diversity and it doesn't match with evolution?

Evidencing your personal lack of knowledge through repeated posting of fallacies is good reason to tsake a course and learn.

Well since your claiming to be a the top of your class, please show me this experimental phase I keep asking for.

I am the one that showed you were wrong about squirrel diets. I am the poster that showed you they eat meat. You denied that vehemently. Squirrels experiment with food. Squirrels do not have target foods as you showed yourself. Thanks for proving yourself wrong.

At last, progress, yes squirrels do not have target food. I'm glad your seeing that now. Yes I know they eat meat, do you think for somereason that proves me wrong? It proves me correct. They are in phases of hunger as I have pointed out and you apparently suffer from selective amnesia.

First you need to learn what evolution means. That's step 1. How can I answer a question when you do not know the meanings of the words you write.

I'm going to take that as a yes. So by your own admission, smoking pregnant woman alter evolution and this is all part of the process I guess.

How can someone get so much wrong? I

reply to post by stereologist

How can someone get so much wrong? I am saying that the evidence against has been posted and you simply disregard that evidence.

Aside from wiki taking a satnce and sticking with their own version of what the skull is, there hasn't been anything else that has been shown to me about PYE or how he is a claimed liar.
I will say this much in his defence...
Pye has possesion of the skull, not wiki.
Pye paid to have it tested in several labratories, not wiki.
Pye was the one to recieve the results not wiki.

It's obvious that wiki just decided for some reason to make a personal claim about the skull.

Again you are clueless about the meaning of evolution despite dozens of posts by many posters. Evolution has been witnessed and the evidence posted in this thread. Evolution is not a creator. There is no creator. That is the realm of the creationist, not reality. Take that biology course.

The only difference in our two beliefs is I see intent and you ignore it and claim its just a process with no proof.

Evidence already posted showing you are wrong.

If you have evidence that a species can change into another species, your up for a prize.

Wrong again. It is irrelevant and based on your argument from personal ignorance. That's okay. Take that biology course.

Well since you seem to be at the top of your class I was searching for something online to show me a spceies can change into another species.

Pye has never released any evidence. Thus it is an unsubstantiated claim and what we see of Pye we kow he is a teller of lies.

I know, everyone else is wrong, and your right.

Repeating a lie does not change it from a lie.

Nope, but its a good way to ask for proof. Which I'm not seeing any of.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Where do you get fiction from? There isn't any part of the bible that claims to be fiction. The bible is a historical document.

It is a book that does not describe history. The events of the bible did not happen.
education.yahoo.com...

So you mention a few things that might have happened. I listed things that did not happen that are described in the bible. The fact that the bible is full of fiction certainly casts doubt on the rest.

en.wikipedia.org...

The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible, and that the story is best seen as theology, a story illustrating how the god of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, and not as history.

I don't think we are talking about the same things. You seriously need a better historical education. There are supernatural things that happened in the bible, I want to know how YOU are going to test those things ??????

There is no need to test the untestable. What can be tested is the claims of things like genesis. The 2 myths in genesis are wrong. Exodus never happened. The flood never happened. The fall back for creationists in lectures is to invoke some form of magic. And yes magic does cover the supernatural.

Once again as I have allready pointed out to you that it's Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. In other words you can't test them using our standards, so I would like to see you give it a go.

Your frivolous laughter simply shows that you can't even understand that magic covers the supernatural. Magic is the spoken magical incantations in genesis where things are created.

You have taken a position where your claiming there isn't anything we don't know or understand.

Never made such a claim.

What I'm saying is the ONLY reason you reject my claims is because you have a faith standing in the way.

Again a false claim.

Don't take my word for it, read the wiki about how we are in our 6th mass extinction looking at a loss of 98% of all life that we know of.

The number you have posted is in no substantiated by any claims you have made.

The 99% yes the 98% was posted in the wiki, and I gave you the link to read it for yourself.

You have shown no reason to select that number. Your position is irrational.

True but no apex predator will go extinct from being at the top of the food chain.

You need to take a biology course and learn why that is wrong.

Or are you in denial because I just explaine diversity and it doesn't match with evolution?

The issue is that you don't know what evolution means which makes your statements wrong.

Well since your claiming to be a the top of your class, please show me this experimental phase I keep asking for.

Deer constantly experiment with foods. Showed you that before.

At last, progress, yes squirrels do not have target food. I'm glad your seeing that now. Yes I know they eat meat, do you think for somereason that proves me wrong? It proves me correct. They are in phases of hunger as I have pointed out and you apparently suffer from selective amnesia.

Target foods is a nonsense claim for which you show no evidence and 100% you are shown to be wrong at which time you pull out another excuse. Squirrels have no target foods. Why? Because target foods is a failed idea.

I'm going to take that as a yes. So by your own admission, smoking pregnant woman alter evolution and this is all part of the process I guess.

This misrepresentation of other people's posts is a common issue with creationists. I have never been to a creationist lecture or conversed with a creationist that was not a teller of lies.

I made no admission. You claim I did. Well, that just shows how low you will stoop.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I will say this much in his defence...
Pye has possesion of the skull, not wiki.
Pye paid to have it tested in several labratories, not wiki.
Pye was the one to recieve the results not wiki.

Your defense of Pye is that he makes unsubstantiated claims and won't reveal tests? The 2 tests referenced in the wiki article show that Pye is wrong about his claims. Since Pye won't reveal the results it might be safe to assume that they are not in Pye's interest to reveal.

The only difference in our two beliefs is I see intent and you ignore it and claim its just a process with no proof.

That is why you are wrong. You see intent where there is none.

If you have evidence that a species can change into another species, your up for a prize.

Already posted several times in this thread.

Well since you seem to be at the top of your class I was searching for something online to show me a spceies can change into another species.

Already posted in this thread.

I know, everyone else is wrong, and your right.

I never made such a claim.

Nope, but its a good way to ask for proof. Which I'm not seeing any of.

Already posted in the thread.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


No Probs,

Enjoying the discussion, get well soon. Hopefully it wont evolve into anything serious

Originally posted by drakus
While I can understand that someone with a religious background may have some difficulty with abiogenesis, fact is, there aren't a lot of other SCIENTIFIC theories with enough evidence-weight to challenge it.
Even Panspermia needs for life to arise somewhere.

Because if life doesn't arises on itself it needs someone to do it. And that someone needs to be born. from someone else... and so on, and so on.

And the concept of a magical being saying "hoopla!" and kickstarting life is quite risible.

So while there are still many many mysterious details to discover, it is, for now, the most accurate theory we have.

Cheers

Yet you seem to ignore also the possibility of that "someone" - the First Cause - as Eternal - having NO Beginning and having No End. An Always Existing Self Sustaining Life Form. A Self Sustaining Life Form with the ability / capability to impart Life.

Otherwise the alternatives are:

1) Life spontaneously appeared from nothing - unscientific / impossible.

2) Nothing created something from nothing - nonsensical.

3) An infinite bottomless unending number creator of a creator of a creator...- stupid.

So to me the ONLY viable and logical explanation is:

Life is a result of creation by "someone" who Always Existed - a Self Sustaining Life form - God.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by drakus
While I can understand that someone with a religious background may have some difficulty with abiogenesis, fact is, there aren't a lot of other SCIENTIFIC theories with enough evidence-weight to challenge it.
Even Panspermia needs for life to arise somewhere.

Because if life doesn't arises on itself it needs someone to do it. And that someone needs to be born. from someone else... and so on, and so on.

And the concept of a magical being saying "hoopla!" and kickstarting life is quite risible.

So while there are still many many mysterious details to discover, it is, for now, the most accurate theory we have.

ETA.. The thread title is Science against evolution....Is it, if so how?

Cheers

Yet you seem to ignore also the possibility of that "someone" - the First Cause - as Eternal - having NO Beginning and having No End. An Always Existing Self Sustaining Life Form. A Self Sustaining Life Form with the ability / capability to impart Life.

Otherwise the alternatives are:

1) Life spontaneously appeared from nothing - unscientific / impossible.

2) Nothing created something from nothing - nonsensical.

3) An infinite bottomless unending number creator of a creator of a creator...- stupid.

So to me the ONLY viable and logical explanation is:

Life is a result of creation by "someone" who Always Existed - a Self Sustaining Life form - God.

edit on 21-1-2013 by edmc^2 because: un

Now that you have that off you chest, this thread is about claims that scientific methods have been used to prove evolution to be false.

We currently have tooth doing his usual thing of attempting to derail the thread with his fantasy, homebrew religion of TF. A couple of people trying to bait each other (from both sides) and a, so far quite rational debate breaking down the results of certain scientifc observations and methods used to see if they support the prooving or disproving of evolution.

You could take a look at the papers that have been posted and post for or against the evidence within, that would be good. But please dont drag this down to whether first life was by divine spark or natural causes, we've managed to avoid that unecassary spiral into madness and there are plenty of threads where you can discuss that aspect of how life became.