The Big Bang and Evolution

[omega2xx]

So you admit you are just a common, garden-variety TROLL.

Okay. I had already figured that out-- by your constant LYING, but it's good of you to be forthright about being just another religious troll

Those who can only insult lack the intellect to carry on a meaningful discussion. If you ae only here to insult instead of discuss, go back o the playground with the rest of the little children.

You're missing the point. It's not about what you or I know. You are claiming that the vast majority of scientists whose speciality is genetics and mutation, don't have a clue (as you put it) about their own subjects. That is an absurd claim.

I have made no such accusations. I posted a proven law of genetics that refutes evolution. I have said mutation are not a mechanism for a change of species. You can't offer even one example of a mutation being the cause for a change of species. To say it takes log periods of time is unproven, but necessary rhetoric that also can't be proven. Time will not change the laws of genetics.

ICR is a religiously motivated organization as their own core principles page makes clear.[/QUOTE]

It is not religiously motivated. It is scientifically motivated, with well qualified scientist, with PhD's, teaching experience and work experience in their fields.

Why Are you afraid to read what they say about mutations? They will put their reasons in proven science. That is more than "Talk Origins" does.


I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record...we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it---Stephen J. Gould.

 

[ratiocinator]

I have made no such accusations. I posted a proven law of genetics that refutes evolution.

Your second sentence makes a lie out of your first. The vast majority of scientists whose speciality is genetics and mutation do not agree that there is a "proven law of genetics" (a phrase that it unscientific in itself) that refutes evolution.

It is not religiously motivated. It is scientifically motivated...

Drivel. From their own core principles page:

• The Creator of the universe is a triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is only one eternal and transcendent God, the source of all being and meaning, and He exists in three Persons, each of whom participated in the work of creation.
• The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.
• ...

 

[omega2xx]

Your second sentence makes a lie out of your first. The vast majority of scientists whose speciality is genetics and mutation do not agree that there is a "proven law of genetics" (a phrase that it unscientific in itself) that refutes evolution.


Drivel. From their own core principles page:

Their theology does not play a part with their science. If you want to know their answer to something in the TOE, they will respond with science, not theology.


Mutations have no final evolutionary effect---Pierre-Paul Grassie

 

[ratiocinator]

Their theology does not play a part with their science.

Still choosing to ignore the main point that pretty much all the relevant scientists in the world agree about evolution, only a tiny minority disagree, and almost all of those (like ICR) have an obvious religious vested interest.

If you continue to claim that there is an obvious and simple problem with evolution contradicting some established science, then you need to explain how come most of the experts don't see it and only those with a religious vested interest do...

 

[metis]

It is not science, Thanks for admitting that. Time will not change the laws of genetics.

It's both science and common sense, and I wasn't referring to the "laws of genetics" but to genes themselves. In regards to the former, if what you say would be true, then genetics overwhelmingly would be opposed to the ToE-- but the opposite is true.

In anthropology, we rely heavily on what the geneticists analyze and tell us because that's not our area of expertise. Same is true when dating fossils, whereas we rely on experts in other fields to do that for us.

BTW, even though I'm old-- er, I mean mature-- I don't date fossils because I'm married.

 

[metis]

Mutations have no final evolutionary effect---Pierre-Paul Grassie

There is no such thing as a "final evolutionary effect" because evolution never stops-- at least as far as we can tell.

BTW, most Presbyterians that I know actually don't have a problem with accepting evolution as long as it's understood that God was behind it all.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Those who can only insult ...

I am happy to point out when someone is being a common TROLL.


It is not being insulting to say what is patently true: you, yourself admitted to being a common Troll. You refuse to follow a link, which proves beyond a doubt that you are lying.

That is one of the Hallmarks of a Troll. I followed your link, for example-- to discover it was just another Lying For Jesus website, by their own admission. They posted that they will re-word any and all information to fit their Bronze Age Superstition. Thus, they lie by telling part of the truth--well padded with lies, that twist the facts into the opposite of what they are.

But you are insulted.

That's so cute.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If science is so great then how come we use god-magic instead of science to make the internet work?

HUH? Answer that.

 

[omega2xx]

There is no such thing as a "final evolutionary effect" because evolution never stops-- at least as far as we can tell.

What he was saying, and he is an evolutionists, is that mutations have no final effect changing the species.

BTW, most Presbyterians that I know actually don't have a problem with accepting evolution as long as it's understood that God was behind it all.

There is at least 5 or 6 different Presbyterian denominations. The liberals ones will have not problem; the conservative ones will.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Those who can only insult....

Oh The Delicious Irony-- of the above post, immediately followed by the below quote:

... go back o the playground with the rest of the little children.

Nobody does hypocrite quite like a True Believer™

LMAO!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

ICR is a religiously motivated organization as their own core principles page makes clear.

which proves-- to 100% -- that they WILL LIE AS THEY SEE THE NEED -- to twist any and everything to match what they want to say in the first place.


I am surprised you admit that they are a Liar For Jesus website. This is progress.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

If science is so great then how come we use god-magic instead of science to make the internet work?

HUH? Answer that.

Indeed. The interwebs is proof that what god likes the most?

Are kittens. And porn, of course-- cannot forget porn.

 

[metis]

What he was saying, and he is an evolutionists, is that mutations have no final effect changing the species.

Scientifically and logically false, and if he actually believes that, he really needs to study genetics. See Evolution - Wikipedia and read section 3.1.

 

[omega2xx]

Scientifically and logically false, and if he actually believes that, he really needs to study genetics. See Evolution - Wikipedia and read section 3.1.

Talk is cheap, prove it. He is more knowledgeable in genetics than you will ever be. Cut and paste the evidence your link offers. Without reading i, I will predict it offers none.

 

[metis]

Cut and paste the evidence your link offers. Without reading i, I will predict it offers none.

And that's where the problem is, namely your unwillingness to read information that's provided, which you could have rather easily accessed with one little click of your mouse.

 

[metis]

He is more knowledgeable in genetics than you will ever be.

So, it I prove the information or an opinion from one theologian that disagrees with your belief in whatever, will you automatically cave in and accept the opinion of that one person? You know you won't, nor should you-- nor will I.

Some scientists, as well as some theologians, have an "agenda", and we especially see this happening when some theistically-inclined "experts" are so willing to distort and even lie to push their religious faith, and the Dover Trial case is an excellent example of just that. Behe and his "experts" were caught lying by the judge, and all of them except Behe fled to avoid possible prosecution for perjury.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Talk is cheap, prove it.

Says the poster who refuses to follow links-- and thereby does nothing BUT TALK.

My Irony Meter has a 50 amp fuse-- and it just blew

 

[omega2xx]

And that's where the problem is, namely your unwillingness to read information that's provided, which you could have rather easily accessed with one little click of your mouse.

I have read them for years. They never provide any evidence for what they say. If you think they do, you don't understand what constitutes evidence.. Hint" It ain't opinions

It is interesting that I have made the cut and paste evidence challenge in this forum for at least 3-4 months. Now I know all you evos would give your eye teeth to prove me worn, yet now one has accepted my challenge. Even a cave man with a low 2 digit I can figure out why---THE CAN'T.

 

[omega2xx]

So, it I prove the information or an opinion from one theologian that disagrees with your belief in whatever, will you automatically cave in and accept the opinion of that one person? You know you won't, nor should you-- nor will I.

As long as you quote conservative theologians on basic doctrines, you will not be able to do that.

Some scientists, as well as some theologians, have an "agenda", and we especially see this happening when some theistically-inclined "experts" are so willing to distort and even lie to push their religious faith, and the Dover Trial case is an excellent example of just that. Behe and his "experts" were caught lying by the judge, and all of them except Behe fled to avoid possible prosecution for perjury.

Where is you evidence they were Christians? There is no doubt Grasse is an evolutionists. I am not familiar with the trial you referenced, so I will do some research on it soon.

There is nothing wrong with having an agenda as long as the person stays truthful and does not embellish the evidence.

 

[ArtieE]

Their theology does not play a part with their science. If you want to know their answer to something in the TOE, they will respond with science, not theology.

LOL and if you want to know their answer to how old the Earth is, they will respond with science, not theology. Hint... they think the Earth is 6000 years old.