A Challenge To All Creationists

[Jose Fly]

It is not false and you example is phony.

Another "because I say so" empty assertion from you.

It is amazing how many of you evo think an virus remaining a virus is evidence of evolution. Evolution REQUIRES a change of species. Even is some survive the genes will not change. Even if the change is cause d by a mutation, the virus may have blue eyes instead of brown eyes, but the species will reamain exactly the same.

Nice try, but remember your original claim "the characteristic MUST BE IN THE GENE POOL OF THE PARENTS". Your dishonesty in moving the goalposts is noted.

Not only that some of the viruses may have had a resistance to the anti-biotic, or they would have all died. and evolution takes to long to help them

First, E. coli are bacteria, not a virus.

Second, the entire point of the experiment using a single-clone strain is to demonstrate that the trait could not have already been present. All the individuals in the population are descended from a single individual that we know does not have the resistance trait.

Your fundamental ignorance of basic biology is also noted.

 

[McBell]

No, that's you. It makes absolutely no sense to me why you are harping on this. It's bizarre.

Diversion.
Now the fun part is figuring out what he wants the attention away from.

 

[Reggie Miller]

I disagree,

Yeah, I know.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Direct evidence? Sure -- bring it on! I'm interested. Once I see it, I'll figure out how it can be tested to be what it says it is, and if it works, I promise you I will believe.

Eyewitness accounts from people who were there. The New Testament.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Eyewitness accounts from people who were there. The New Testament.

Almost none of which is actually "eyewitness," just for starters. If you are presenting this as "direct evidence," then trust me, I have studied it in perhaps considerably more depth than you have (though from a different point of view, obviously).

I know, for an absolute certainty, that you will not even look at anything I refer to, but if you'd like to begin understanding (you don't) how the NT was created, this is a good place to start. Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia

It is enough for me to say for now that Mark, Matthew and Luke never actually met Jesus (and are therefore categorically NOT eyewitnesses), and John was written by somebody who is actually unidentified (other than "the apostle Jesus loved") but far too late to be by anybody in Jesus' intimate circle. Not to mention, John actually disagrees with pretty much everything that the Synoptic Gospels say, which should also tell you something.

But no, I have looked deeply into what you call "direct evidence," and found it to be nothing of the kind, as have most textual scholars. Many people write things down. Tolkien wrote about Hobbits and Elves, but never met one. Homer wrote about Cyclopes and Circe, who never existed. Shakespeare created Othello and Iago, but they're entirely fictionally (although MUCH better written than the Bible). If you intend to provide "direct evidence," you're going to have to do better than that.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Almost none of which is actually "eyewitness," just for starters. If you are presenting this as "direct evidence," then trust me, I have studied it in perhaps considerably more depth than you have (though from a different point of view, obviously).

I know, for an absolute certainty, that you will not even look at anything I refer to, but if you'd like to begin understanding (you don't) how the NT was created, this is a good place to start. Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia

It is enough for me to say for now that Mark, Matthew and Luke never actually met Jesus (and are therefore categorically NOT eyewitnesses), and John was written by somebody who is actually unidentified (other than "the apostle Jesus loved") but far too late to be by anybody in Jesus' intimate circle. Not to mention, John actually disagrees with pretty much everything that the Synoptic Gospels say, which should also tell you something.

But no, I have looked deeply into what you call "direct evidence," and found it to be nothing of the kind, as have most textual scholars. Many people write things down. Tolkien wrote about Hobbits and Elves, but never met one. Homer wrote about Cyclopes and Circe, who never existed. Shakespeare created Othello and Iago, but they're entirely fictionally (although MUCH better written than the Bible). If you intend to provide "direct evidence," you're going to have to do better than that.

Approx. 2.2 billion people believe it. But I guess you're smarter than them. And the many theologians who believe it.

 

[McBell]

Approx. 2.2 billion people believe it. But I guess you're smarter than them. And the many theologians who believe it.

Appeal to popularity fallacy only makes you look desperate.
Or foolish.
Or both.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Approx. 2.2 billion people believe it. But I guess you're smarter than them. And the many theologians who believe it.

And approximately 5 billion people do not. How does that support your argument?

Edited to add: Along with the many Muslim theologians who don't believe it?

 

[savagewind]

Appeal to popularity fallacy only makes you look desperate.
Or foolish.
Or both.

From someone @Reggie Miller who supposedly has taken to heart as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth FirstJohn 5:19. "the whole world is under the control of the evil one."

 

[savagewind]

.....and the story of Noah. I am referring to a whole world except for one man was wrong.

 

[Ganondorf]

They cannot. Genetics only control the characteristics of the offspring and the characteristic MUST BE IN THE GENE POOL OF THE PARENTS. No gene for fins, no kid with fins.

Evolution operates at a population level, so it's unclear how your comment refutes anything. More importantly, how is that relevant to using genetic comparisions to categorize human among apes?

Man made pictures are not evidence, especially when made by an evolutionists with an agenda.

That "man made picture" is backed up by peer-reviewed papers,
like this one about the comparison gorilla genome with that of chimps and humans:
Insights into hominid evolution from the gorilla genome sequence : Nature : Nature Research

It is irrelevant if man does not know the origin of language, apes don't have that ability and their is no known way they could have gotten it. If he pathway is not known, it is your assertion that is bold.

It's relevant because you have to put the holes of an explanation in perspective. Since there is genetic (the aforementioned nested hierarchy) and paleontological evidence [1] for human-chimp relatedness and science is always incomplete, it's reasonable to suppose (until evidence for the contrary) the possibility that speech evolved even if the pathway is still unknown.

If you don't understand why, I can't help you. iwhat you want. If you can't explain how apes acquired the ability to speak, the classification premise is wrong.

Sorry, classification doesn't work like that. You can't focus on differences while disregarding humans having more traits in common with great apes than with any other groups. Read up on the concept of autapomorphy.


[1] evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_07

 

[omega2xx]

Another "because I say empty assertion from you.

I say so, you say it is not. Why criticize med when you do the exact same thing?

Nice try, but remember your original claim "the characteristic MUST BE IN THE GENE POOL OF THE PARENTS". Your dishonesty in moving the goalposts is noted.

Your ignorance of genetics has made the goal post so wide any guess will get through.

First, E. coli are bacteria, not a virus.

Irrelevant. You don't even understand the concept---what ever they were they remained the same species-. Do you really not understand that evolution requires a change of species? How sad.

econd, the entire point of the experiment using a single-clone strain is to demonstrate that the trait could not have already been present. All the individuals in the population are descended from a single individual that we know does not have the resistance trait.

You cant know that. When is used the anti-boitic one the sample the first time, if all do not die, some already had the resistence to the anti-biotic. Otherwise all would have died, and evolution would take much to long to come to the rescue of the rest of them

Your fundamental ignorance of basic biology is also noted.

YAWN. You don't even know enough biology to recognize I know more than you do. I look for evidence, and evaluate it. you accept by faith alone whatever doctrines your preachers preach.

 

[omega2xx]

Evolution operates at a population level, so it's unclear how your comment refutes anything. More importantly, how is that relevant to using genetic comparisions to categorize human among apes?

Evidently you don't have a clue about the function of genetics. Let me says it slowly for you: the gene pool of the parents determine ALL of the characteristics of the offspring. If the parents of packicetus do not have THE gene for a blowhole they will never have a kid with a blowhole. If they don't have the gene for fins, they will neveR have a kid with fins. It is GENETICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

That "man made picture" is backed up by peer-reviewed papers,
like this one about the comparison gorilla genome with that of chimps and humans:
Insights into hominid evolution from the gorilla genome sequence : Nature : Nature Research



It's relevant because you have to put the holes of an explanation in perspective. Since there is genetic (the aforementioned nested hierarchy) and paleontological evidence [1] for human-chimp relatedness and science is always incomplete, it's reasonable to suppose (until evidence for the contrary) the possibility that speech evolved even if the pathway is still unknown.



Sorry, classification doesn't work like that. You can't focus on differences while disregarding humans having more traits in common with great apes than with any other groups. Read up on the concept of autapomorphy.


[1] evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_07

 

[omega2xx]

Evolution operates at a population level, so it's unclear how your comment refutes anything. More importantly, how is that relevant to using genetic comparisions to categorize human among apes?

That "man made picture" is backed up by peer-reviewed papers,
like this one about the comparison gorilla genome with that of chimps and humans:
Insights into hominid evolution from the gorilla genome sequence : Nature : Nature Research

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7388/full/nature10842.html

Wonderful. Now instead of a picture, present the scientific evidence they use to make their case.

It's relevant because you have to put the holes of an explanation in perspective. Since there is genetic (the aforementioned nested hierarchy) and paleontological evidence [1] for human-chimp relatedness and science is always incomplete, it's reasonable to suppose (until evidence for the contrary) the possibility that speech evolved even if the pathway is still unknown.

You have to fill in the holes with scientifically proven science. There is none to link humans with apes. You have just admitted there are holes. As long as ther are, you can make the connection. If you really understood DNA, you would understand that different DNA, no matter how similar, separates the species, not link them together.

Sorry, classification doesn't work like that. You can't focus on differences while disregarding humans having more traits in common with great apes than with any other groups. Read up on the concept of autapomorphy.

I know but it should. It does until they need to tweek the classification to fit their preconceived ideas. If you think having 2 eyes, arms, 2 legs 2 ears, one nose and one head is enough to link apes and humans you have drunk the evo kool ade.


[1] evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_07

 

[Shad]

Eyewitness accounts from people who were there. The New Testament.

Which is a theological position not an academic one.

 

[omega2xx]

Which is a theological position not an academic one.

Being an eye witness is not a theological position or an academic position.. The are written statement by honest men that you can't falsify.

 

[Shad]

Being an eye witness is not a theological position or an academic position.. The are written statement by honest men that you can't falsify.

Yet the academic position is that the authors were not eyewitnesses. Evidence is the language used, the writing style, the contradiction between gospels and the mistakes in the gospels. You are holding a theological position, nothing more.

 

[omega2xx]

Yet the academic position is that the authors were not eyewitnesses. Evidence is the language used, the writing style, the contradiction between gospels and the mistakes in the gospels. You are holding a theological position, nothing more.

Name 2 or 3 or 4 of your best examples of mistakes between the gospels. Is there not a chance you don't have enough understanding to see there are none?

 

[Shad]

Name 2 or 3 or 4 of your best examples of mistakes between the gospels. Is there not a chance you don't have enough understanding to see there are none?

Bloodline, childhood, census, birth place, birth date, virgin birth, resurrection account and slaughter of innocents.

 

[omega2xx]

Bloodline, childhood, census, birth place, birth date, virgin birth, resurrection account and slaughter of innocents.

Be specific. An event not being mentioned in every gospel is not a contradiction or an error.