**
"You cannot conceive it, therefore it must be creation/design."
I can conceive, and have a passion for, gaming, probability and statistics. I saw a study excerpted, for example, that evolutionists recently concluded that the cecal appendix evolved independently at least 32 separate times in mammals. I see this as a unlikely-but-species-beneficial statistical event, now raised to the 32nd power. I know evolution has filters and works on principles that enhance and speed desirable traits, however...
You seem to be interested in it as far as using it to support your beliefs. I am a biologist and not much of a statistician, but I have had training in it and I use it regularly. I can talk to a statistician and understand them. What I see in your posts is not a strong grasp of statistics and probability. More of an interest to claim something about them, than to understand what it is you are trying to do with them.
...There are known beneficial mutations. Yes. Would you be willing to state at ReligiousForums what percentage of mutations is beneficial? Or can we cut to the chase and say, "Things operate so rapidly in the fossil record, there must be catalysts that are unknown, to speed these processes," statements I've read/seen heard from scientists? For example:
I do not know the percentage of beneficial mutations. It wold depend on the species, their environment, the selection pressure they have been under and many other factors. There may be some studies that have made attempts to estimate it in some population or other, but I do not know of any off the top of my head. I know that beneficial mutations exist, unlike your sources claim that they do not.
"It is now generally recognized that beneficial mutations are rare, and that high-impact beneficial mutations are extremely rare. In higher life forms where population sizes are modest, the mutation rate per nucleotide per generation is normally extremely low (about 10−8). This means that the waiting time for a specific nucleotide within single chromosomal lineage would be 100 million generations." -- source:
The waiting time problem in a model hominin population
From what I have learned and seen, beneficial mutations are rare, but keep in mind that a beneficial mutation is contingent upon it appearing in a place where it provides a benefit. In most people there would be no benefit to the sickle cell mutation unless there is the environmental presence of a high incidence of malaria.
Statements like the above prompt scientists to understand that one of the current gaps in evolution knowledge is life explosion/rapid speciation...
There are a lot of gaps in our knowledge of everything. That is why science has been developed, instituted and is practiced. So we can fill those gaps with tested knowledge.
I have evidence that God wrote the Bible.
You would be the first and only person in history. Let me say that I believe you think you do, but I do not believe you actually do.
Let me put it this way. I believe and have my reasons for believing. I can witness to another person, but I have no physical way of demonstrating the basis for my belief. If I said that I had a personal conversation with God, what evidence could I provide to demonstrate that with high confidence to another. Others might believe I do, but that is just showing faith in me and not evidence for the claim.
I'm pursuing you for evolution knowledge and to bridge gaps in my knowledge, but yes, I'm hesitant to pour out evidence to someone who does not ask for such evidence without an accompanying comment like "you are dishonest, since you ignore Bible errors".
What should you expect when you stated such an obviously incorrect statement that the "Bible is without error" when it is not.
We haven't discussed Bible accuracy or Bible errors, so why pre-judge?
See the answer to your previous statement.
Because I'm a creationist? That seems to be too generalizing for my taste.
I find that creationists make a lot of claims that they believe, but cannot back up. Since you refuse to supply the evidence, my conclusion must be based on the evidence I know and the experience I have. In all of history, no one has been able to demonstrate with evidence, that God exists or that God wrote the Bible. You want to talk about odds. What are the odds that I should randomly meet the one person that might actually be able to make that demonstration?
I do have other agendas, sure, like loving brothers and sisters. Jesus told us both, "The world will know you are mine if you have love, one for another." I love God, I love His Word. Why does that imply to you that I'm dishonest, unscrupulous?
You do not have to be intentionally unscrupulous or dishonest to promote a false agenda. You could merely be mistaken and do that. Your intention may be of the highest sort. That does not mean what you intend is not wrong and since all the evidence supports science here, the obvious answer is that you are wrong. Your presence here may be an attempt to learn if you have covered all your bases and are not dismissing science dogmatically. I do not know for certain. I do know what I read and there is a strong indication of bias that would lead me to conclude that the probability you are here for that reason is low. Not so low that I will not take a little time to converse with you, but low enough that I need more robust evidence against the conclusion to reject it.
That seems an unwarranted accusation.
It is more of an observation based on years of experience going down this same road and a careful reading of your posts and interactions with others. Perhaps it is not dishonesty that I am seeing, but zealous belief and desire that is driving bias and ignorance to achieve a personal goal that, while laudable as a goal, is going about it the wrong way or is the wrong goal to achieve.
Or put another way, are you able to restate that you worry about my fealty to Bible inerrancy because you love me?
My love for my fellow man to shake off dogma, ignorance and superstition, while understanding that they can maintain a strong belief in God is great.
But please do not tell me your love is conditional, for Jesus commanded Christians to love Christians.
Are you testing me for a "Gotcha" moment? This is where I start to lose faith in the person I am talking to. When it starts to look like the trap I suspected all along. If you wish to think of me as not a "true" Christian, you are free to. It will not weaken my faith or mean that the claim is true.
I accept you at your word that you are Christian. I have no way to test that nor an interest in testing it. It does not mean that you cannot be wrong or that your desire to be the bestest Christian you can might not cloud and bias your position on some subject, such as evolution.
I thought you did not want to discuss religion here? Is this one of those examples where you are being honest/but wrong?
