TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
None of your strawmen matter to the point that if 2 individuals share an identical ERV, it means that they share an ancestor in which that ERV formed.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
What you refuted was a strawman of evolution.
Back to the point at hand: if 2 individuals share an identical ERV, it means they share an ancestor in which the initial infection that created the ERV happened.
No, strawman nonsense about dogs does not refute any theories in other fields like abiogenesis or cosmology.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Or God did it.
The Beneficial Functions of Endogenous Retroviruses
The list of beneficial functions for Endogenous Retroviruses continues to grow. ERVs also promote healthy immune responses—another creationist confirmation.
answersingenesis.org
Were Retroviruses Created Good?
Rather than being added on during evolution by accident, some endogenous retroviruses must have been incorporated into the initial design of eukaryotic life.
answersingenesis.org
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
There's a law in evolutionary biology called the laws of monofyly.
It basically says that species can not and will not outgrow their ancestry.
Meaning that any type of life will always produce more of its own and variants (subspecies) thereof.
Eukaryotes produce more eukaryotes or subspecies thereof
Chordates produce more chordates or subspecies thereof
Tetrapods produce more tetrapods or subspecies thereof.
Mammals produce more mammals or subspecies thereof.
Primates produce more primates or subspecies thereof.
Great apes produce more Great apes or subspecies thereof.
Humans produce more humans or subspecies thereof
Descendents of humans, in other words, will still be humans, great apes, primates, mammals, tetrapods, chordates and eukaryotes.
In other words: "kind produce more of its kind" is correct and does not contradict evolution theory.
In fact, if "kind" would NOT produce more of its "kind", evolution would be disproven
See, this is why you should inform yourself on the stuff you wish to argue against.
Because at this point, you are so ignorant of the subject at hand that the evidence you demand to see to supposedly support it, would in fact disprove it.
You didn't see that one coming, did you?
No. It's just a strawman.
As explained above, if "one kind" would evolve into "another kind" evolution would be disproven
No. You refuted a strawman.
Ironically, your supported actual evolution by acknowledging that what we observe actually fits the predictions of the theory.
Funny that, ha?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Only if he went out of his way to deceive people into thinking that evolution occurred by planting false evidence.
Because, again, if 2 individuals share an identical ERV, it means they share an ancestor in which that infection created said ERV.
I'm not interested in lying propaganda sites that pretend to have the answers before even asking the question.The Beneficial Functions of Endogenous Retroviruses
The list of beneficial functions for Endogenous Retroviruses continues to grow. ERVs also promote healthy immune responses—another creationist confirmation.
Were Retroviruses Created Good?
Rather than being added on during evolution by accident, some endogenous retroviruses must have been incorporated into the initial design of eukaryotic life.
Ken Ham of answers in genesis once "debated" Bill Nye (the science guy).
During the Q&A, they were asked an interesting question. A question of which the answer shows their intellectual honesty and integrity (or lack thereof).
You are welcome to side with the intellectually dishonest and closed minded side, off course.
But please, don't pretend as if it is anything but intellectually dishonest and closed minded.
Last edited:
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
The old circular reasoning fallacy.
Sorry but God Almighty can do all things.
Time cannot.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
The good old broken record.
There's nothing circular about the fact that if 2 individuals share identical erv's, it means they share ancestors in which those ERV's formed.
Just like there is nothing circular about the fact if you have a scar of a shark bite, it means you were once attacked by a shark.
Just like there is nothing circular about the fact that if your car is smashed, it means it was involved in a crash.
Just like there is nothing circular about the fact that if your house looks like this:
it means there was a fire there.
However, if you are going to claim that the contractor has build it like that, then it is perfectly sensible to say that it was build to look like as if it was burned down.
But yeah.............. since you sport links to answers in genesis.... I guess we shouldn't be surprised that you sport the same levels of intellectual dishonesty as its owner Ken Ham
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
And all are descended from Adam and Eve, and from Noah and his wife.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Nope. On the other hand, circular reasoning is blatantly and openly ('statements of faith' etc.) employed by creationists.
Matthew 7:5
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
That was for unbelievers who did not believe that Jesus Christ was God Almighty who created all things in 6 days about 6000 years without evolution.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
You seem to be doing a lot of judging here....
They're all doing fine. Biblical creationism, however, is on life support.
"Kind" has no meaning in science. It appears that all life descended from a single population of cells.
That's debunked mythology.
You've convinced nobody.
Sure it is. And before that, they descended from nonhuman forms to gradually transform into human"kind."
Refute what? You haven't made an argument yet. You make claims like all of the above, and they're all wrong. Furthermore, there is no burden of proof except with another critical thinker who one wishes to convince. You're a biblical creationist. You've decided to believe your Bible, and nothing can move you from that position however wrong, which is why I don't bother to try. No critical thinker can modify your beliefs, nor can you modify theirs. Why? His currency for belief is sound conclusion. The creationist has no standard for belief apart from one chosen arbitrarily and which defines how he will view the evidence he sees thereafter.
Notice that I merely correct your errors without counterargument. I only make claims to you myself, and really, they're not for you, because they can't benefit you in any way.
Last edited:
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
What was the first living thing made of? Was it DNA? Was it RNA? Was it just proteins? Was it some mix?
What was its code? How many amino acids did it have? When did it come into being?
How many kinds of proteins did it have? How many of each?
Where did it come into being? In space? In the atmosphere? In the ocean? In a tide pool?
In clay or mud? What protected it from UV rays? What was the composition of the atmosphere at that time?
If it was in water, how did the amino acids keep from being dissipated by the water?
What was the energy source for these reactions?
Where there any enzymes in it? Which ones? Certain required reactions need enzymes as catalysts. If not, the reaction may take a vast number of years. Surely the primitive thing could not last more than a minute much less than many years.
How did it survive? Where did the protective layer come from? What was the protected layer? How did that part get reproduced?
How was it able to divide itself? The protective layer must also divide and then close.
What was its food source? How did it remove waste? How did it repair itself? How did these things move in and out of the protective layer since they must be gated.
Please explain how it was ever able to reproduce itself.
Projection outside of measured or observed ranges is pseudo science.
And they only observation is that created kind produces created .
So it is pseudo science to project that adaptation within created kind (microevolution) proves one kind evolving into another (macroevolution).
And the analogy of a spring is quite good.
The force required to stretch a spring is given by the equation F=kx. But when the spring is stretch and breaks the equation is invalid.
There are no super giant dogs because any changes beyond a certain point break the spring.
This is observed in all species.
And this is not just limited to other traits,
They have been breading horses for vey many years and yet, there is a limit on their speed and endurance.
I just refuted macro evolution forever.
Big Bang theory wrong? Star older than Universe discovered
THE Big Bang theory has been thrown into question after scientists discovered a star which appears to be older than the Universe itself – and it could lead to a “scientific crisis”.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
What was the first living thing made of? Was it DNA? Was it RNA? Was it just proteins? Was it some mix?
What was its code? How many amino acids did it have? When did it come into being?
How many kinds of proteins did it have? How many of each?
Where did it come into being? In space? In the atmosphere? In the ocean? In a tide pool?
In clay or mud? What protected it from UV rays? What was the composition of the atmosphere at that time?
If it was in water, how did the amino acids keep from being dissipated by the water?
What was the energy source for these reactions?
Where there any enzymes in it? Which ones? Certain required reactions need enzymes as catalysts. If not, the reaction may take a vast number of years. Surely the primitive thing could not last more than a minute much less than many years.
How did it survive? Where did the protective layer come from? What was the protected layer? How did that part get reproduced?
How was it able to divide itself? The protective layer must also divide and then close.
What was its food source? How did it remove waste? How did it repair itself? How did these things move in and out of the protective layer since they must be gated.
Please explain how it was ever able to reproduce itself.
Projection outside of measured or observed ranges is pseudo science.
And they only observation is that created kind produces created .
So it is pseudo science to project that adaptation within created kind (microevolution) proves one kind evolving into another (macroevolution).
And the analogy of a spring is quite good.
The force required to stretch a spring is given by the equation F=kx. But when the spring is stretch and breaks the equation is invalid.
There are no super giant dogs because any changes beyond a certain point break the spring.
This is observed in all species.
And this is not just limited to other traits,
They have been breading horses for vey many years and yet, there is a limit on their speed and endurance.
I just refuted macro evolution forever.
Big Bang theory wrong? Star older than Universe discovered
THE Big Bang theory has been thrown into question after scientists discovered a star which appears to be older than the Universe itself – and it could lead to a “scientific crisis”.www.express.co.uk
[click]
You have no argument, just a Gish gallop of irrelevant questions that you then assert prove your claims that the science that contradicts your literalist religious beliefs has been falsified by that wall of empty words. This is why you don't get a rebuttal from me. You didn't pay attention to the last comment I made to you. Nothing written to you has any effect on your thinking. You just repeat yourself like that broken record illustrated below. One wonders how that serves you.
No kidding. He brings these lyrics to mind from a Dylan song:
When all the clowns that you have commissioned
Have died in battle or in vain
And you're sick of all this repetition
Won't you come see me, Queen Jane?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
That post was so scientifically insightful.
Thanks
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
The point is that the actual context supports my claim that the language about deity that is used by Christianity is ambiguous. This ambiguity is the foundation of false doctrine like the doctrine of the Trinity.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Your conclusion is based on the assumption that the popular interpretations of the Bible are reasonable ones. This is not the case because popular interpretations are driven by religious doctrine rather than by analysis of the language used in the text itself.
A consistent interpretation requires the use of unambiguous language, not terms like "god".
I did, it was about a remedy for loss of property.
No, it's about justice and equity.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
There's no reason to think that you know what "rational moral reasoning" actually is.