tas8831
Well-Known Member
Shouldn't you know? You brought it up...
-
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!
Evidence For And Against Evolution
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Shouldn't you have provided evidence that less fitness means the less fit individuals die and do not reproduce in a single generation? I didn't see it. Shouldn't you have shown that is how chimps and humans evolved? I didn't see that explanation. You just asserted a contrived scenario as fact.
What is fitness? How do genes become fixed in the population? Please explain all that to me.
We can add double standard to your list of creationist tactics.
Last edited:
How can you honestly say you do not know it, when you claim yours is the best explanation?
You claim that your explanation of ID is better, but you won't support that. Now you are claiming you don't even know the explanations you claim your explanation is superior to. That doesn't make any sense.
False witness is a sin. Agree? Yes or no?
leroy
Well-Known Member
It is more than obvios that you don't understand the context of the conversation.
The claim is that 5M years is not enough to explain the difference between chimps and humans, assuming random mutations and natural selection as the main sources of change.
The scenario that I described earlier is simply the best possible scenario to maximice the speed of evolution, and the point is that even under that scenario you can't explain such a rapid evolution in quite a short amount of time.
More info
Haldane's dilemma has not been solved - creation.com
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
No, I said it is the only scientific explanation for NH. I never said anything about it being "better than God did it", which again is impossible since common ancestry falls within the category of "things God can do".
I'll repeat this one more time, and if you don't get it this time around we can just finish. Gods, by definition, can do absolutely everything. Therefore, there cannot be an alternative explanation to "God did it". Therefore, it is impossible to provide an alternative to "God did it", which renders the question of it being better or worse moot.
leroy
Well-Known Member
The article says what I said it does, feel free to prove me wrong
Last edited:
That has already been done. Did you conveniently miss that?
A passing grade in freshman, general science does not make you a scientist. Agree? Yes or no?
When we all tire of his game, he can pretend he argued 'evolutionists' to a standstill. Which, dishonest as it is, is the only victory there is for a creationist in the controversy they manufactured to begin with.
leroy
Well-Known Member
No, I don't know which is the existing for FT that you accept
I understand what you are doing. Just as I understand a drowning man will grasp at any straw.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Ok, another assertion, are you going to support it?
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
True, but only to himself.
Fine by me. If all they have are self-declared victories in religious-themed internet forums, all I can say is.....
How can you claim to provide the best explanation when you now claim not to know the existing explanation in svience?
Is dishonesty a creationist value? Agree? Yes or no?
So you think that getting a D in general science makes you a scientist?
Last edited:
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Did you read the original paper in Nature? All of it?
Because if you did, you would know that not all echolocators have identical mutations.
That is the only victory I have ever seen. ID fails in science. It fails in education. It fails in the courts.True, but only to himself.
Fine by me. If all they have are self-declared victories in religious-themed internet forums, all I can say is.....
The only place it survives is in the minds of creationists and they have to bear false witness to keep it alive.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
And that is a bogus claim as I have explained to you like 4 times already.
How can you know it is too few if you cannot explain:
1. What traits the common ancestor had
2. How many fixed, beneficial mutations must be required to get human traits from this ancestor (whose traits you cannot identify or explain)
You mean what you plagiarized from a silly YEC hack?