I'm sorry, but that is downright hilarious. I am sure others will see the humor in your use of the word "pontificate"....
.....and in your attempt to quote that particular scripture.....
That's your hubris speaking, nothing more.
No one is saying that science hasn't contributed much in our understanding of the natural world. When it looks at the here and now, it is dealing with the real world as it is. Marvelous things have been studied and we all benefit from their amazing discoveries. But when science goes into unchartered territory, into the distant past, with a broken compass, its 'due north' is actually pointing 'due south'. With that kind of perspective, how could it ever reach proper conclusions?
How would you know, you don't know how to read the compass (to use your analogy).
If the first premise is flawed, everything you build on it will be flawed as well. This is what I see.....you can see whatever way you wish.
But all that has been shown to be flawed are your mistaken and unsupported claims.
Another hilarious cover up. "Respectful science speak" or the language of "I don't know, so I'll fudge it until I can think up a better explanation". It is a ruse to cover up the fact that you have no real facts. You have manufactured facts....but nothing you can actually prove. Why is that so hard to admit? I think we know.
You don't even speak the language, you have no way to judge.
If they have been "shown"...then show them to us. We know that negative mutations have a way of eliminating themselves, but where can we see positive mutations being demonstrated? If all science can come up with are four good mutations that have not spread into the general community, then I think we can see how many straws you guys try to grasp in your attempt to sound "scientific".
Where are all these supposedly beneficial mutations? They are assumed, not proven to have ever existed.
Every allele in your body is the net result of a series of beneficial mutations, that's way more than just the 38,000 to 50,000 alleles currently in your body, the simplest know organisms have about 1000 alleles, that means, at a bare minimum (assuming that individuals single point mutations were in all cases totally responsible for the change) that there were 37,000 such beneficial mutations.
What is the "goo to you" process and how are positive gene mutations demonstrated in this?
You'll have to be more specific about this point.
See above.
Another statement that brings a smile.....others will know why.
While you smile, most everyone else is laughing at you.
So ner nerny ner ner....
Your claim is ridiculous. Evolution is not built on cholesterol levels, bone density in one specific family in one isolated location, resistance to malaria, or the ability to see enhanced color. Try again.
That was not the question, the claim you made was exposed as horse puckey. Here, have a another smile on me whilst further cementing the surety of you ignorance or lies:
I showed that your claim, "... they are just an assumption" is, as usual, demonstrably false, just more of your usual jabber that does not hold up to minor scrutiny. This is also a clear demonstration of your typical tactics, you never admit that you are wrong, that you have misstated, try to shift the attention to something else pretending that your ignorance or lie (I'll be generous, take your pick) were not exposed.
Evolution is, in fact, built on just those sorts of changes. If, over time, they provide sufficient advantage they are fixed in the genome and become part of the standard equipment.
You have no proof....that is what you evolutionists keep telling me....so where does that leave you?
Your elaborate castle is built on sand IMO.....
We all know that and we all know that you bring no expertise to bear to evidence any value to your opinion.
Those images connect straight to the brain via a different set of wiring....the wiring was designed to transmit those images at a level we can more easily understand. When you have complex speech that not everyone understands, it is easy to get away with so much....as we have seen.
I am happy to agree with the idea that your thought process are the result of a different wiring job.
The watch has a designer and maker and is replicated by a largely mechanical process......the tiger is self replicating.....but it has always been a tiger. The cat family has much variety in size, shape, color and habitats....but they are all felines and all reproduce "according to their kind". It is an assumption they have a common ancestor....not a fact. Science has no way of knowing that any member of the cat family was a common ancestor of the present species. They cannot prove that all these varieties were not individually created to be just as they are. They cannot prove that early cats were not part of the yame process. Its all in the interpretation of the "evidence".
Here's where your wiring goes awry: "but it has always been a tiger." There is plenty of evidence that you are wrong and none that you are right.
You read what you want to read and see what you want to see.....so do we all. Don't pretend that you have proof for any of your claims when we all know that you don't. All you have is science's reputation to back up your story....but what if science's reputation was shown to be undeserved and unreliable....a sham built on unsubstantiated fake evidence? That would be a great blow to people like you wouldn't it?
You have a lot to lose in this argument.
Proof, no. You have no proof either. But when it comes to evidence ... I have it all and you have none.
If you understand that the human immune system is designed to keep out all invaders, then it should work at peak capacity to prevent illnesses of any sort from even beginning. What humans have done to contaminate the environment (largely thanks to science) has happened only in the last 100 hundred years that science has been experimenting with its capacity to destroy the planet one way or another. People have been getting sick, getting old and dying since they were created.
You likely do not realize that actual and potential life span and actual and potential length of fertility are both subject to the evolutionary processes that mold each species as well as to environmental processes.
Science has also discovered in this last 100 years that there is no discernible reason for the aging process in humans. Theoretically, human cell reproduction and replacement should continue on indefinitely, but for some inexplicable reason, it stops doing its job and we begin to age and eventually die.
Once again you have no idea of what you are bloviating about.
There are several hypothesis:
1. Genes determine termine how long we live. We have a gene or some genes that tell our body how long it will live. If you could change that particular gene, we could live longer.
2. Over time, our body and our DNA get damaged until we can no longer function properly. How long we last is really just a consequence of small changes in our DNA. These changes add up until the total amount of damage is too much to bear and we die.
3. Mitochondrial DNA plays a major role in aging. As mtDNA becomes more and more damaged, the mitochondria cannot produce energy as well and become dysfunctional.
4. Cells can divide only a certain number of times because telomeres that get shorter with each division. When they run out, the cell dies.
Science can tell us 'how' the process works...but not 'why' cell replacement slows down and eventually ceases.
Above I discussed the "how," but the "why" is far simpler. There is an optimal life and fertility span that maximizes genetic representation in succeeding generations. That's plain old simple Darwinian evolution,
The Bible explains why. It also explains why we have a collective desire to go on living, despite the fact that we know death is inevitable....and why age is a state of body, not necessarily a state of mind.
There are libraries full of papers that clearly falsify your claims.
The 'character assassination' is not 'genocidal' just because someone puts science under its own microscope. You just don't want to face what has been exposed.
Your character assasination of all of science can hardly be described otherwise.
From a practical perspective there is nothing better that exposing errors, but there is nothing worse than wasting everyone's time with simply falsified and thus trivial claims.
That science is questioned at all is an affront to people like you. As we see from your avatar, accolades from others in your community are very important for your status in it. Your accumulated knowledge, if it is built on a false premise to begin with, is worth what then? Not much as far as I can see. It is simply error built on error.
Actually criticism from my community is way more important to me that accolades. That's how I refine my conclusions. You don't understand this and interpret everything through your myopia and the rather narrow window that you view the world through, and you wrongly assume that everyone else is motivated by the same things you are.
A magnificent house of cards.....but I believe its collapse is inevitable.
Falling at the feet of science is the worshipping of human intellect, which the Creator will soon show you has led you all willingly down the wrong path. It is a futile exercise trying to show egos a simple truth, so I will just expose the weak foundation upon which evolution is built and allow the readers here to make up their own minds.
In almost 4,500 posts you have failed, utterly, to expose anything save your ignorance, which you strive to brag about. Enough is enough.
Inference is not fact.
