The Battle Between The Christian Religion and Science

[omega2xx]

This might prove illuminating....
https://www.geneticliteracyproject....ry-stagnation-gives-strong-support-to-darwin/

Post the evidence they posted or admit they had none.

 

[omega2xx]

Then you deserve an academy award for the acting you have done thus far on RF.

Though i suspect you are merely lying.

I don't suspect, I KNOW you can't produce one thing in the TOE that has been proven scientifically. All you are left with is blowing smoke trying to confuse the issue. Come on M, just one thing, that should be a piece of cake for a science expert you claim to be.

 

[Sonofason]

It was a short article which also linked the longer one.

Read full, original article: Our Inner Viruses: Forty Million Years In The Making

Okay, I agree with omega2xx at this point. While I find your description of what may happen very interesting and perhaps even possible, I saw no evidence that it actually happens. I saw nothing more than claims. And claims that stand alone I find very difficult to accept as truth. I haven't got the time to indoctrinate myself on the subject so I guess I'll have to just wait until someone provides some believable evidence to support the claims.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let me say this very slowly--- a virus remaining a virus is not evidence of evolution. For Evolution to be true the virus MUST become something other than a virus. Did that help?

Thank you for posting slowly, but I wasn't arguing evidence of evolution...just
addressing the lack of a law prohibiting introduction of new genes into a species.


Your use of the quote feature has some problems, so I did a little surgery on the quote.
Thus, my response might look odd.

 

[Sonofason]

Thank you for posting slowly, but I wasn't arguing evidence of evolution...just
addressing the lack of a law prohibiting introduction of new genes into a species.


Your use of the quote feature has some problems, so I did a little surgery on the quote.
Thus, my response might look odd.

Is it even legal to do surgery on quotes?

 

[Revoltingest]

Post the evidence they posted or admit they had none.

Okay, I agree with omega2xx at this point. While I find your description of what may happen very interesting and perhaps even possible, I saw no evidence that it actually happens. I saw nothing more than claims. And claims that stand alone I find it very difficult to accept. I haven't got the time to indoctrinate myself on the subject so I guess I'll have to just wait until someone provides some evidence for the claims.

The article wasn't to be a defense of scientific consensus on gene transfer...just a summary. And I'm not expert in genetics or the history of the field, so I won't be able to offer a comprehensive history of how this understanding arrived. But the transfer of genes has moved from the theoretical to the practical in medicine, & there is much literature about this progress. Were @painted wolf around, she could explain far better than I.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is it even legal to do surgery on quotes?

I was once a doctor's landlord, so I'm legally able.
Oh, I also designed orthopedic surgical tools at Black & Decker's medical products group.

 

[Sonofason]

The article wasn't to be a defense of scientific consensus on gene transfer...just a summary. And I'm not expert in genetics or the history of the field, so I won't be able to offer a comprehensive history of how this understanding arrived. But the transfer of genes has moved from the theoretical to the practical in medicine, & there is much literature about this progress. Were @painted wolf around, she could explain far better than I.

But if you haven't seen this taking place, how do you know that it does, by faith?

 

[Sonofason]

I was once a doctor's landlord, so I'm legally able.
Oh, I also designed orthopedic surgical tools at Black & Decker's medical products group.

Oh okay, so you do know.

 

[McBell]

I don't suspect, I KNOW you can't produce one thing in the TOE that has been proven scientifically. All you are left with is blowing smoke trying to confuse the issue. Come on M, just one thing, that should be a piece of cake for a science expert you claim to be.

When have I made the claim to being a science expert?
Post number please.

Of course, I have never made that claim.
So another bold faced lie from you.

 

[omega2xx]

Thank you for posting slowly, but I wasn't arguing evidence of evolution...just
addressing the lack of a law prohibiting introduction of new genes into a species.

The lack of a law prohibiting introduction of a new gene is not necessary. The established lwas will not allow it to happen

Your use of the quote feature has some problems, so I did a little surgery on the quote.
Thus, my response might look odd.

Thanks. I was in a forum for many years that had a different way quoting. Sometims I automatically fall back on its method.

 

[omega2xx]

When have I made the claim to being a science expert?
Post number please.

Of course, I have never made that claim.
So another bold faced lie from you.

The bold face lie comes from or you only have the reading comprehension of a cave man. I have never said you claimed to be a science expert.

 

[Revoltingest]

The lack of a law prohibiting introduction of a new gene is not necessary. The established lwas will not allow it to happen

Info on these "laws"?

 

[McBell]

The bold face lie comes from or you only have the reading comprehension of a cave man. I have never said you claimed to be a science expert.

Another bold face lie:

Come on M, just one thing, that should be a piece of cake for a science expert you claim to be.

 

[omega2xx]

Info on these "laws"?

A basic law of genetics is that all characteristics the offspring gets is determined by the gene pool of its parents. If neither parent has the gene pool of bones, they will NEVER have a kid with bones. The evolutionists will try to sell that mutations are a mechanism for a change of species. Not only can't the prove it, they are scientifically wrong. Mutations, most of which are harmful or neutral, cannot add a characteristic to the offspring. Mutations only alter the characteristic the kid would have gotten without the mutation.. The albino was going to get skin, the mutation of that gene only cause it to get a different kind of skin. No change of species takes place---no evolution. IOW laws overrule theories. Conclusion: Evolution is not true.

 

[omega2xx]

Another bold face lie:

​

Time to put or shut up. Post the number where I said you were a scientific expert, or we weill all know who the bold face liar is.

 

[Revoltingest]

A basic law of genetics is that all characteristics the offspring gets is determined by the gene pool of its parents. If neither parent has the gene pool of bones, they will NEVER have a kid with bones. The evolutionists will try to sell that mutations are a mechanism for a change of species. Not only can't the prove it, they are scientifically wrong. Mutations, most of which are harmful or neutral, cannot add a characteristic to the offspring. Mutations only alter the characteristic the kid would have gotten without the mutation.. The albino was going to get skin, the mutation of that gene only cause it to get a different kind of skin. No change of species takes place---no evolution. IOW laws overrule theories. Conclusion: Evolution is not true.

Any scientific authority which states such a law?
(I've never heard of it.)

 

[omega2xx]

That's your conclusion, and it's wrong. Maybe try again.

Since you think you're such a scientific genius, you figure it out. If you actually understood even a bit about cosmology, the answer should be obvious. But since you make up your own "science", this is why you're clueless and can't come up with it.
I could, but I do like a good laugh now and then.

There is an old saying, " you would if you could but you can't." If you could prove me wrong, you would fall all over your self presenting the evidence. You have just admitted you have none. I knew all along, now everyone following this thread knows it too.

So, why don't you work on some new ways to insult others here because your old ones are really getting quite stale. And it really makes me wonder which kind of church teaches you that continually insulting others as you do simply because you disagree with them is somehow moral?

What you think I make up is only because of your lack of understanding science. You have been indoctrinated in teh public schools system and yu seem to be afraid to get out that box.

Post an insult I have made. Now i do like to use sarcasm and some could take that as an insult. If any feel like I have insulted them, tell me and I will apologize.

 

[omega2xx]

Any scientific authority which states such a law?
(I've never heard of it.)

I don'[t have time to do your homework. If you are really interested, google away.

 

[omega2xx]

When have I made the claim to being a science expert?
Post number please.

Of course, I have never made that claim.
So another bold faced lie from you.

Not a lie, a misunderstanding. If you say you have not made that claim, I will take your word for it and apologize for it.