KeyserSoze
Member
No, THEY dont..
Which is why they are laughed at by the scientific community, and also why they never submit any of their alleged work for peer review..
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
“Show me a person who believes in Noah’s ark and I will show you a Trump voter,”
- Thread starter Calminian
- Start date
No, THEY dont..
Which is why they are laughed at by the scientific community, and also why they never submit any of their alleged work for peer review..
Garbage. Mutations are fatal & you do not want mutations for your descendants.
Darwin is obsolete scientifically & any schoolboy can understand the arithmetic.
KeyserSoze
Member
Oh good grief.. Mutations are commonplace.. They happen ALL THE TIME...
They are almost NEVER fatal.. Geez..
Oh, and neither Meyer or Berlinski is a biologist..
Berlinski has a math degree and Meyer's BS is in earth science.
Do you think that you are smarter than Berlinski or Gelernter?
Berlinski is qualified in many fields. Mutations are a loss of information & are ultimately fatal.
KeyserSoze
Member
My being smarter than either of them is not the issue.. (although i probably am.. lol)
The issue here is, "are their claims correct."
In that regard , EVERY science organization, journal and PhD university ALL say that they are wrong..
So even if somehow "i'm" not smarter than they are, there are still 1000s of scientists who specialize in these very complex sciences who ARE..
And they ALL say Meyer and Berlinski have their heads up their own rectums on this issue..
KeyserSoze
Member
Is that so..? Then whats a gene duplication..? Whats polyploidy..? whats a frame shift..? any idea..?
Do you want mutations for your descendants?
KeyserSoze
Member
Its not a matter of what i "want".. Its a matter of what IS..
Mutations can be quite harmful in some circumstances.. They can lead to some pretty nasty diseases..
But life wouldn't survive on earth without them.. Mutation is one of several mechanisms which allow species to adapt to abrupt changes in environments. If novel mutations didn't spring up from time to time, there would be no way for existing life to cope during times of severe duress, (ie: volcanic eruptions, comet strikes, ice ages, etc etc,
Mutation alters the DNA code which can at times modify a trait to help an offspring survive.
Too bad you won't answer a yes or no question.
A mutation is a loss of genetic information always. Darwin married his cousin for financial reasons and buried at least one child.
KeyserSoze
Member
I answered the question. The answer is "it depends on the mutation".. lol
A mutation is NOT always a loss of information..
The benefit or negative effect of a specific mutation will vary based on the environment in which that mutation occurs.
Simply put, if i'm an organism with fur, and i obtain a mutation that changes my fur color to white during an ice age, such a mutation may prove VERY beneficial..
KeyserSoze
Member
What exactly does Darwin's personal life have to do with evolutionary biology..?
It shows that he didn't know much about genetics.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
As I mentioned in another thread, "First, all Christians are creationists, so using it pejoratively so generally is falling into the atheist/secular trap. However, if you do not accept Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1-3, then you really need to explain yourself, as you would sound much like atheist Stephen Hawking, "What need then for a Creator?"Unfortunately, Creationists have no interest in "seeking truth". All most creationists want is someone to reinforce their religious beliefs and tell them that they aren't foolish for believing in such nonsense. Creationists are a classic case of confirmation bias..
If they were really interested in truth, then they'd read science journals which lay out in great detail the mountains of evidence for evolution. Instead, they'd rather visit religious websites run by known charlatans, most of which have no scientific credentials in any field related to evolution.
If you really want to know "the truth", then try going to court..
You see creationists can (and do) lie through their teeth all the time when giving seminars and debates because they know there is no penalty for lying in such places.. But they cant get away with that crap in court..
This is why evolution wins every court case its in.. Because in COURT, only evolution has any evidence.. In Court, creationism gets exposed as the nonsense everyone knows that it is..
For example.. Go back to the Dover PA Intelligent Design trial in 2005..
In that trial, you'll find expert testimony on the fossil record By Curator of The Berkeley Museum of Paleontology Kevin Padian where he lays out in great detail why the fossil record supports evolution and ONLY evolution.
Now, who was the creationists fossil expert who was called as a rebuttal witness to Padian's testimony..?
NNE!!! That's who.. The creationists had no fossil expert to testify.. Padian's evidence went unchallenged..
Why..? Because IN COURT, creationism cant lie.. So it had no evidence to present, and no witnesses to call.
That's how bankrupt creationism is.. Also..
Now look at the McLean V Arkansas case back in the 1980s.. The Creationists in that trial called their own expert witness to testify. His name was "Chandra Wickramasinghe". However...
Under cross examination, Wickramasinghe was asked if the earth could be 6 to 10 thousand years old as creationists claimed it is, and UNDER OATH Wickramasinghe said "NO!! It HAD to be millions of years old..
Now, That wasn't the evolution witness.. that was the expert FOR the creationists.. Their OWN WITNESS (once under oath) made it perfectly clear at trial that the Creationism, global floods, and the young earth model was scientifically impossible.. This so shocked the judge, that he made deliberate reference to Wickramasinghe's testimony in his decision.
Here, read it..
"Perhaps Dr. Wickramasinghe was called as a witness because he was generally critical of the theory of evolution and the scientific community, a tactic consistent with the strategy of the defense. Unfortunately for the defense, he demonstrated that the simplistic *1270 approach of the two model analysis of the origins of life is false. Furthermore, he corroborated the plaintiffs' witnesses by concluding that "no rational scientist" would believe the earth's geology could be explained by reference to a worldwide flood or that the earth was less than one million years old."
So there you have it..
You know that creationism doesn't have a leg to stand on when its own expert witness under oath at trial admits that it cant possibly be true.. lol
Unfortunately, truth and court are not synonymous, as judges also are not experts in all the fields. They must rely on authorities, so the way cases are presented do matter. Sometimes vital information is suppressed or disallowed, which is how OJ got away with murder. Other times, one side presents its case poorly. Or both. In any case, deep time does not prove evolutionism, but that wasn't on trial.
And anyone imagining atheists are making only honest to God arguments are not paying close enough attention to all that's going on.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
OK, that's at least twice "selected for" has been mentioned as part of the proposed paradigm, but that indicates design, guidance. However, the observation seems to apply only to the point *after* DNA and its associated elements exist, which is precisely what is not involved *before* they exist, which is the real issue.
To resolve the issue, answers are needed for these kinds of questions. Precisely what is going on? What is doing the selecting? What is it selecting for? How does it know what to select for? Where did it come from? How did it know to be there? What kind of timing was required? What kind of environment was required? Etc.
The very same way that evolutionists refuse to accept thru their filtering anything to contradicts their mantra that God does not exist?
They also refuse to accept that God became a man, and rose from the dead, correct? Not 'scientifically plausible?"
If I understand the discussion from the Hoover Institution linked in my signature, things have to be just so and timing and environment are not really involved. That is the reason that Darwin is discarded forever and ever world without end. The only question is how long it will take Americans do face the facts.
God gave to Moses the Flood account, so we are forced to accept either God knows the truth here, or that you do!
Jesus agreed that God created Adam and Eve, that they were not evolved from prior primates, was he right or wrong?