Summations Only

quote:

---

Yes, I've given you all delicious fodder for ridicule, but the point is if you don't succeed in getting your point across to me I'm not going to abandon my argument, am I?

---

You've already made it as clear as you can that you will never abandon your point, because the bible tells you so. So don't play coy and suggest that if we could only phrase our arguments of words of one syllable or less, so that you can understand, you will agree that we are correct.

... unless, apparently (a) it conflicts with your prejudices or (b) it is expressed in scientific terminology or (c) you don't understand it, in which case it can be dismissed out of hand. Well, either that, or you don't understand science better than 72 Nobel laureates put together.Perhaps you should consider this possibility.

No one expects you to know EVERYTHING, that's silly. Who knows EVERYTHING about any subject in science?You have learned some superficial things about genetics that seem to support your position, but that is where you stop. When you dig deeper into the subject you find that these superficial things are just that, superficial. You are not willing to dig deeper or to listen to those who have. How would you know they have nothing to do with your point since you couldn't make any sense of them. If you don't understand the argument, you can't claim it is not relevant.Or was it that you saw the words "nested hierarchy" and then just dismissed the whole argument? Without even considering what I was getting at? Except you don't know what happens in either case. You think you "grasp" it, but your grasp is very superficial. It doesn't hold up under more intense scrutiny. Avoiding that scrutiny may keep the illusion up for yourself, but is not exactly honest or scientific.HBD

Funny how they can look at living things and see "intricate design" (Faith even mentioned that a drop of water is designed) and cite that observation as evidence of a designer; but then look at the geological column and the fossil record and see that as evidence of the random sorting of a global flood.HBD

Hi, Faith. These, I think, are the salient points of your post. It seems that you view "Creation" as referring to the creation of templates or prototypes, rather than the creation of individual things, is that correct? So, there's is 'creation,' and then there is 'Creation^TM', so to speak.It's certainly a valid position, but it feels an awful lot like splitting hairs in the name of specific -- and somewhat strained -- interpretation of the phrase "rested from all his work" (Genesis 2:2). Is there some other reason (other than Genesis 2:2) why you think God isn't creating things anymore? I mean, clearly God didn't have any qualms about going back to work after Creation Week, because the Bible has Him doing all kinds of miracles well after Creation Week ended. And, if He can go back to work, what's stopping Him from going back to 'creation'?Are you willing to consider that maybe God can and does still create things? Or are you now thinking about ways to interpret the word 'work'? Is there also going to be a 'work' and 'Work^TM' now? Okay, but did God actually 'Create^TM' Adam, or did He merely 'create' Adam? Genesis 1:26-27 describes God as creating man "in His own image" and "after His own likeness."That sounds like God was working from a pre-existing template, which would mean Adam is not the actual prototype. So, if we're following your strict definition of "creation," God therefore did not actually create Adam. I cited Exodus 10, when I was supposed to cite Exodus 9, where the 7th plague was described as "fire mixed with hail." But, the newer translations apparently translate it as "lightning," so I was wrong to include that example. Great, so I was not created by God. I think it turned out this way because you were more willing to redefine terms than to consider an alternative to your pre-existing beliefs.

God said He finished with Creation, that's the whole thing I base it all on.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I thought you were talking about nested hierarchy because that was the topic under discussion at the moment. Nothing devious or fancy.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There can't be any doubt that you have to lose genetic material to get new phenotypes, it's inevitable and it's just blowing smoke to say otherwise, and if you get a whole new population characterized by a new phenotype within thirty years -- and probably a lot less than that because it started with so few individuals -- then mutation couldn't have contributed to the result. Of course because of the adherence to the ToE your head is going to be full of ToE irrelevancies like natural selection, and everybody is going to think something far more complicated is going on, and genetics itself can be quite complicated, but this particular situation is open and shut. Time you recognized it.

You remember how your claims are contradicted by direct observation, besides being absurd in principle? You remember how you can't find a single verifiable example of evolution working how you say it should?So this is pretty much as close as you can get to reality becoming incarnate and calling you stupid in person.

I learn what I think I need to know for the argument I am making. I avoid information that doesn't seem to relate to it. I absorb whatever new information comes through these debates that is relevant to the argument I am making. I stop where it makes sense to stop.

dupEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

My argument can't be contradicted by direct observation because it is only about what absolutely has to happen. So your claim can't be true no matter how many times you say it. YOu don't get new breeds or new variations in the wild unless you lose genetic material. There is no way around that.Since you have no verifiable evidence of ToE claims, just theory piled on theory piled on conjecture piled on conjecture piled on absurd interpretations of minuscule clues, it's pot calling kettle black to accuse me of having no evidence. Especially after I listed all the examples I know fit what I'm saying.

All the scientific work on the list of Nobel winners is genuine science. Evolution is not.

It is very easy to contradict such a claim. For example, if you claimed that pigs "have to" have wings, the observation of a wingless pig would refute this claim. In the same way, when you make equally absurd claims about how genetics "has to" work, the direct observation that it works the exact opposite way does indeed prove you wrong. It's no use lying to me about the nature of the evidence. Save it for your local Sunday school class, little kids are ignorant and gullible and you might be able to deceive one.