Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,628 Year: 4,885/9,624 Month: 233/427 Week: 43/103 Day: 1/11 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Creationist's view of Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes (2/14/05)
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 211 of 218 (341597)
08-19-2006 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Faith
08-19-2006 10:58 PM


Would you please just read the whole argument. This has been answered umpteen times by now.
No, it hasn't.
It hasn't been answered once.
Will you try to answer it, or will you admit that you haven't a leg to stand on?
Perhaps you think you have answered it. If so, please point out the post in which you believe you have done so, and I will point out your trivial error in reasoning.
Cheers.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 10:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 11:23 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1529 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 212 of 218 (341604)
08-19-2006 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Dr Adequate
08-19-2006 11:06 PM


Find the post yourself. I don't care what you do with it. The thread is a disaster now with so many chiming in to remind me of things I've already answered. Yes answered. Nobody wants to think, you just want to regurgitate evo assumptions. Trash it all the way to the end now. Have the usual evo self-congratulatory blast.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2006 11:06 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-20-2006 12:02 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 214 by nator, posted 08-20-2006 12:02 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 215 by MangyTiger, posted 08-20-2006 12:06 AM Faith has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 213 of 218 (341614)
08-20-2006 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Faith
08-19-2006 11:23 PM


So, you claim to have an answer but you can't say what it is.
Creationist integrity at its very best.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 11:23 PM Faith has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2254 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 214 of 218 (341617)
08-20-2006 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Faith
08-19-2006 11:23 PM


quote:
Find the post yourself. I don't care what you do with it. The thread is a disaster now with so many chiming in to remind me of things I've already answered. Yes answered. Nobody wants to think, you just want to regurgitate evo assumptions. Trash it all the way to the end now. Have the usual evo self-congratulatory blast.
And this is why you should probalby not venture into the science fora, faith.
You have a stroke any time your ideas are treated just like we would treat each others'.
You do not appear to be listening.
You appear to be repeating your initial claims and redefining terms and words into your own special meanings as fast as can be to keep up with all of the demolition of your objections.
You may flail and shout and exasperate all you want, but it is simply not the case that you have adequately addressed any of the responses to your claims.
If you can't take the heat of scientific inquiry, then maybe you should stay out of the Biology lecture hall, so to speak.

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 11:23 PM Faith has not replied

MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6438 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 215 of 218 (341621)
08-20-2006 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Faith
08-19-2006 11:23 PM


I've had a quick trawl through your posts in this thread.
Would you say that Message 154 and Message 155 are a fair summary of the position you are trying to get across?
Dr.Jones* in Message 154 writes:
Good, bad and neutral are in relation to if the mutation helps or hurts the organism to reproduce. I have a condition called keratoconus, which has a genetic component. My corneas become deformed and don't focus light correctly and in the long run without cornea transplants I'd be blind. Keratoconus does not strike until late puberty and has a slow progression therefore it would not be a hinderance to reproduction. This is an example of a neutral mutation.
Faith in Message 155 writes:
Thank you. This clearly demonstrates that the mutation is actually harmful to the organism, person, in this case you, although it is called neutral for the merely technical reason that it does not interfere with reproduction. It's the same situation as in the case of diabetes, which causes all kinds of misery and ultimately kills people, though it doesn't interfere with reproduction and so escapes the selection processes that would weed it out.
This is a very odd trend if you think about it. It would seem to lead to a proliferation of genetic diseases in the population to such an extent that over a few millennia there couldn't be a healthy species left on earth.
{Edit: Which is pretty much what biblical creationism says. Except that we assume that this is not the normal way genetics works. We assume PRIOR greater health, and gradual deterioration over time, due to the accumulating effects of the Fall from generation to generation. Only uniformitarianism supposes that such disease processes are normal, but logically this should have led to nothing but sickness and weakness in all species by now, and mass extinctions despite reproductive ability, if it really is a normal process of evolution}.
I want to be sure I understand your position before I make any further comment.

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 11:23 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-20-2006 12:15 AM MangyTiger has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 216 of 218 (341626)
08-20-2006 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by MangyTiger
08-20-2006 12:06 AM


While we're waiting, I'll point out that neither keratoconus and diabetes is "neutral" (nor, for that matter, entirely genetic in its etiology, but that is by the by.)
Being ill is bad for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by MangyTiger, posted 08-20-2006 12:06 AM MangyTiger has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1529 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 217 of 218 (341643)
08-20-2006 1:23 AM


Moving this thread and retitling it
This is the very first thread I started at EvC when I started posting here over a year and a half ago. I have since learned to avoid the science fora because of the crabbed mentality that lurks there. So I am now going to move this thread to the Theological Creationism thread where any thread of mine on science topics should always be located.

AdminFaith
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 218 (341645)
08-20-2006 1:25 AM


Thread copied to the A Creationist's view of Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes (2/14/05) thread in the Theological Creationism and ID forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024