Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-12-2014, 04:02 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(02-12-2014 06:02 PM)anatevka Wrote:  
(02-12-2014 04:46 PM)pablo Wrote:  Evolution is a FACT, it doesn't have an Achilles heel.

Cool. Just assume what you're trying to prove. Brilliant.

Assume?
You're kidding right?
Everything, and I mean everything about your so-called belief system is an assumption. From your imaginary god all the way down.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like pablo's post
03-12-2014, 04:13 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(03-12-2014 03:44 PM)wazzel Wrote:  You did not start out respectful, why should you be respected?

You might want to give that last line some though. Often ones behavior is mirrored back to them. Try being nice and see how quickly it comes back around.

The irony abounds.

You can cry persecution all you want or you can end it by posting an actual argument for your position. "Evolution is a fairy tale" is not an argument, just an opinion.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
03-12-2014, 04:43 PM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2014 04:53 PM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(03-12-2014 03:38 PM)anatevka Wrote:  Clue for you: The Hebrew word translated "day" in Genesis is Yom. It is also translated "age" or "era". See how simple that was?

That is too vague and unscientific, so if plants were created in era two, then the sun was created in era three, how is this a plausible creation myth?

How long did plants go without a sun? 500 million years?

Bonus question-How many eras will go by until you start acting like you're a Christian? Oh wait, you already are, insulting, bigoted and hateful.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
03-12-2014, 04:52 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(03-12-2014 10:56 AM)anatevka Wrote:  
(02-12-2014 09:59 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Fascinating assertion. I'm sure that nobody else here has heard that one before. Kindly provide some evidence.

Hell, as you said, it's been four pages of blather from you so I'll just cut you off at the pass. If we don't share a common ancestor with the chimps then why do we have the overwhelming majority (98.8% according to the Smithsonian) of the same genetic material? Coincidence?

BTW, I don't worship Darwin. That would be silly. I do pet him and take him for walks. Otherwise he gets whiny and craps on the carpet.

Laughable, and predictable. 98.8%? Are you going to stick to that figure?
You do realize that that is pure fiction and fantasy? You need to do
your homework before posting trash figures like that.

Tomkins, J.P., Genome-Wide DNA Alignment Similarity (Identity) for 40,000 Chimpanzee DNA Sequences Queried against the Human Genome is 86–89%, Answers Res. J. 4:233–241

You also realize that we share 50% of our genetic material with a banana? Coincidence?

Done my homework, done the coursework, got the degree.

98.8% similarity between humans and chimps is neither fiction nor fantasy, it's the accepted value, give or take small change. I did you the courtesy of posting a link from the Smithsonian, a non-partisan organization, rather than posting one from talk.origins or somewhere else similarly hostile. By contrast, you posted an article from "Answers Research Journal", a publication of Answers in Genesis which describes it as
Quote:Cutting-edge creation research. Free. Answers Research Journal (ARJ) is a professional, peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.
So, not science, highly partisan and didn't I hear you deriding YEC and Flood Mythology a few posts back? You throw words like "fiction", "fantasy" and "trash" around and then back yourself with that dreck?

Leave off the ad hominem and find some actual science if you want to be taken seriously.

Here are three articles off of Google Scholar that deal with the subject. 1 2 3 If you're feeling adventurous you can venture beyond the first page of results. Results vary between 99% and 95% depending on the exact methods used for comparison. The conclusions are the same.

Since I've got you on the topic, perhaps you'd care to explain why we not only share the overwhelming majority of our DNA with chimps but also the overwhelming majority of our DNA errors? Our pseudogenes and vestigal genes, our endogenous retrovirus insertions and our gene conversions are all shared with the apes. For real fun, look at the intestinal bacteria of the apes. Despite significant differences in diet, the microbes that they crap out have genetic similarities that produce the same relationships as the evolutionary descent of their hosts.

Explain that away with creationism.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 12 users Like Paleophyte's post
03-12-2014, 05:00 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(03-12-2014 04:52 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(03-12-2014 10:56 AM)anatevka Wrote:  Laughable, and predictable. 98.8%? Are you going to stick to that figure?
You do realize that that is pure fiction and fantasy? You need to do
your homework before posting trash figures like that.

Tomkins, J.P., Genome-Wide DNA Alignment Similarity (Identity) for 40,000 Chimpanzee DNA Sequences Queried against the Human Genome is 86–89%, Answers Res. J. 4:233–241

You also realize that we share 50% of our genetic material with a banana? Coincidence?

Done my homework, done the coursework, got the degree.

98.8% similarity between humans and chimps is neither fiction nor fantasy, it's the accepted value, give or take small change. I did you the courtesy of posting a link from the Smithsonian, a non-partisan organization, rather than posting one from talk.origins or somewhere else similarly hostile. By contrast, you posted an article from "Answers Research Journal", a publication of Answers in Genesis which describes it as
Quote:Cutting-edge creation research. Free. Answers Research Journal (ARJ) is a professional, peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.
So, not science, highly partisan and didn't I hear you deriding YEC and Flood Mythology a few posts back? You throw words like "fiction", "fantasy" and "trash" around and then back yourself with that dreck?

Leave off the ad hominem and find some actual science if you want to be taken seriously.

Here are three articles off of Google Scholar that deal with the subject. 1 2 3 If you're feeling adventurous you can venture beyond the first page of results. Results vary between 99% and 95% depending on the exact methods used for comparison. The conclusions are the same.

Since I've got you on the topic, perhaps you'd care to explain why we not only share the overwhelming majority of our DNA with chimps but also the overwhelming majority of our DNA errors? Our pseudogenes and vestigal genes, our endogenous retrovirus insertions and our gene conversions are all shared with the apes. For real fun, look at the intestinal bacteria of the apes. Despite significant differences in diet, the microbes that they crap out have genetic similarities that produce the same relationships as the evolutionary descent of their hosts.

Explain that away with creationism.

Great links thanks Thumbsup

(Don’t hold yout breath that anustevka will open or “gasp” read ony of it. Trolls gonna troll.)

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2014, 05:01 PM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2014 06:05 AM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(03-12-2014 04:52 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  So, not science, highly partisan and didn't I hear you deriding YEC and Flood Mythology a few posts back? You throw words like "fiction", "fantasy" and "trash" around and then back yourself with that dreck?

Leave off the ad hominem and find some actual science if you want to be taken seriously.

Yeah, he's extremely dodgy and dishonest, he's not comfortable with YEC dates and goes along with THAT science, but when science goes on to explain our evolutionary origins he rejects THAT science. Typical cherry-picking to suit one's worldview.

Biblical Earth:

[Image: OTcosmos.jpg]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2014, 06:03 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(03-12-2014 11:16 AM)anatevka Wrote:  
(03-12-2014 11:01 AM)Chas Wrote:  The percentage depends on what level of comparison one makes - genes or nucleotide sequences. But I'm guessing that's too subtle for you.


No, common descent.

So, you're going to stick with the 98.8% figure? I just want to see how
dishonest, or deluded you are, before we continue.

Your answer is a non sequitur. The only dishonesty and delusion in this thread were brought here by you.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-12-2014, 06:49 PM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2014 06:55 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(03-12-2014 03:35 PM)anatevka Wrote:  
(03-12-2014 12:13 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Thank you, I'm sure Jesus is really happy about your insulting nature, you make him proud.

So when the bible states that god created certain things on certain days you don't believe these are literal days? Could you specify the nature of your made up creation myth so we can at least have a starting point for discussion.

Or are you really here to insult people and portray your bigotry in Jesus' name?

Clue for you: The Hebrew word translated "day" in Genesis is Yom. It is also translated "age" or "era". See how simple that was?

Do your homework.

Ahhh the ol' "you don't know how long a day in god's word is" weak sauce argument...yes, actually we do, all one has to do is a comparative study of the bible and the usage of the word....that would require you to read the bible though...and analyze it....Those who argue that the word "day" means "long age," point out that the Hebrew word, yom, can have a number of meanings, only one of which is "day of 24 hours." They further seek to strengthen their position with the use of Psalm 90:4 and II Peter 3:8, comparing a day to a thousand years. Both of these verses, however, are simply using figures of speech (similes) to show that God is not constrained by the same time parameters as are humans. These verses are really irrelevant to the discussion of the meaning of "day," in Genesis 1.

It is recognized, of course, that the word "day" can be used with a number of variations. It can have any of five meanings: 1) a period of light; 2) a period of 24 hours; 3) a general, vague time; 4) a point of time; 5) a year. The context determines which of these is intended by the writer. The English language also can have up to 14 definitions for the word "day." The reader should be reminded that the purpose of language is to communicate. Moses wrote in a language that was meant to communicate to his readers. Words must be defined by their relationship to one another. Word meaning must be determined from within its context. It will be shown how the context defines the word in Genesis 1.

The use of a number with the word "day" is very illuminating. This combination occurs 357 times outside of Genesis 1. The combination is used in four different ways, but each time it is used, it must mean 24-hour periods of time. If the combinations had been intended to mean long periods of time, both the texts and contexts then become meaningless. A typical verse is Genesis 30:36: "And he (Laban) set three days journey betwixt himself and Jacob." God frequently issued commands that the people were to do or not to do certain things on a given day. This use occurs 162 times. A good example is Exodus 24:16: "And the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days, and on the seventh day He called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud." These are the most typical uses of the word "day" with a number. Four times the terms are used to show a starting point. Ezra 3:6 says, "From the first day of the seventh month they began to offer burnt offerings unto the Lord." A number may also be used with "day" to convey an ending point. An example is Leviticus 19:6: "It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if ought remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire." It would appear, then, that whenever the Old Testament uses a number with the word "day," it means a 24-hour period of time without any demonstrable exception.

If the meaning of the word "day" with a number always means a 24-hour period of time outside of Genesis 1, then it should also mean a 24-hour period of time inside Genesis 1. The words that Moses used to communicate what God did during creation are very significant. If Moses had meant to signify that the "days" were more than 24 hours in length, he could easily have done so. If we are to understand what Moses wrote, then the language he used must be understood in its normal meaning. The normal meaning is that of 24-hour periods of time.


Do your homework. This theist may just be the definition of ineducable tyro

Consider

Smartass

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
04-12-2014, 10:29 AM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(03-12-2014 06:49 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(03-12-2014 03:35 PM)anatevka Wrote:  Clue for you: The Hebrew word translated "day" in Genesis is Yom. It is also translated "age" or "era". See how simple that was?

Do your homework.

Ahhh the ol' "you don't know how long a day in god's word is" weak sauce argument...yes, actually we do, all one has to do is a comparative study of the bible and the usage of the word....that would require you to read the bible though...and analyze it....Those who argue that the word "day" means "long age," point out that the Hebrew word, yom, can have a number of meanings, only one of which is "day of 24 hours." They further seek to strengthen their position with the use of Psalm 90:4 and II Peter 3:8, comparing a day to a thousand years. Both of these verses, however, are simply using figures of speech (similes) to show that God is not constrained by the same time parameters as are humans. These verses are really irrelevant to the discussion of the meaning of "day," in Genesis 1.

It is recognized, of course, that the word "day" can be used with a number of variations. It can have any of five meanings: 1) a period of light; 2) a period of 24 hours; 3) a general, vague time; 4) a point of time; 5) a year. The context determines which of these is intended by the writer. The English language also can have up to 14 definitions for the word "day." The reader should be reminded that the purpose of language is to communicate. Moses wrote in a language that was meant to communicate to his readers. Words must be defined by their relationship to one another. Word meaning must be determined from within its context. It will be shown how the context defines the word in Genesis 1.

The use of a number with the word "day" is very illuminating. This combination occurs 357 times outside of Genesis 1. The combination is used in four different ways, but each time it is used, it must mean 24-hour periods of time. If the combinations had been intended to mean long periods of time, both the texts and contexts then become meaningless. A typical verse is Genesis 30:36: "And he (Laban) set three days journey betwixt himself and Jacob." God frequently issued commands that the people were to do or not to do certain things on a given day. This use occurs 162 times. A good example is Exodus 24:16: "And the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days, and on the seventh day He called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud." These are the most typical uses of the word "day" with a number. Four times the terms are used to show a starting point. Ezra 3:6 says, "From the first day of the seventh month they began to offer burnt offerings unto the Lord." A number may also be used with "day" to convey an ending point. An example is Leviticus 19:6: "It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if ought remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire." It would appear, then, that whenever the Old Testament uses a number with the word "day," it means a 24-hour period of time without any demonstrable exception.

If the meaning of the word "day" with a number always means a 24-hour period of time outside of Genesis 1, then it should also mean a 24-hour period of time inside Genesis 1. The words that Moses used to communicate what God did during creation are very significant. If Moses had meant to signify that the "days" were more than 24 hours in length, he could easily have done so. If we are to understand what Moses wrote, then the language he used must be understood in its normal meaning. The normal meaning is that of 24-hour periods of time.


Do your homework. This theist may just be the definition of ineducable tyro

Consider

Smartass

Um, the word day with a number does *NOT* always mean 24 hour period outside of Genesis. Not even close. Instead of cutting and pasting someone
else's (shoddy) work, do your homework.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2014, 10:48 AM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(04-12-2014 10:29 AM)anatevka Wrote:  Um, the word day with a number does *NOT* always mean 24 hour period outside of Genesis. Not even close. Instead of cutting and pasting someone
else's (shoddy) work, do your homework.

Thanks for another wonderful example of public mental masturbation. Are you going to be done anytime soon? Or do you need more tissues?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: