[quote]SexMachine wrote:
By what process do bacteria become resistant to antibiotics? Anyone know how the process works?[/quote]
No? Okay. Antibiotics kill off the vast majority of bacteria leaving alive only those that have(through random mutations) that have genetic resistance. This small group of survivors then replicate themselves as a new antibiotic resistant strain. This process is essentially…“natural selection”.[/quote]
I responded to your post on the last page.
Your tangent here is a…silly one…and illustrates your ignorance of the creation model.
Of all people here I expected more from you.
[/quote]
Tsk tsk. Have I been silly?
Microevolution demonstrates the process of natural selection that is played out on a larger scale(macroevolution). To accept microevolution is to accept the process by which organisms adapt to environmental changes.
I challenged you to do this by imagining that you are to debate a renowned evolutionist. He makes his claims and then he provides all of the specific and direct evidence he can gather in its support. And then you take the stage, and you read Gen 2:7, and do the same: You provide all of the specific and direct evidence you can gather in its support.
And your answer is…“your silly Genesis 2:7 challenges.” Silly. [i]Silly[/i]. You were challenged to give us a single shred of evidence in direct and specific support of a position which you hold to be reasonable…and you called this silly?
That – that word – “silly” – is a conclusion. A victory. A decisive one.[/quote]
The theory of evolution relies on the idea that abiogenesis occurred. There is no known law that explains or allows this to happen. Abiogenesis has never been observed or duplicated. Abiogenesis has been demonstrably proven to be false. If abiogenesis is false, evolution is false.
No mutation has ever been observed that added a new function to an organism that did not previously possess that function. Not ever. Not one of the 8+ million species on Earth has ever been observed to develop a new function. If random mutations cannot develop new functions in organisms that did not previously possess those functions, then evolution is false. Evolutionists would have you believe this has happened literally millions upon millions of times. It should still be happening. Oh, and while crossbreeding can transfer existing functionality, it cannot explain the origin of any new functionality in the beginning.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
By what process do bacteria become resistant to antibiotics? Anyone know how the process works?[/quote]
No? Okay. Antibiotics kill off the vast majority of bacteria leaving alive only those that have(through random mutations) that have genetic resistance. This small group of survivors then replicate themselves as a new antibiotic resistant strain. This process is essentially…“natural selection”.[/quote]
I responded to your post on the last page.
Your tangent here is a…silly one…and illustrates your ignorance of the creation model.
Of all people here I expected more from you.
[/quote]
Tsk tsk. Have I been silly?
Microevolution demonstrates the process of natural selection that is played out on a larger scale(macroevolution). To accept microevolution is to accept the process by which organisms adapt to environmental changes.
[/quote]
Wrong. Microevolution describes changes to existing functions. Macroevolution describes organisms acquiring completely new functions. One has been observed. One has not.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
The theory of evolution relies on the idea that abiogenesis occurred. There is no known law that explains or allows this to happen. Abiogenesis has never been observed or duplicated. Abiogenesis has been demonstrably proven to be false. If abiogenesis is false, evolution is false.
No mutation has ever been observed that added a new function to an organism that did not previously possess that function. Not ever. Not one of the 8+ million species on Earth has ever been observed to develop a new function. If random mutations cannot develop new functions in organisms that did not previously possess those functions, then evolution is false. Evolutionists would have you believe this has happened literally millions upon millions of times. It should still be happening. Oh, and while crossbreeding can transfer existing functionality, it cannot explain the origin of any new functionality in the beginning.
[/quote]
I’ll spot you that no evidence supports evolution. What observable evidence supports this again:
“The LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”
Like smh, I’ve been waiting for an answer to this and am willing to concede no observable evidence supports evolution to get to the positive observable evidence that supports the above account.
Edit: Bonus points if you can point to evidence of when this happened.
Of course I know this. Heard it all my life. It’s the company line.
And because it’s unobservable it must be taken on faith because the fossil record is woefully incomplete; it does not show linear progression like you want it to show. This is indeed the Great Lie.
[/quote]
Actually it does show linear progression. That’s why the history of the earth is divided into epochs. In your attempts to refute this you tacitly acknowledge this.
Conditioned to accept “The Great Lie?” So it’s a deliberate deception by scientists? There’s a conspiracy to hide the truth from the public?
Lol! Okay push. I’m taking shit from both sides on this one. I’ve earned the ire of both the rationalists and the theists.
Actually, I agree with most of your criticisms of the evolutionary model. However, I don’t accept that these unresolved problems somehow prove the validity of creationism. I think you’re missing the fundamental principle that I’m advancing however. I’m not denying a literal interpretation as such. All I’m asserting is that it’s not empirical. That it requires faith not reason. That there is a tension between rationality and faith but that theologically reason is subordinate to faith. Therefore, correctly speaking I am a literalist.
I don’t rely upon faith at all in matters of evolutionary science. I’m very interested in the flaws in the evolutionary model.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
By what process do bacteria become resistant to antibiotics? Anyone know how the process works?[/quote]
No? Okay. Antibiotics kill off the vast majority of bacteria leaving alive only those that have(through random mutations) that have genetic resistance. This small group of survivors then replicate themselves as a new antibiotic resistant strain. This process is essentially…“natural selection”.[/quote]
I responded to your post on the last page.
Your tangent here is a…silly one…and illustrates your ignorance of the creation model.
Of all people here I expected more from you.
[/quote]
Tsk tsk. Have I been silly?
Microevolution demonstrates the process of natural selection that is played out on a larger scale(macroevolution). To accept microevolution is to accept the process by which organisms adapt to environmental changes.
[/quote]
Wrong. Microevolution describes changes to existing functions. Macroevolution describes organisms acquiring completely new functions. One has been observed. One has not.
[/quote]
Functions? What do you mean by functions?
By the way, this is a quote from a creationist apologetics site:
“Macro-evolution: Refers to large scale changes - where one species transforms into another completely different species. For example, birds are said to have evolved from dinosaurs. This process requires the addition of new information to the genetic codes.”
^^This is not correct. Birds did not “acquire new genetic material”. Existing genetic material underwent random mutations which were then selectively preserved. Over millions of years this process of selectively preserving mutations produces radically different organisms(speciation). Furthermore, the original genes are largely preserved and can be “switched on” again as demonstrated in the experiments with chicken embryos.
I’ll spot you that no evidence supports evolution. What observable evidence supports this again:
“The LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”
Like smh, I’ve been waiting for an answer to this and am willing to concede no observable evidence supports evolution to get to the positive evidence that supports the above account.
[/quote]
Good grief, have I ever tried to address this, at the very minimum indirectly but yet repeatedly:
It takes faith in presuppositions to posit about the distant, unobservable past.
That means it takes faith to trust Genesis 2:7
AND
it takes faith to trust the fundamentals of macroevolution.
I will say that despite Bistro’s claims of a myriad of thoroughly recognizable ancestral pre-humans the evidence is woefully weak. There jes ain’t that many humanoid fossils around.
What we do find is:
an occasional tooth
jawbone fragment
or such
and these are forced into the macroevolution model with a hammer.[/quote]
It’s not just “a few bones”. We’re talking about many complete skeletons, their campsites, remains of their fireplaces and animal bones, even their tools not to mention their genetic material in us. Do you deny that these humanoids actually existed?
I’ll spot you that no evidence supports evolution. What observable evidence supports this again:
“The LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”
Like smh, I’ve been waiting for an answer to this and am willing to concede no observable evidence supports evolution to get to the positive evidence that supports the above account.
[/quote]
Good grief, have I ever tried to address this, at the very minimum indirectly but yet repeatedly:
It takes faith in presuppositions to posit about the distant, unobservable past.
That means it takes faith to trust Genesis 2:7
AND
it takes faith to trust the fundamentals of macroevolution.
I will say that despite Bistro’s claims of a myriad of thoroughly recognizable ancestral pre-humans the evidence is woefully weak. There jes ain’t that many humanoid fossils around.
What we do find is:
an occasional tooth
jawbone fragment
or such
and these are forced into the macroevolution model with a hammer.[/quote]
Thanks. All you had to do was concede no scientific evidence supports the first claim.
You deciding what is sinful and what is not; what is morally acceptable and what is not?
[/quote]The whole CONCEPT of “sin” is bullshit! What the fuck did a BABY do wrong in the eyes of god? But he’s a sinner! And you BETTER baptize him or he’s going to hell. “but we are sinners by nature”… What a crock of fucking bullshit!!! Seriously. You know why the christians preach that shit? So that it’s followers will be AFRAID for their child’s “immortal soul” and take the kid to church (and DONATE!) THAT’S IT. And why does the church want a bunch of children? So the pedophile priests can molest them and then get transferred around and around with no consequence. How is THAT morally acceptable? But bishops and popes have been covering that shit up for DECADES, and they have the balls to tell ME what’s moral? I think not.[quote]
Nope. They are all about money, power and control. They all manipulate their followers by making what is “natural” into a “sin” and telling them that “salvation” through “jesus” is the only way not to burn for eternity. LMAO That’s not palatable to me at all.
If I HAD to choose, Taoism is “palatable” to me, but it’s not really a religion and it’s had blood on it’s hands as well.
How about this: a belief that isn’t used to compel people to kill each other and who’s god doesn’t “smite” people. Or tell his chosen to kill babies. We could START with that.
I’ll spot you that no evidence supports evolution. What observable evidence supports this again:
“The LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”
Like smh, I’ve been waiting for an answer to this and am willing to concede no observable evidence supports evolution to get to the positive evidence that supports the above account.
[/quote]
Good grief, have I ever tried to address this, at the very minimum indirectly but yet repeatedly:
It takes faith in presuppositions to posit about the distant, unobservable past.
That means it takes faith to trust Genesis 2:7
AND
it takes faith to trust the fundamentals of macroevolution.
I will say that despite Bistro’s claims of a myriad of thoroughly recognizable ancestral pre-humans the evidence is woefully weak. There jes ain’t that many humanoid fossils around.
What we do find is:
an occasional tooth
jawbone fragment
or such
and these are forced into the macroevolution model with a hammer.[/quote]
Thanks. All you had to do was concede no scientific evidence supports the first claim.
[/quote]
He’s going a lot further though. He’s advancing a premise that evolution requires faith and that the amount of faith it requires exceeds the amount required to believe in creationism.
I’ll spot you that no evidence supports evolution. What observable evidence supports this again:
“The LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”
Like smh, I’ve been waiting for an answer to this and am willing to concede no observable evidence supports evolution to get to the positive evidence that supports the above account.
[/quote]
Good grief, have I ever tried to address this, at the very minimum indirectly but yet repeatedly:
It takes faith in presuppositions to posit about the distant, unobservable past.
That means it takes faith to trust Genesis 2:7
AND
it takes faith to trust the fundamentals of macroevolution.
I will say that despite Bistro’s claims of a myriad of thoroughly recognizable ancestral pre-humans the evidence is woefully weak. There jes ain’t that many humanoid fossils around.
What we do find is:
an occasional tooth
jawbone fragment
or such
and these are forced into the macroevolution model with a hammer.[/quote]
Thanks. All you had to do was concede no scientific evidence supports the first claim.
[/quote]
He’s going a lot further though. He’s advancing a premise that evolution requires faith and that the amount of faith it requires exceeds the amount required to believe in creationism.[/quote]
You all can argue from here. I just wanted it on the PWI record, so to speak, that no scientific evidence supports proposition 1.