Originally posted by wolfgang59 so you concede that lions and tigers may have had a common ancestor providing it was 'within the "cat" kind' ?
Of course. That is no different than believing Adam and Eve where our common ancestor. But that excludes Gorillas, monkeys, birds, fish, etc. as our common ancestor and also the cats. But all life forms have a common designer.
That, I believe, is the main difference between the theory of evolution and the theory of creation.
Originally posted by RJHinds When are you going to get your head out of your arse and look at the evidence instead of just saying, false, false, false?
i have looked at the evidence and every bit of it proves evolution is the theory that best explains all the observed phenomenon.
i have mentioned before that if you can come up with a better explanation for all the observed phenomenon, you're welcome to post it. thus far, you have come up with a whole lot of nil.
Originally posted by VoidSpirit i have looked at the evidence and every bit of it proves evolution is the theory that best explains all the observed phenomenon.
i have mentioned before that if you can come up with a better explanation for all the observed phenomenon, you're welcome to post it. thus far, you have come up with a whole lot of nil.
I have not seen one thing you have posted that shows how evolution best explains everything that is observed. Whereas, I on the other hand have posted many videos that explain what is actually observed and how the intelligent designer called God in the Holy Bible best explains the observable facts,
Originally posted by RJHinds I have not seen one thing you have posted that shows how evolution best explains everything that is observed. Whereas, I on the other hand have posted many videos that explain what is actually observed and how the intelligent designer called God in the Holy Bible best explains the observable facts,
Originally posted by RJHinds
I am an old man ...
P.S. I have presented many videos that are on youtube that no one here is open to watch. So I do not know what is wrong with them, if anything. If you are willing to take one at a time and tell me I would appreciate it.
Why bother when you ignore the responses? It is a lie that nobody watches or responds to your videos.
Originally posted by RJHinds
I think you will find the following video informative and worth your while in viewing.
Why do I rise to the bait you may ask? Maybe just to show I am prepared to listen and not be bigoted. Maybe for the entertainment value when I spot the lies and the rhetorical tricks employed.
Well this 49 minute video clip sets out in a deeply sarcastic manner a curious proposition.
Science (it says) attributes life to a combination of matter + energy + random chance.
Creation Science atrtributes life to a combination of matter + energy + information.
It then waxes lyrical on the sheer complexity of DNA and the vast amount of information contained there and the incredibly organised way in which that information is transmited and copied from DNA to RNA to proteins and so forth. Such a display of clear, intelligble and unarguable erudition lends credibility to this speaker's scientific credentials. We even lern early on that he has spent 150,000 dollars getting an education in medicine, the foundation of whcih, as he points out, is evolutionary biology. So whatever else is wrong with evolutionary biology, he concedes that it is the foundation of medical science and so must have some value I would suggest.
It proposes (at about 23 minutes e.g.) that according to Science, this information got into the DNA code by random chance. That is such a crazy, improbable eventuality that it must be dismissed.
It would be a decent argument if it was true but it is FALSE. It is true enough that many scientists say that evolution arises by chance and not by design. But the manner in which this happens is not random and chaotic.
What happens by random chance is that there are errors in transmitting the code during replication. That is not surprising in a complex process as described so well in the video. The majority of such errors result in a failure of the process - at some stage, the error makes the DNA replication a failure. However, some transmission errors do not damage the viability of the new DNA and are retained. What effect this might have on the subsequent new organism is highly questionable. For example, it may have zero effect, since much of the DNA sequence does not appear to do anything useful at all. Or it may produce a slight difference that is normally unimportant - an example might be that some peas are smooth and some are crinkled, depending on which version of the DNA message gets transmitted.
What also happens by chance ( not truly random however, it must be said, but chance all the same) is that the environment into which each organism is born varies over time. It may become more dry or more wet, a new predator may arrive on the scence, etc.
Now two things are not contentious. One is that individual differences arise in every species of life. eg some individuals are taller or shorter, or have longer fingers or shorter ones, and so forth for every feature of the creature's structure. The other is that the environment is subject to continual change.
In the theory of evolution by natural selection, all that is claimed is that as the environment changes, some individuals turn out to have a slight advantage over others on account of their individual differences, and as a result are more likely to reproduce successfully and produce new individuals sharing their DNA, as compared with less favoured individuals. That is all. It is a product of chance differences but it is not a random process. It is highly deterministic, in that it is shaped by the environment. Far from being random, any new creature that was cursed with a feature making it harder to compete and survive is going to die without reproducing. Most random changes in any organisms are going to cause trouble. Random change is dangerously risky. The change only survives if it enhances the prospects of reproducing or at best if it does not restrict those chances.
Evolutionary changes in DNA arise over immense timescales and by means of a long series of minor changes, never very significant at all at the level of one or even a few generations. It takes many many generations for any change to become significant and many more before a species diverges to establish a new and different species and many different species stand in the ancestry of most (though not all) modern species. Nobody can ratioanally claim that any modern species (or its DNA) has arisen out of the blue by random chance. Since this would be a nonsensical misrepresentation of the theory of evoution by natural selection, then the entire video is, I regret to say, a hoax.
It does not explain how any of its arguments can be derived from the Bible, unless there is a reference to the sin of Onin. To arrive at this version of Creation Science, one must start with the findings of modern evolutionary biology and work backwards. Whenever something interesting happens, insert the word "creation" for the scientific account.
This is also, of course, just one of the various versions subsumed under the heading Creationism. So the Creationists can have long and interesting debates together to determine who is being confused by Lucifer's little imps and who has a direct line to God.
Informative? Not about anything else, just about the kind of propoganda referred to in support of Creationism. Worth my while viewing? Only if it is worth taking the trouble to respond to its lies, since otherwise they go uncontested.
Thread: Chance or by Design ? Forum: Spirituality
Originally posted by RJHinds
I am an old man ...
P.S. I have presented many videos that are on youtube that no one here is open to watch. So I do not know what is wrong with them, if anything. If you are willing to take one at a time and tell me I would appreciate it.
Why bother when you ignore the responses? It is a lie that nobody watc ...[text shortened]... erwise they go uncontested.
Thread: Chance or by Design ? Forum: Spirituality [/quote]
Why do you keep repeating the same thing and responding to a different video and ignoring the main point of the video. I appreciate you responding to that video even though you missed the point, but the following video is the one I wanted you to tell me what is wrong with it first:
Originally posted by RJHinds Yes, but that is a dead end. Mules and ligers can not breed among themselves to reproduce more mules and ligers. Mules are still within the horse kind and ligers are still within the cat kind.
So you have heard of mules? Does this mean you agree with me that this sentence in your OP was a lie:
This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species.
Originally posted by twhitehead Some mules can breed with horses or donkeys.
It is only the females that can breed. That is the same for the ligers. But two mules or two ligers can not breed, because the mutation has made the males sterile. Apparently, that is a stop gap measure programmed into the replication instructions by God. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Glory be to God!
Originally posted by wolfgang59 so you concede that lions and tigers may have had a common ancestor providing it was 'within the "cat" kind' ? Originally posted by RJHinds Of course.
You do realise that by conceding that you are conceding that your whole OP is totally false?
Originally posted by RJHinds Why do you keep repeating the same thing and responding to a different video and ignoring the main point of the video. I appreciate you responding to that video even though you missed the point, but the following video is the one I wanted you to tell me what is wrong with it first:
Why? Because you are unable to deal with this response to a video you recommended so why would I waste time on others?
I did not miss the point. The information got into DNA over the course of a lengthy series of developments over time, starting with simple and becoming increasingly complex. This was achieved by Natural Selection. It could not have been achieved in one step - from raw materials to a fully developed strand of DNA. Similarly, the path from erly to later species is not by a single step, but a very lengthy sequence of steps, each of which is in itself quite small.
I could not jump from here to China but I could walk there. It's harder for you as you would have to cross an ocean, but maybe there is a link from Alaska - there used to be. See that as an analogy. (oops - I forgot the English Channel but there is a channel tunnel now so I get out of that one!)
Originally posted by RJHinds I have not seen one thing you have posted that shows how evolution best explains everything that is observed. Whereas, I on the other hand have posted many videos that explain what is actually observed and how the intelligent designer called God in the Holy Bible best explains the observable facts,
no, the videos you post are complete nonsense and they have been proven over and over.
Originally posted by twhitehead You do realise that by conceding that you are conceding that your whole OP is totally false?
No. Because if you will look close at my OP, I use species in a restrictive sense and not in the broad sense that you wish to use it. The species I am referring to is cat, dog, horse, man, monkey, etc. -- not tiger, lion, leopard, panther, etc.
Originally posted by RJHinds No. Because if you will look close at my OP, I use species in a restrictive sense and not in the broad sense that you wish to use it. The species I am referring to is cat, dog, horse, man, monkey, etc. -- not tiger, lion, leopard, panther, etc.
I don't really get what definition of 'species' you are using. But it doesn't really matter. You conceded that "lions and tigers may have had a common ancestor".
Since lions and tigers have a different number of DNA chromosomes, your concession is an admission that the OP is false in it entirety - regardless of what new definition of 'species' you thought you came up with (but omitted to define).
Originally posted by twhitehead I don't really get what definition of 'species' you are using. But it doesn't really matter. You conceded that "lions and tigers may have had a common ancestor".
Since lions and tigers have a different number of DNA chromosomes, your concession is an admission that the OP is false in it entirety - regardless of what new definition of 'species' you thought you came up with (but omitted to define).
The lion and the tiger have the same chromosone count of 38.
06 Jun '12 23:00
YouTube&feature=related
Proof evolution is wrong
Back to Top