Why is there a conflict between religion and science?

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Why is there a conflict between religion and science?

#166

Post by Audie » Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:06 am

Id like to see it done, to produce a great Dane from a a Tibetan mastiff, in one generation.
"Normal variation" and all.

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4944
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 203 times
Been liked: 168 times

Re: Why is there a conflict between religion and science?

#167

Post by abelcainsbrother » Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:08 pm

Audie wrote:Id like to see it done, to produce a great Dane from a a Tibetan mastiff, in one generation.
"Normal variation" and all.
That is irrelevant as long as scientists are using normal variation for evidence life evolves.They are not using any evidence that demonstrates what you said and they can't,they are using normal variation for evidence life evolves. It is actually a regression in science about life evolving since Darwin.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Why is there a conflict between religion and science?

#168

Post by Audie » Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:31 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Audie wrote:Id like to see it done, to produce a great Dane from a a Tibetan mastiff, in one generation.
"Normal variation" and all.
That is irrelevant as long as scientists are using normal variation for evidence life evolves.They are not using any evidence that demonstrates what you said and they can't,they are using normal variation for evidence life evolves. It is actually a regression in science about life evolving since Darwin.
First, it is exactly relevant.

Why?

It shows that your "normal variation" / great "Dain" (sic) is a crock.
You KNOW that it is not within that range, that it will never happen.
Saying it is irrelevant as long as others do things they dont do is bonkers.

Second, "normal variation"* is not now, and never was used as evidence of evolution.
The claim that it is, is a crock.

* not that you ever defined what you might mean by this expression.

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4944
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 203 times
Been liked: 168 times

Re: Why is there a conflict between religion and science?

#169

Post by abelcainsbrother » Tue Feb 23, 2016 2:03 pm

Audie wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
Audie wrote:Id like to see it done, to produce a great Dane from a a Tibetan mastiff, in one generation.
"Normal variation" and all.
That is irrelevant as long as scientists are using normal variation for evidence life evolves.They are not using any evidence that demonstrates what you said and they can't,they are using normal variation for evidence life evolves. It is actually a regression in science about life evolving since Darwin.
First, it is exactly relevant.

Why?

It shows that your "normal variation" / great "Dain" (sic) is a crock.
You KNOW that it is not within that range, that it will never happen.
Saying it is irrelevant as long as others do things they dont do is bonkers.

Second, "normal variation"* is not now, and never was used as evidence of evolution.
The claim that it is, is a crock.

* not that you ever defined what you might mean by this expression.
I have a link to prove normal variation is used for evidence life evolves. Why do you ignore it? Please explain how this evidence is not scientists using normal variation for evidence life evolves.This is no different than the normal variation we see with dogs,cats,humans,finches,rats,salamanders,roses,viruses,bacteria,etc being used for evidence life evolves.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_02
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Why is there a conflict between religion and science?

#170

Post by Audie » Tue Feb 23, 2016 3:14 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Audie wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
Audie wrote:Id like to see it done, to produce a great Dane from a a Tibetan mastiff, in one generation.
"Normal variation" and all.
That is irrelevant as long as scientists are using normal variation for evidence life evolves.They are not using any evidence that demonstrates what you said and they can't,they are using normal variation for evidence life evolves. It is actually a regression in science about life evolving since Darwin.
First, it is exactly relevant.

Why?

It shows that your "normal variation" / great "Dain" (sic) is a crock.
You KNOW that it is not within that range, that it will never happen.
Saying it is irrelevant as long as others do things they dont do is bonkers.

Second, "normal variation"* is not now, and never was used as evidence of evolution.
The claim that it is, is a crock.

* not that you ever defined what you might mean by this expression.
I have a link to prove normal variation is used for evidence life evolves. Why do you ignore it? Please explain how this evidence is not scientists using normal variation for evidence life evolves.This is no different than the normal variation we see with dogs,cats,humans,finches,rats,salamanders,roses,viruses,bacteria,etc being used for evidence life evolves.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_02
No, Ab, "normal variation " is not so used. That is your idea, but it is mistaken.
And please, saying it three times in one five line post?

You are not understanding the article, nor, even if it said as you think, would one article "prove" that millions of people around the world are as stupid as you are presenting.

If you must have it explained why you are not understanding, I can make the effort.
Or begood can.

It would be terrifically helpful if you could say what you think "normal variation" is, tho.

You have not said what you think "normal variation" is, nor if you think a pair o' peekapoos
could have a wolf pup, nor why or why not.

Prease exprain, talk genetics.

If you have some space. say if you are considering mutations to be "normal variation".

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21521
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 202 times
Been liked: 1103 times

Re: Why is there a conflict between religion and science?

#171

Post by RickD » Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:23 pm

Audie wrote:
Prease exprain, talk genetics.
Does it make me a racist if I think this is hirarious?
These users liked this post by RickD:
Kurieuo (Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:16 pm)
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4944
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 203 times
Been liked: 168 times

Re: Why is there a conflict between religion and science?

#172

Post by abelcainsbrother » Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:45 pm

Audie wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
Audie wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
Audie wrote:Id like to see it done, to produce a great Dane from a a Tibetan mastiff, in one generation.
"Normal variation" and all.
That is irrelevant as long as scientists are using normal variation for evidence life evolves.They are not using any evidence that demonstrates what you said and they can't,they are using normal variation for evidence life evolves. It is actually a regression in science about life evolving since Darwin.
First, it is exactly relevant.

Why?

It shows that your "normal variation" / great "Dain" (sic) is a crock.
You KNOW that it is not within that range, that it will never happen.
Saying it is irrelevant as long as others do things they dont do is bonkers.

Second, "normal variation"* is not now, and never was used as evidence of evolution.
The claim that it is, is a crock.

* not that you ever defined what you might mean by this expression.
I have a link to prove normal variation is used for evidence life evolves. Why do you ignore it? Please explain how this evidence is not scientists using normal variation for evidence life evolves.This is no different than the normal variation we see with dogs,cats,humans,finches,rats,salamanders,roses,viruses,bacteria,etc being used for evidence life evolves.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_02
No, Ab, "normal variation " is not so used. That is your idea, but it is mistaken.
And please, saying it three times in one five line post?

You are not understanding the article, nor, even if it said as you think, would one article "prove" that millions of people around the world are as stupid as you are presenting.

If you must have it explained why you are not understanding, I can make the effort.
Or begood can.

It would be terrifically helpful if you could say what you think "normal variation" is, tho.

You have not said what you think "normal variation" is, nor if you think a pair o' peekapoos
could have a wolf pup, nor why or why not.

Prease exprain, talk genetics.

If you have some space. say if you are considering mutations to be "normal variation".
I have already told you and explained what normal variation means. I even told you what you need to do to know,but yet you did'nt. Why should I keep telling you? Read Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" because he assumed life evolves based on variation,it was the very thing that caused him to believe life evolves and this is why it cannot be used for evidence life evolves today and yet it is as I've showed you. The salamanders I posted clearly shows normal variation in reproduction. And about mutations? You have no evidence mutations causes life to evolve,you only have evidence that shows normal variation in reproduction. So we must go by the evidence and mutations does not cause life to evolve when all you have to show for evidence is normal variation in reproduction.

It must be demonstrated mutations causes life to evolve,we cannot assume they do based on normal variation in reproduction.If we did assume? We would be right back to where Darwin was 150 years ago assuming life evolves based on normal variation and we cannot do that.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Why is there a conflict between religion and science?

#173

Post by Audie » Wed Feb 24, 2016 7:05 am

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Audie wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
Audie wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
That is irrelevant as long as scientists are using normal variation for evidence life evolves.They are not using any evidence that demonstrates what you said and they can't,they are using normal variation for evidence life evolves. It is actually a regression in science about life evolving since Darwin.
First, it is exactly relevant.

Why?

It shows that your "normal variation" / great "Dain" (sic) is a crock.
You KNOW that it is not within that range, that it will never happen.
Saying it is irrelevant as long as others do things they dont do is bonkers.

Second, "normal variation"* is not now, and never was used as evidence of evolution.
The claim that it is, is a crock.

* not that you ever defined what you might mean by this expression.
I have a link to prove normal variation is used for evidence life evolves. Why do you ignore it? Please explain how this evidence is not scientists using normal variation for evidence life evolves.This is no different than the normal variation we see with dogs,cats,humans,finches,rats,salamanders,roses,viruses,bacteria,etc being used for evidence life evolves.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_02
No, Ab, "normal variation " is not so used. That is your idea, but it is mistaken.
And please, saying it three times in one five line post?

You are not understanding the article, nor, even if it said as you think, would one article "prove" that millions of people around the world are as stupid as you are presenting.

If you must have it explained why you are not understanding, I can make the effort.
Or begood can.

It would be terrifically helpful if you could say what you think "normal variation" is, tho.

You have not said what you think "normal variation" is, nor if you think a pair o' peekapoos
could have a wolf pup, nor why or why not.

Prease exprain, talk genetics.

If you have some space. say if you are considering mutations to be "normal variation".
I have already told you and explained what normal variation means. I even told you what you need to do to know,but yet you did'nt. Why should I keep telling you? Read Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" because he assumed life evolves based on variation,it was the very thing that caused him to believe life evolves and this is why it cannot be used for evidence life evolves today and yet it is as I've showed you. The salamanders I posted clearly shows normal variation in reproduction. And about mutations? You have no evidence mutations causes life to evolve,you only have evidence that shows normal variation in reproduction. So we must go by the evidence and mutations does not cause life to evolve when all you have to show for evidence is normal variation in reproduction.

It must be demonstrated mutations causes life to evolve,we cannot assume they do based on normal variation in reproduction.If we did assume? We would be right back to where Darwin was 150 years ago assuming life evolves based on normal variation and we cannot do that.

You cant answer the peekapoo / wolf question, you cannot answer anything about genetics, which is, after all, what gives variation. Genetics. But nothing on that from you. So you dont know what you are talking about when you say "natural variation". You just say it. Over and over. You didnt say if you think mutations are part of normal variation, just the same chant about Darwin and assumptions.

"Why should you keep telling me"? No need to, you've shown your hand.

"Why should you keep telling me?" "assumed life evolves based on variation"

You should not.
I dunno why you keep saying it over and over and over in every post. You should stop. Its not true, and its is not good to keep repeating falsehoods.

It is impossible to be a creationist such as yourself of any of the variants, and also be informed and honest.

Your post has two massive fails, the "variation" thing, and the "mutations causes life to evolve" thing that nobody claims and is as such a classic strawman fallacy.,
People who know what they are talking about dont need fallacies.

I think you at least make a moderate effort to be honest, but you sure are uninformed.

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

Re: Why is there a conflict between religion and science?

#174

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Wed Feb 24, 2016 8:35 am

abelcainsbrother wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Also, if I bred dogs for size, what is going on with the genes in my pack?
Probably producing a Great Dain? It's still a dog though and shows normal variation that we already know about.We have different color roses too,again normal variation. My point is and has been that this is not and cannot be evidence life evolves and yet it is used as evidence.
So at no point do novel traits emerge?
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

Re: Why is there a conflict between religion and science?

#175

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Sat Feb 27, 2016 8:14 am

abelcainsbrother wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote: OK but its a waste of time when we already know. We've known for thousands of years all dogs are related to wolves,even Darwin knew it and is a big reason why he assumed life evolves based on this knowledge man has had for thousands of years. Even the ancient Greeks knew dogs came from wolves,so why do we need to waste time in a science lab demonstrating it?
Can we then use the same method on wolves and jackals?
Yes.
Also, if I bred dogs for size, what is going on with the genes in my pack?
Probably producing a Great Dain? It's still a dog though and shows normal variation that we already know about.We have different color roses too,again normal variation. My point is and has been that this is not and cannot be evidence life evolves and yet it is used as evidence.
abelcainsbrother, are you insisting that new traits do not emerge?
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

User avatar
Nicki
Senior Member
Posts: 685
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 8:36 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Western Australia
Has liked: 359 times
Been liked: 68 times

Re: Why is there a conflict between religion and science?

#176

Post by Nicki » Mon Feb 29, 2016 7:16 am

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Also, if I bred dogs for size, what is going on with the genes in my pack?
Probably producing a Great Dain? It's still a dog though and shows normal variation that we already know about.We have different color roses too,again normal variation. My point is and has been that this is not and cannot be evidence life evolves and yet it is used as evidence.
So at no point do novel traits emerge?
My understanding is that dog breeds are produced by mating ones which both have the same slight difference from their siblings or from most other dogs of the same breed (smaller size, for example) to further develop the difference. Dogs in particular have a wide variety of difference between breeds (much more so than with cats or other domesticated animals), but they're still dogs.

User avatar
B. W.
Ultimate Member
Posts: 8365
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
Christian: Yes
Location: Colorado
Has liked: 102 times
Been liked: 260 times

Re: Why is there a conflict between religion and science?

#177

Post by B. W. » Mon Feb 29, 2016 10:11 am

Nicki wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Also, if I bred dogs for size, what is going on with the genes in my pack?
Probably producing a Great Dain? It's still a dog though and shows normal variation that we already know about.We have different color roses too,again normal variation. My point is and has been that this is not and cannot be evidence life evolves and yet it is used as evidence.
So at no point do novel traits emerge?
My understanding is that dog breeds are produced by mating ones which both have the same slight difference from their siblings or from most other dogs of the same breed (smaller size, for example) to further develop the difference. Dogs in particular have a wide variety of difference between breeds (much more so than with cats or other domesticated animals), but they're still dogs.
Well in the USA some folks consider dogs as people...

http://theweek.com/articles/536712/dog- ... ating-like

These users liked this post by B. W.:
Nicki (Wed Mar 02, 2016 6:39 am)
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)

Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4944
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 203 times
Been liked: 168 times

Re: Why is there a conflict between religion and science?

#178

Post by abelcainsbrother » Wed Mar 02, 2016 1:43 am

Audie wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
Audie wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
Audie wrote:
First, it is exactly relevant.

Why?

It shows that your "normal variation" / great "Dain" (sic) is a crock.
You KNOW that it is not within that range, that it will never happen.
Saying it is irrelevant as long as others do things they dont do is bonkers.

Second, "normal variation"* is not now, and never was used as evidence of evolution.
The claim that it is, is a crock.

* not that you ever defined what you might mean by this expression.
I have a link to prove normal variation is used for evidence life evolves. Why do you ignore it? Please explain how this evidence is not scientists using normal variation for evidence life evolves.This is no different than the normal variation we see with dogs,cats,humans,finches,rats,salamanders,roses,viruses,bacteria,etc being used for evidence life evolves.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_02
No, Ab, "normal variation " is not so used. That is your idea, but it is mistaken.
And please, saying it three times in one five line post?

You are not understanding the article, nor, even if it said as you think, would one article "prove" that millions of people around the world are as stupid as you are presenting.

If you must have it explained why you are not understanding, I can make the effort.
Or begood can.

It would be terrifically helpful if you could say what you think "normal variation" is, tho.

You have not said what you think "normal variation" is, nor if you think a pair o' peekapoos
could have a wolf pup, nor why or why not.

Prease exprain, talk genetics.

If you have some space. say if you are considering mutations to be "normal variation".
I have already told you and explained what normal variation means. I even told you what you need to do to know,but yet you did'nt. Why should I keep telling you? Read Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" because he assumed life evolves based on variation,it was the very thing that caused him to believe life evolves and this is why it cannot be used for evidence life evolves today and yet it is as I've showed you. The salamanders I posted clearly shows normal variation in reproduction. And about mutations? You have no evidence mutations causes life to evolve,you only have evidence that shows normal variation in reproduction. So we must go by the evidence and mutations does not cause life to evolve when all you have to show for evidence is normal variation in reproduction.

It must be demonstrated mutations causes life to evolve,we cannot assume they do based on normal variation in reproduction.If we did assume? We would be right back to where Darwin was 150 years ago assuming life evolves based on normal variation and we cannot do that.

You cant answer the peekapoo / wolf question, you cannot answer anything about genetics, which is, after all, what gives variation. Genetics. But nothing on that from you. So you dont know what you are talking about when you say "natural variation". You just say it. Over and over. You didnt say if you think mutations are part of normal variation, just the same chant about Darwin and assumptions.

"Why should you keep telling me"? No need to, you've shown your hand.

"Why should you keep telling me?" "assumed life evolves based on variation"

You should not.
I dunno why you keep saying it over and over and over in every post. You should stop. Its not true, and its is not good to keep repeating falsehoods.

It is impossible to be a creationist such as yourself of any of the variants, and also be informed and honest.

Your post has two massive fails, the "variation" thing, and the "mutations causes life to evolve" thing that nobody claims and is as such a classic strawman fallacy.,
People who know what they are talking about dont need fallacies.

I think you at least make a moderate effort to be honest, but you sure are uninformed.
You have no evidence in evolution science that demonstrates mutations causes life to evolve and that is very important,but you keep ignoring it,yet believing it by assuming they do. How can you be so scientifically smart and not know what "normal variation" means? I mean dogs are a good example of normal variation in reproduction,with all of the dog breeds and yet when I post a link to you showing you that scientists are using normal variation for evidence life evolves like the salamanders using it for evidence for MACRO-evolution,not micro-evolution, that show normal variation in reproduction? You totally ignore it and somehow assume mutations causes life to evolve,eventhough there is no evidence that demonstrates it.

You keep overlooking this and I don't know why. acting like you don't know what "normal variation" means does not help you though because you still have no evidence in evolution science that demontrates what you said that mutations causes life to evolve. You are assuming it is true based on being taught it,but overlooked the lack of evidence.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

User avatar
Nicki
Senior Member
Posts: 685
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 8:36 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Western Australia
Has liked: 359 times
Been liked: 68 times

Re: Why is there a conflict between religion and science?

#179

Post by Nicki » Wed Mar 02, 2016 6:44 am

B. W. wrote:
Nicki wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Also, if I bred dogs for size, what is going on with the genes in my pack?
Probably producing a Great Dain? It's still a dog though and shows normal variation that we already know about.We have different color roses too,again normal variation. My point is and has been that this is not and cannot be evidence life evolves and yet it is used as evidence.
So at no point do novel traits emerge?
My understanding is that dog breeds are produced by mating ones which both have the same slight difference from their siblings or from most other dogs of the same breed (smaller size, for example) to further develop the difference. Dogs in particular have a wide variety of difference between breeds (much more so than with cats or other domesticated animals), but they're still dogs.
Well in the USA some folks consider dogs as people...

http://theweek.com/articles/536712/dog- ... ating-like

:lol: Love it!

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Why is there a conflict between religion and science?

#180

Post by Audie » Wed Mar 02, 2016 10:02 am

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Audie wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
Audie wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
I have a link to prove normal variation is used for evidence life evolves. Why do you ignore it? Please explain how this evidence is not scientists using normal variation for evidence life evolves.This is no different than the normal variation we see with dogs,cats,humans,finches,rats,salamanders,roses,viruses,bacteria,etc being used for evidence life evolves.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_02
No, Ab, "normal variation " is not so used. That is your idea, but it is mistaken.
And please, saying it three times in one five line post?

You are not understanding the article, nor, even if it said as you think, would one article "prove" that millions of people around the world are as stupid as you are presenting.

If you must have it explained why you are not understanding, I can make the effort.
Or begood can.

It would be terrifically helpful if you could say what you think "normal variation" is, tho.

You have not said what you think "normal variation" is, nor if you think a pair o' peekapoos
could have a wolf pup, nor why or why not.

Prease exprain, talk genetics.

If you have some space. say if you are considering mutations to be "normal variation".
I have already told you and explained what normal variation means. I even told you what you need to do to know,but yet you did'nt. Why should I keep telling you? Read Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" because he assumed life evolves based on variation,it was the very thing that caused him to believe life evolves and this is why it cannot be used for evidence life evolves today and yet it is as I've showed you. The salamanders I posted clearly shows normal variation in reproduction. And about mutations? You have no evidence mutations causes life to evolve,you only have evidence that shows normal variation in reproduction. So we must go by the evidence and mutations does not cause life to evolve when all you have to show for evidence is normal variation in reproduction.

It must be demonstrated mutations causes life to evolve,we cannot assume they do based on normal variation in reproduction.If we did assume? We would be right back to where Darwin was 150 years ago assuming life evolves based on normal variation and we cannot do that.

You cant answer the peekapoo / wolf question, you cannot answer anything about genetics, which is, after all, what gives variation. Genetics. But nothing on that from you. So you dont know what you are talking about when you say "natural variation". You just say it. Over and over. You didnt say if you think mutations are part of normal variation, just the same chant about Darwin and assumptions.

"Why should you keep telling me"? No need to, you've shown your hand.

"Why should you keep telling me?" "assumed life evolves based on variation"

You should not.
I dunno why you keep saying it over and over and over in every post. You should stop. Its not true, and its is not good to keep repeating falsehoods.

It is impossible to be a creationist such as yourself of any of the variants, and also be informed and honest.

Your post has two massive fails, the "variation" thing, and the "mutations causes life to evolve" thing that nobody claims and is as such a classic strawman fallacy.,
People who know what they are talking about dont need fallacies.

I think you at least make a moderate effort to be honest, but you sure are uninformed.
You have no evidence in evolution science that demonstrates mutations causes life to evolve
Mutations do not cause evolution, nobody says they do.
and that is very important,but you keep ignoring it,yet believing it by assuming they do.
It is very important that you attempt ;to understand evolution before saying it is wrong.
How can you be so scientifically smart and not know what "normal variation" means?
I was trying to get you to show if you undrestand it.
I understand it fine. If you understood it and could explain it, you could ansser the q about whether a pair of wolves could have a baby peekapoo. Or vice versa.


I post a link to you showing you that scientists are using normal variation for evidence life evolves like the salamanders using it for evidence for MACRO-evolution,not micro-evolution
,

Three problems:
-You posted a link to an article that you did not understand.
-it did not say what you think it says
-even if it did, one article about one salamander does not stand for all of
geology, biology, genetics, paleontolo gy etc. No more than David Karesh stood for all Christians.
You are assuming it is true based on being taught it,but overlooked the lack of evidence.
You have a habit of drifting too far from the shore, making statements of facts not in evidence, which is actually indistinguishable from making things up. In court, we call it perjury.

a) I am not "assuming" what you think, nor thinking it in any way shape or form.
Mutations does not cause evolution any more than a wheel causes a car to go.

b. You are making the false and insulting assumption that I think it is "true" because it is what I was taught. So, that I just soak up and believe as "true" (science does not do "true" btw) whatever I am told, no thinking, no understanding, no investigation?

One of your sycophants made the same deliberately offensive statement about me, also perjuring himself before such god as he may have.

c. There is no "lack of evidence" for evolution. There is tho, very obviously a lack of education on your part. It is not the same thing.





Post Reply