AiG: Top 10 Myths About Creation

[TyRockwell]

That makes it the 50th (?) time (perhaps more) that I've explained this to you clowns
and you keep coming back at me with "you always run away .... you never explain
anything ... you are a coward" and similar dishonest BS. I'm expecting that in a
few weeks, when this post is forgotten, I'll once again read your dishonest whines.
I think that, like a crooked lawyer, you people keep asking the question over and over
until you get the answer that you want to hear.

Jorge

Copy it and save it to a handy place, for next time!

[TyRockwell]

Sam, let me say this politely and gently : you have neither the background nor the
intellectual integrity to carry a conversation on this subject. The background part
may be remedied but not so the other part.

Why can't we just hear, 'I have made a strong case, and you have come nowhere near making your case,' or some statement along that line, rather than an attack another poster's intelligence?

Thanks.

[wattsr1]

Why can't we just hear, 'I have made a strong case, and you have come nowhere near making your case,' or some statement along that line, rather than an attack another poster's intelligence?

Thanks.

You need to stick around to watch history unfold TyR.

When Jorge attacks us, it's called "fact".

When we attack Jorge, it's called "vilification".

I kid you not.



That is, Jorge does not see it as "insult".


Hey Jorge - did I get it right above? Surely this post is correct?




Regards, Roland

[Jorge]

What are you talking about?

**********************************************************************************

You're either trying to be funny or on some strong medication -- which is it?

I'm not going to dig back through umpteen threads but not too long ago (months?)
we were exchanging posts and you had the opportunity to educate yourself on the
subjects that you blindly and erroneously blather about (concerning Biblical
Creationism and related topics). Does that ring any bells? If you answer 'no'
then add 'selective memory' to your resume.

Jorge

[Jorge]

At that point all irony meters in the continental U.S., most of Canada and Mexico, were shattered beyond repair. :irony:

Attachment 73082

************************************************************************************

FYI and as a warning, you are rapidly approaching Tiggy Status. Heck, you may already be there!

Jorge

[Jorge]

Since I dug up your words from 2006, Jorge, doesn't that demonstrate that I am not "coming at you again" pretending I never heard any of it? Still, you never did answer with a definition of "kind", other than to say "NO ONE KNOWS" . . . which is pretty irregular, since AiG certainly claimed to have a good approximation and Ross talked about them as though he had a pretty good idea.

But you don't really need to answer, anyhow. We all know that your answer to the question of genetic barriers is something along the lines of "No one has ever seen two dogs give birth to a non-dog." It's just useful for you to affirm your position so it can be discussed. Discussion of a topic seems to be anathema to you.

Any road, one wonders why you get all huffy about us supposedly always pretending not to hear your explanations when the same could easily be reversed. At worst, we're all in the same boat, right?

—Sam

******************************************************************************

I have no problems with discussing topics, Sam. I do, however, have a HUGE problem
with discussions where my opponent isn't intellectually honest. Such discussions are
a complete waste of time plus they trouble my spirit.

Your dishonesty is proven once again in the above post where you blather things like
"Discussion of a topic seems to be anathema to you." I have made it perfectly clear
numerous times (as in the previous paragraph) that I have no problem with discussions.
In fact, I very much enjoy a good, intellectually-stimulating discussion. That's how
the mind sharpens, ideas are exchanged and tested, and other viewpoints are examined.
However, I've also made it clear what I DO have problems with. Yet, here you are again ---
parroting the same lie. Furthermore, you practice what is very common amongst those
of your clan (rogue06, O-Mudd, et al.) : misrepresentation of your opponents position.
You do that here by presenting a straw-man version of my position : "We all know that
your answer to the question of genetic barriers is something along the lines of "No one
has ever seen two dogs give birth to a non-dog."" You know very well that there's much
more to it than that yet this doesn't stop you from doing your thing.

It doesn't get any clearer than this, Sammy-boy.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Why can't we just hear, 'I have made a strong case, and you have come nowhere near making
your case,' or some statement along that line, rather than an attack another poster's intelligence?

Thanks.

*************************************************************************************

Errr ... speaking of "intelligence", let's examine your claim that I'm "attacking another poster's intelligence".

Here's what I wrote and you then quoted :

Sam, let me say this politely and gently : you have neither the background nor the
intellectual integrity to carry a conversation on this subject. The background part
may be remedied but not so the other part.


Let's now analyze that quote to find this alleged "attack on the poster's intelligence" :

Sam, let me say this politely and gently : No attack here


you have neither the background : not having the background does NOT attack the
intelligence of a person. Einstein, when alive, probably had ZERO background
in the fine art of making stained glass mosaics. So, does this "attack Einstein's
intelligence"?


nor the intellectual integrity to carry a conversation on this subject. This is regarding
the intellectual integrity of the person, NOT the intelligence.

The background part may be remedied but not so the other part. This says that
the background may be remedied [through instruction] but not so the other part
[namely, the intellectual integrity].


That's it. So I sit here wondering where the heck you came up with the claim that
I "attacked another poster's intelligence". Would you mind shedding some light here?

Jorge

[Jorge]

You need to stick around to watch history unfold TyR.

When Jorge attacks us, it's called "fact".

When we attack Jorge, it's called "vilification".

I kid you not.



That is, Jorge does not see it as "insult".


Hey Jorge - did I get it right above? Surely this post is correct?

Regards, Roland

*******************************************************************************

You haven't been "correct" since the last time your mom asked you to buy
a quart of milk at the store and you brought home the "correct" change.

Jorge

[FreezBee]

[QUOTE=Jorge;2858478]
FreezBee wrote (acting innocent, as if he'd never seen this before) :

Ok, so if I am ignorant, or have chosen to propagate a lie, why don't you take
the opportunity to explain to us, what happens to be the truth of the matter?

Ok, Jorge, thank you for responding.

The reasons why there are two and only two alternatives (ignorance or propagating
a lie) is because (1) I personally have explained this here on TWeb more times
than I care to remember; (2) even if you deny this, the same site from where you
obtained the 'Top 10 Myths ...'' article, namely, the AiG site, contains tons of material
that explains the matter in full detail. IOW, you have NO EXCUSE for either being
ignorant or for spreading lies.

I am aware of AiG's explanation. What I wrote was that, in the YEC world, evolution = macro-evolution = 1-step change from molecules to human.

As for the first equation (evolution = macro-evolution), I suppose we can agree about that. The problem is that AiG (and you) use your own definition of macro-evolution.

As for the second equation (macro-evolution = 1-step change from molecules to human), I was exaggerating. However, my point was that you have previously defined macro-evolution as "molecules to man", as if there was nothing between.

Here's my ultra-concise explanation (in which I will be referring exclusively to the 'Myth' that
rogue06 picked on : Species changing via natural selection and mutations isn't evolution?!?

The reason why we (AiG and myself) are absolutely correct in stating this is because
we are talking about the General ToE, not the ToE that is very dishonestly bait-n-switched
with the GToE.

There is no dishonesty -- it is part of the Modern Synthesis that macro-evolution = accumulated micro-evolution.

Specifically, I have often stated here (scores of times) that any informed
Biblical Creationist would agree that natural selection and mutations is a scientific fact.
IOW, we Biblical Creationists would agree with that certain aspects of the ToE that are
scientifically valid, verifiable and undeniable. Yes, the allele frequencies in populations
do indeed change over time.

And -- surpise, surprise! -- according to the Modern Synthesis, evolution = change over time of allele frequencies in populations.

What you may question is the suffiency of those changes in allele frequencies for changing a population of species into a population of a different species, especially, how different.

But the FACT of the matter is that the GToE goes beyond that - far beyond. The GToE
not only says that mutations and natural selection occur, but that these are the sole
causing agent for the entire flora and fauna found on planet earth and, furthermore,
that ALL species on earth today are the result of mutations and natural selection
acting on a common ancestor that naturally arose some 3.6 billion years ago.
That is NOT science, that is a belief, part of a Naturalistic religion.

The GToE may say that -- since it's anyway your construct.

However, it's not poart of any actual theory of evolution. Note that you write "ALL species on earth today are the result of mutations and natural selection acting on a common ancestor", as if all species happens directly from that common ancestor -- that is, a 1-step speciation frm the common ancestor.

THAT is what we do not agree with and THAT is why we are absolutely correct in
saying that mutations and natural selection are not evolution (i.e., not the 'evolution'
(namely, the GToE) that is part of a Naturalistic, anti-Scripture religion).

However, since that GToE doesn't really correspond to anything outside the YEC mindset, it is a non sequitur.

That makes it the 50th (?) time (perhaps more) that I've explained this to you clowns

And as long as you keep explaining it as if the YEC mindset is the real world, will keep coming back at you with "you always run away .... you never explain anything ... you are a coward".

and you keep coming back at me with "you always run away .... you never explain
anything ... you are a coward" and similar dishonest BS. I'm expecting that in a
few weeks, when this post is forgotten, I'll once again read your dishonest whines.
I think that, like a crooked lawyer, you people keep asking the question over and over
until you get the answer that you want to hear.

Jorge

Jorge, the problem is that you keep giving am answer that is based on your own misconception about the theory of evolution -- so, it's not so much a question of us wanting to get some specific answer, but a question of us wanting you to understand that you are protesting against a phanton that you and other YECs yourself have constructed.


- FreezBee

[Tiggy]

.
You do that here by presenting a straw-man version of my position : "We all know that
your answer to the question of genetic barriers is something along the lines of "No one
has ever seen two dogs give birth to a non-dog."" You know very well that there's much
more to it than that yet this doesn't stop you from doing your thing.

Please explain the scientific details of the "much more to it than this" part about this genetic barrier. Thanks!

- T

[Tiggy]

As the research summery I linked indicated, if there was a single basal 'kind' the researchers involved in the study would have found one. As it stands, from the data they collected, "the researchers found four distinct genetic groups in the dog world. This suggests that wolves may have been tamed and domesticated several times, at different times and places, and that no single wolf ancestor is common to all dogs. It also suggests that dogs and wolves could have interbred later, adding fresh wolf DNA to the domestic dog gene pool.
But no DNA evidence was found of coyotes or jackals in the dog family tree. The study showed that Fido, and every other dog in the world, was all wolf." What YEC's, like myself, infer from this data is that there where possibly four basal kinds of wolf containing the four genetic groups found, possibly a fifth and/or sixth containing the genetic information from which the coyote and jackals descended. Furthermore that there may have been one single basal kind that contained all of the genetic groups from which all dogs descended, which could not be tested because it no longer exists. While the data may not directly support that interpretation it does not directly deny it either. As for that single basal kind it would not resemble either a bear or a walrus, it would resemble a wolf.

Now, since I, and other creationists, believe that there is one intelligent designer of all life on earth we expect to find similarities in DNA for creatures with similar morphologies. As your illustration suggests there are some similarities in morphology between walrus', bears, and dogs, so we expect similarities in their genetic codes, the blueprints that constructed them, but we infer that that's all they are, similarities. I've heard many evolutionists quote that there is only a 2-5% difference between human and chimp DNA, but that 2-5% makes 'all' the difference.

So you're saying there were at least four, and possibly as many as six different canine 'kinds' on the Ark? How about the feline 'kind'. How many there? Or the 'horse' kind?

Do you realize that in Africa there are six distinct species of giraffe that are farther apart from each other (genetically speaking) that the four dog subgroups in the study you cited? That means there must have been at least six pairs of giraffe on the Ark too, right?

You *do* realize your argument just increased the size requirements of the Ark by at least an order of magnitude, don't you?

- T

[Jorge]

Please explain the scientific details of the "much more to it than this"
part about this genetic barrier. Thanks!

- T

********************************************************************************

I'll do so the very moment that you explain the scientific details
-- all of them -- that are necessary for a molecules-to-man event.

I will wait patiently while you provide this information.

Jorge

[Tiggy]

********************************************************************************

I'll do so the very moment that you explain the scientific details
-- all of them -- that are necessary for a molecules-to-man event.

I will wait patiently while you provide this information.

Jorge

OK so you have no evidence for this magic 'genetic barrier' that stops micro changes from accumulating into macro ones.

The rest of us already knew that, but it's nice to see you admit it.

- T

[Jorge]

OK so you have no evidence for this magic 'genetic barrier' that
stops micro changes from accumulating into macro ones.

The rest of us already knew that, but it's nice to see you admit it.

- T

****************************************************************************

I'm very tempted to offer to PAY for your Reading Comprehension for Dyslexic Dummies class.

Try again, Dumbo :

I'll do so the very moment that you explain the scientific details
-- all of them -- that are necessary for a molecules-to-man event.

I will wait patiently while you provide this information.

Jorge

[Philosophickle]

**********************************************************************************

You're either trying to be funny or on some strong medication -- which is it?

I'm not going to dig back through umpteen threads but not too long ago (months?)
we were exchanging posts and you had the opportunity to educate yourself on the
subjects that you blindly and erroneously blather about (concerning Biblical
Creationism and related topics). Does that ring any bells? If you answer 'no'
then add 'selective memory' to your resume.

Jorge

It looks like selective memory, then. I don't recall any specific opportunity to "educate" myself on YEC.