Denied, yet sadly true ...

[Roy]

Lastly, so that you do not go away empty-handed saying that Jorge did not address your
point, I will simply refer you to Sanford's Genetic Entropy in which everything that you
speak of above is permanently shot down.

So... to prevent people saying that Jorge didn't address the point, Jorge didn't address the point. I'm sure that'll work really well.

As one example, it is a known fact that the vast majority of mutations cannot be selected for except in a negative sense. If you want to know what that means then you will just have to read the book (GE). Enjoy!

It means Jorge is tossing out random asides in the hope that people might mistakenly think he addressed the point. I'm sure that'll work really well too.

Roy

[rogue06]

In just about every case, the evolution advocate has some measure of all three -
ignorance, stupidity and dishonesty. In some cases (e.g., people like R. Dawkins
and K. Miller) it is mostly dishonesty (i.e., they are NOT ignorant of the facts and
they are not "stupid", speaking solely from an IQ standpoint). In most cases,
however, it is a mix of ignorance and stupidity. Ego / pride also plays a role since
most people are unwilling to stand up and say, "For umpteen years I was wrong!"
-- such a public confession would bruise their pride too much.

Unsupported assertion duly noted.

And just because YEC groups like AnswersinGenesis act that way (after all they've signed statements declaring that they will not consider evidence that contradicts their assumptions) doesn't mean others do.

Phil Gingerich was a long time leading supporter of the hypothesis that whales had arisen from mesonychids until he found an ankle bone indicating that it was another group, the artiodactyls that whales had arisen from. What was his reaction? To immediately change his mind and follow where the evidence had led rather than ignoring it and discarding it since it didn't match up to his preconceptions.

Dawkins' recounts an incident where a noted and well-respected scientist who, after hearing a lecture, went up to the speaker and congratulated him and admitted that his years research had been completely overturned by this and he had been wrong all along. Just imagine what he might have done if his "ego / pride" hadn't prevented him from making such a public admission.

[rogue06]

Anyway, you can continue to spout your "Jorge is wrong" and "Jorge does not understand
these things" all you want.

Well there is your brilliant work on impact craters you can show people if they ever doubt your qualifications

[lao tzu]

Jorge, depite having a PhD

What the hell, Jim? That's been debunked. It's fake. Jorge does not have a PhD.

[oxmixmudd]

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

WOW !!!

In just about every case, the evolution advocate has some measure of all three -
ignorance, stupidity and dishonesty. In some cases (e.g., people like R. Dawkins
and K. Miller) it is mostly dishonesty (i.e., they are NOT ignorant of the facts and
they are not "stupid", speaking solely from an IQ standpoint). In most cases,
however, it is a mix of ignorance and stupidity. Ego / pride also plays a role since
most people are unwilling to stand up and say, "For umpteen years I was wrong!"
-- such a public confession would bruise their pride too much.

I don't know about Dawkins and Miller, but I do know you demonstrate an inablity to face the fact you are wrong repeatedly, as do most YEC leaders. But of course, since this is the case, you will deny it is the case - leaving us at an impasse ... except that we have so many examples of where you were wrong and will not admit it!

Anyway, you can continue to spout your "Jorge is wrong" and "Jorge does not understand
these things" all you want. I shan't ever let you forget that I gave you the opportunity for a
one-on-one, interactive, real-time session with me to get the FACTS for yourself (granted,
on another topic) and you chose to "pass" on that opportunity - no doubt afraid of being
silenced despite what else you may have said (including, "I'm going on a vacation" to justify
your no-show.

Yes, your 'I challenge you to a dual' was essentially refused by me, more or less. I had not actually decided what I was going to do in response to it, but there is something very, very fishy about the fact you demand this exchange be done 'in real time' privately in YM vs. via pm or online in a thread. The reality is, If you have a valid argument, there is no reason it needs to be real time, or private. It should stand on its own merits. If your primary concern is trash talk from others, PM is fine, or a one-on-one thread where we are the only valid participants. I personally place no value on being able to respond quickly in a debate setting as relates to a techncal discussion such as the one proposed. And calling me 'yellow' will not gain you an inch. What matters is the accuracy of the information and logic.

Lastly, so that you do not go away empty-handed saying that Jorge did not address your
point, I will simply refer you to Sanford's Genetic Entropy in which everything that you
speak of above is permanently shot down. As one example, it is a known fact that
the vast majority of mutations cannot be selected for except in a negative sense. If you
want to know what that means then you will just have to read the book (GE). Enjoy!

Jorge

Vast Majority Jorge. And what is that that is being discussed here Jorge? That selection allows for the RARE (not the Vast Majority) to rise to the top. THAT is the debate, the discussion. Clearly by saying 'vast majority' you are admitting SOME positive mutations occur. Now, since negative mutations are culled via NS, and positive mutations retained via NS, where is your support of the idea this process will not allow for macro-evolution? You've done no more here than say 'nuh uh'. Try again.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

What the hell, Jim? That's been debunked. It's fake. Jorge does not have a PhD.

I guess I don't see the point in flogging that particular horse. He got a Ph.D from what apears to be an online diploma mill. It will not ever be seen as legit by real institutions, and it doesn't matter where it came from to the YEC audience he panders to. He is content with that, which says a great deal.

Jim