Oh my, once again I forgot, sorry. Many decades ago when I was in kindergarten they explained what it means when an integer is in front of a noun. I am sure it will be coming up soon in your kindergarten class – you can ask your teacher when. Till then I really should restrict my conversations to the adults. Bye, bye, little tyke.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
What you deleted, was Crow's analysis, showing that sexual reproduction, by shuffling genes around, can eliminate unfavorable genes in groups.
Hence, his explaination why we aren't already extinct, which we would be if your misunderstanding of Crow's analysis were true.
Crow's final issue was his fear that modern medicine, by blunting the force of natural selection, might lead to the decay of the human genome. Most of the math suggests otherwise, but it's not a sure thing.
The fact that human performance continues to rise, particularly intelligence, (look up "Flynn Effect") suggests that we aren't seeing that happen.
6days
New member
Barbarian said:
Nothing was deleted. You may not have read what I was replying to.
We know Crow is an evolutionist, so he identifies the problem he calls the population bomb, then proposes a 'rescue device'.
Barbarian said:
Yes...the path to eugenics.*
Barbarian said:
Sure...and human embryos have gill slits. You are dishonest like Haeckel.
You continue to repeat things you have been proven wrong on. IQ is only partly dependant on genetics. Nutrition and other factors also influence IQ.*
BTW.... I'm still waiting for you to explain why you fabricated a quote.
6days
New member
In the 410 times a number is associated with a day in the Bible, it always is referring to a normal solar day.
Those in the KNOW, know that well 6days. Those NOT in the know, are NOT in the know obviously, and only throw around self aggrandizements like you nicely responded to.
Good on ya!
TracerBullet
New member
you brought up the Piltdown man as a reason to distrust science when in reality it is very much a reason to trust science. Science rejects findings and data for actual reasons, not because that finding isn't liked
TracerBullet
New member
you said: "If a flood was to cover one mountain, it would have needed to cover them all."
Most of the world's mountains are already covered in water. For example the hundreds of individual mountains that make up the mid Atlantic ridge.
Solar: relating to or determined by the sun.
In the early part of Genesis, for several “days” there was no “solar”, since the sun seems to have not come into existence till well into creation week.
noguru
Well-known member
Right, if you claim to be "in the know" then we should just take your word for it, rather than you having to demonstrate that, right?
6days
New member
I'm not much of a word artist. Perhaps I could have phrased it better...*DavisBJ said:
2nd attempt...
Outside of Genesis 1, the word 'day' is associated with a number 410 times. (Eg. the third day). In each of the 410 times, the context clearly is referring to a normal day like we now experience.*
Cadry – just an overdue catch-up note. Occasionally I see a glimmer of hope in what you say, such as when you posted:
In later posts I see you again ranting about radiological half-lives, and I feel glad that indeed, you never followed through on your early plans to go into the medical field. How many patients would have been sacrificed by your refusal to use modern medical equipment that depends on accurate understandings of radiology? Silence on your part as regards radiology would do less damage to your credibility than your insistence on so ignorantly railing against it.
May Zeus bless you.
In the colored part that I have kept only snippets of above, I see a mixture of what sounds like science and religion. I expected, since it purports to show science’s support for the Bible, that you would simply catatonically embrace it uncritically. But you didn’t. Instead, after the colored quote, you actually asked for 6days’ opinion on it. That was the hopeful part – asking before accepting what you have been presented. And I give credit to 6days for his luke-warm (at best) opinion on it, since it is one of the poorest cases of trying to misrepresent science that I have seen in some time. If you have any lingering doubts, an impartial test would be to extract just the things the article says about science, so there is no hint that it is being used to support any theological view, and then take that to some faithful Christian who is also versed in quantum mechanics and ask them if it is a good representation of science.
In later posts I see you again ranting about radiological half-lives, and I feel glad that indeed, you never followed through on your early plans to go into the medical field. How many patients would have been sacrificed by your refusal to use modern medical equipment that depends on accurate understandings of radiology? Silence on your part as regards radiology would do less damage to your credibility than your insistence on so ignorantly railing against it.
May Zeus bless you.
Last edited:
Much better. But I think the issue about how long creation days were is primarily dealing with Genesis 1. But this minor diversion of “six days” harks back to Stipe’s dodging giving direct answer a question I posed after I showed that “era” is a valid definition for the English word “day”.
And I gotta admit, anyone with the patience to cull out every instance of the word “day” when preceded by a number, has my respect. I’ve long wondered how many times the word “good” follows exactly twenty-eight words after the word “when”, and is followed 52 words later by the words “he never” in scripture. Can you get them busy on that for me?
noguru
Well-known member
There is a reasonable explanation as to one can reconcile the weekly framework set out in Genesis against the long ages that science has discovered. It is just that stubborn people like Stripe, 6days, Sherman...will not admit that they could possibly be wrong in their interpretation of this text, despite all the evidence that testifies to their error.
You like my muscles?
You believe in evolution although you have very little understanding of science. In humans each*generation passes on somewhere between a dozen and a couple hundred mutations...depending on which geneticist you talk to. Of these, the vast majority are considered neutral or, mildly deleterious.*Kondrashov in 2002 (Human Mutation 21) drastically underestimated the number of new deleterious mutations at about 10 new per generation. He said "at least 100 new mutations" per generation and at least"10%" of these are deleterious". With the Encode results, he has now said there could be 300 additional mutations per generation with as much as 30% considered harmful.*Natural selection is incapable of detecting anything but the rarest most extreme mutations. In animal populations we see the effects of mutations in the hundreds of species extinctions that happen every year.*
Yes....you always seem to dismiss things as a lie if it challenges your beliefs.*
Geneticist*Crow in PNAS 94 (1997) said " I do regard mutation accumulation as a problem. It is something like the*the population bomb*but with a much longer fuse.*"
You either willfully ignored or didn't read the part where I specifically said that humans exhibit artificial selection, not natural selection, and therefore SHOULD exhibit accumulation of negative mutations. You quoted me saying it and still somehow missed it. You also exhibit an inability to understand the word "eretz." Color me shocked
This is a beautiful example of your complete inability to actually understand what you're talking about, and frankly it's embarrassing.
Human embryos, and indeed all vertebrate embryos, have PHARYNGEAL SLITS. In bony fish, these become part of the gills. In mammals they become part of the lower jaw and inner ear.
He thinks this because 6days kept claiming it was an "evolutionist fraud" for pages and pages even after he'd been told repeatedly that Piltdown was exposed by other scientists, and that's the reason why science is reliable (the fact that scientists constantly challenge and test each others' hypotheses, trying to disprove them, so therefore only the best hold up). It's the YEC strategy: yell and scream until somebody hears you, then hopefully takes your word on things that you don't have the actual knowledge to talk about intelligently
By 'He' are you referring to Jesus?
noguru
Well-known member
I think he meant 6days. :idunno:
It is a common strategy YECs use when they are losing the argument. They claim they have some mystical knowledge that preempts what can be determined through empiricism. See, their concern is not about getting closer to truth. They are simply trying to win each perceived argument as it comes, without also considering a broader view of everything else they have claimed.
- Status