Creation vs. Evolution

[Jose Fly]

mtDNA might show all humanity is a descendant of Mitochondrial Eve. Genetic research (mtDNA) helps confirm the Biblical definition of 'kinds'. (Eg. It is used to show dogs are descendants of wolves). But, research certainly will not and can not show any relatedness between mice, monkeys and men.

Obviously that's what you believe, but that only matters to you.

Likewise with ALU sequence 'insertions', there are better explanations to fit the data than the common ancestry false belief system.

And those explanations are.......?

Here is a perspective from Linda Walkup, PhD molecular genetics. http://creation.mobi/are-pseudogenes-shared-mistakes-between-primate-genomes

That says it was written by John Woodmorappe, who is a geologist employed by AiG. So I have to ask again....why, in discussions of science, do you continue to cite people who have committed to operate under a framework that you agreed is anti-scientific?

Ad hominem fallacy...
An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence.Urban Dictionary

Sheesh, you guys really need to learn the proper way to cite these fallacies. Ad hominem would be if I said something like "That person is an idiot, therefore he is wrong". I did nothing like that.

Instead, I noted that in discussions of science, you continue to cite people who have agreed to operate under a framework that you agreed was anti-science, and I asked why you keep doing that.

That's not ad hominem. That's "You agreed this framework is anti-science, but when we're talking science you keep citing people who work under that framework. Why?"

How about explaining?

 

[Jose Fly]

Junk DNA may exist only in the head of evolutionists.

Is that a prediction of creationism? Or is it yet another dishonest "heads I win, tails you lose" scenario you've created, where if there is junk DNA it's just evidence of genetic decay, but if there isn't it's evidence of how we're "wonderfully made"?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Yeah, I probably will. I just a laugh every now and then.

I figured

 

[Cross Reference]

I figured

Then leave it alone. Pretend with someone else.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Then leave it alone. Pretend with someone else.

If you want me to leave you alone, then don't quote my post. :duh:

Are you on something or just very very inattentive (and laughably clueless)?

 

[Cross Reference]

If you want me to leave you alone, then don't quote my post. :duh:

Are you on something or just very very inattentive (and laughably clueless)?

Leave it alone. What don't understand about that?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Leave it alone. What don't understand about that?

Lol what? Just stop posting if you don't want to talk in this thread! Nobody is forcing you to make comments

 

[6days]

Likewise with ALU sequence 'insertions', there are better explanations to fit the data than the common ancestry false belief system.
Here is a perspective from Linda Walkup, PhD molecular genetics.http://creation.com/junk-dna-evolutionary-discards-or-gods-tools

That says it was written by John Woodmorappe, who is a geologist employed by AiG.

Sorry Jose...Not sure how that happened but try the link now.

Ad hominem fallacy...
An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence. Urban Dictionary

Sheesh, you guys really need to learn the proper way to cite these fallacies. Ad hominem would be if I said something like "That person is an idiot, therefore he is wrong". I did nothing like that.

I think the definition I gave for ad hominem is good. You are attacking the person rather than the argument . It doesn't matter if a person is a atheist, alien, Anglican or astrophysicist....If you attack who the person is, instead of addressing their statements... its ad hominem fallacy.

 

[Jose Fly]

Sorry Jose...Not sure how that happened but try the link now.

I'm not sure how what she wrote about Alu elements relates to the data I described. All she does is point out that they are genetic parasites that mostly don't have functions, which is a good thing because in many cases when they are functional, they cause disease.

I think the definition I gave for ad hominem is good.

The definition is fine, you're just applying it incorrectly.

You are attacking the person rather than the argument . It doesn't matter if a person is a atheist, alien, Anglican or astrophysicist....If you attack who the person is, instead of addressing their statements... its ad hominem fallacy.

So in your view, pointing out that a person works for AiG is an "attack"? Pointing out that he/she has signed an agreement to work under a framework that you have agreed is anti-scientific is an "attack"?

Those are facts, not subjective opinions, correct?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Lol what? Just stop posting if you don't want to talk in this thread! Nobody is forcing you to make comments

Hello All,

I'm so sorry that I couldn't get back on sooner. It's been partly personal health issues, combined with computer problems. I sure thought I'd have to get a new one. But one of the Computer Techs finally fixed it. It's all too personal to discuss. Just wanted to tell you that I still haven't kicked the bucket, but like I said, it's private.

Hey Greg J., you are doing what we call trolling a person on my thread. Hounding another member constantly will get you nowhere. He doesn't have to quit posting on this thread by any means. To all of you, THANK YOU so extremely much for keeping this alive. It's because of all of you that I even have this thread, and now, you can see why. Because you care enough to write/ post. Now you can understand why this thread has gone on so long. You are wonderful people indeed. I do know now that you care, more than I realized. Part of this has to do with me having a severe, terrible flu that has turned into pneumonia. I am taking medicine for it, which I also think is private.

Greg j, I'm really surprised at you seeing that you are this way. You seemed to be a nice person initially. Why are you this way?? You like to just bug someone, eh? I cant' believe that you think that is being adult or grown up. Well, you all, I would love to chat more now and will try again in an hour or two. God Be With You And Against You As The Case May Be!!

Much Love, In Jesus Christ,

Michael

 

[6days]

So in your view, pointing out that a person works for AiG is an "attack"?

You ignored his argument and instead tried to discredit him suggesting he was "anti-scientific." Yes.. its a classic axample of ad hominem fallacy.

And.... not sure if you want to retract something that seems dishonest, but Tompkins does not work for AIG. He was a prof at Clemson and now works or ICR.

You did agree that this definition "is fine" for ad hominem . An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Hello All,

I'm so sorry that I couldn't get back on sooner. It's been partly personal health issues, combined with computer problems. I sure thought I'd have to get a new one. But one of the Computer Techs finally fixed it. It's all too personal to discuss. Just wanted to tell you that I still haven't kicked the bucket, but like I said, it's private.

Hey Greg J., you are doing what we call trolling a person on my thread. Hounding another member constantly will get you nowhere. He doesn't have to quit posting on this thread by any means. To all of you, THANK YOU so extremely much for keeping this alive. It's because of all of you that I even have this thread, and now, you can see why. Because you care enough to write/ post. Now you can understand why this thread has gone on so long. You are wonderful people indeed. I do know now that you care, more than I realized. Part of this has to do with me having a severe, terrible flu that has turned into pneumonia. I am taking medicine for it, which I also think is private.

Greg j, I'm really surprised at you seeing that you are this way. You seemed to be a nice person initially. Why are you this way?? You like to just bug someone, eh? I cant' believe that you think that is being adult or grown up. Well, you all, I would love to chat more now and will try again in an hour or two. God Be With You And Against You As The Case May Be!!

Much Love, In Jesus Christ,

Michael

Perhaps you should examine the posts preceding mine, Michael. Cross Reference quoted me, then proceeded to get upset when I answered his post in which he quoted me. Is it trolling to answer someone who quotes you?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Science is dispelling evolutionaty myths

And can you find even one scientific organization that agrees with your statement here?

You've been spouting this nonsense for years. It's time to back it up

 

[MichaelCadry]

Leave it alone. What don't understand about that?

Dear Cross Ref.,

You both have played your parts in this debacle, you CR for starting it by your initial post, and to you, GJ, for keeping it going on. I will let God do the judging here instead. I do hope we will just forgive each other and be brothers, for we were all born from the same woman, Noah's wife. And further on still, Adam's wife. We are all related and should love each other instead of bickering, we could be closer. It is almost 5a.m. and I'm going to head to bed.

Good Night And May God Be Between You Both With Lots Of Love!!

Michael

 

[6days]

And can you find even one scientific organization that agrees with your statement here?

In context, they all would agree. We were discussing how science has disproven the notion that our bodies were filled with "junk" DNA...or as F. Collins said "genetic flotsam and jetsam". You also agreed Greg, that science has advanced, telling me that Collins statement was from ten years ago. If you don't think the notion that "junk" DNA was a win for the evolutionary belief system, I can glad help you out with statements from Francis Collins and others. Science has dispelled many such evolutionary myths.

"Junk" DNA, is only one of many poofed 'proofs' of evolutionism ...Thanks to science.

 

[Jonahdog]

Goodness 6 days has found another area where science corrected itself. Therefore literal Genesis.

Your fear of the real world continues to amaze.

 

[6days]

Goodness 6 days has found another area where science corrected itself.

No... Science did not correct itself. Science corrected a false belief.

 

[Jose Fly]

You ignored his argument and instead tried to discredit him suggesting he was "anti-scientific." Yes.. its a classic axample of ad hominem fallacy.

Perhaps you can explain where the attack was? I merely pointed out that he works for an organization that has him agree to work under a framework that you agree is anti-scientific.

So you think that's an attack?

And.... not sure if you want to retract something that seems dishonest, but Tompkins does not work for AIG. He was a prof at Clemson and now works or ICR.

No difference really, since ICR operates under the same framework. http://www.icr.org/tenets

 

[Jose Fly]

"Junk" DNA, is only one of many poofed 'proofs' of evolutionism ...Thanks to science.

Since when?

 

[Greg Jennings]

In context, they all would agree. We were discussing how science has disproven the notion that our bodies were filled with "junk" DNA...or as F. Collins said "genetic flotsam and jetsam". You also agreed Greg, that science has advanced, telling me that Collins statement was from ten years ago. If you don't think the notion that "junk" DNA was a win for the evolutionary belief system, I can glad help you out with statements from Francis Collins and others. Science has dispelled many such evolutionary myths.

"Junk" DNA, is only one of many poofed 'proofs' of evolutionism ...Thanks to science.

In the context of "science supports creationism," as you've repeatedly stated to be factual, can you find one single scientific organization that agrees with your statement?

Why or why not?