• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Jose Fly said:
First, that has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

Secondly, it brings up an interesting question....if GA doesn't believe populations acquire new traits via evolution, nor does he believe traits spread through populations via selection, what exactly does he think happens? Let's take the example of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Does he believe God not only gave them the ability to resist our antibiotics, but God also deliberately spread that ability through the population?
Click to expand...

One wonders why you would ask this question of him when you've had it explained to you numerous times. :rolleyes:
 
6days

6days

New member
Arthur Brain said:
Hardly. If you're a creationist you've no choice but to dismiss anything that contradicts that belief, no matter what the evidence.
Click to expand...
Biblical creationists are biased starting with evidence of God's Word. But, we don't have the bias corner to ourselves. We have lots of atheists here with us. Actually.... everyone has their own biased starting position in regards to origins and the Bible.
 
6days

6days

New member
Greg Jennings said:
Why did all of geology/biology once believe as you do, then REJECT your theory after centuries of gathering evidence?
Click to expand...
You should brush up on your history Greg. There have always been people denying scripture, believing in an old earth. Darwin was heavily influenced by old earthers. Sadly, about 55 years ago there was only 2 scientists (that I know of) who had not compromised on scripture. Fortunately there are now quite possibly tens of thousands of Christian scientists who do not compromise. There is YEC scientists in almost every discipline of science. And, we see YEC scientists in South America, Russia, New Zealand, middle East, Canada and even some in USA.

(Science helps confirm the truth of God's word and provides an additional avenue of worship)
 
G

Greg Jennings

New member
6days said:
Greg, if you don't understand VSDM's, how do you think you are qualified to "dissect" genetic arguments? As you keep telling others... " I think you're just dodging".


Here is some clues for you to try answer the question.

* From the abstract "Mutations withswithin this range are neutral enough to accumulate almost freely, but are still deleterious enough to make an impact at the level of the whole genome."


* From the article "accumulation of VSDMs in a lineage ...acts like a time bomb"

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvol...error_catastrophe_reprise_with_documentation/


Reminder... the question was "How can natural selection, simultaneously select and remove 100 VSDM's per person, per generation in a population with a birth rate of about 2? And... I asked if you could answer from science and not answer with beliefs.
Click to expand...

I can't even tell you what a VDSM is. That's why I'm asking for an explanation. I was under the impression you understood the information you were putting out. Can you do that? Can you explain to me your point in layman's terms, as I have so many times done for you in other subjects?

Where is your "time bomb" quote in this abstract? You just claimed it was "in the article" which I'm assuming means this study and not a reddit forum

"It is well known that whens,the selection coefficient against a deleterious mutation, is below ≈ 1/4Ne, whereNeis the effective population size, the expected frequency of this mutation is ≈ 0.5, if forward and backward mutation rates are similar. Thus, if the genome size,G,in nucleotides substantially exceeds theNeof the whole species, there is a dangerous range of selection coefficients, 1/G< s<//E2>< 1/4Ne. Mutations withswithin this range are neutral enough to accumulate almost freely, but are still deleterious enough to make an impact at the level of the whole genome. In many vertebratesNe≈ 104, whileG≈ 109, so that the dangerous range includes more than four orders of magnitude. If substitutions at 10% of all nucleotide sites have selection coefficients within this range with the mean 10−6, an average individual carries ≈ 100 lethal equivalents. Some data suggest that a substantial fraction of nucleotides typical to a species may, indeed, be suboptimal. When selection acts on different mutations independently, this implies to high a mutation load. This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations. Several possible resolutions are considered, including soft selection and synergistic epistasis among very slightly deleterious mutations."

Why do you insert info that isn't there into an article? Hell it doesn't even say VDSM anywhere. That's not being honest, don't you understand that?


And no, that was never the question we were discussing. You're mixing me up with either Barbarian or Brain. I understand, we all run together at some point



TO ALL OF YOU CREATIONISTS: check your buddies' links. Do not just blindly accept the quotes given. 6 has a history of quote-mining and re-inserting
 
G

Greg Jennings

New member
6days said:
You should brush up on your history Greg. There have always been people denying scripture, believing in an old earth. Darwin was heavily influenced by old earthers. Sadly, about 55 years ago there was only 2 scientists (that I know of) who had not compromised on scripture. Fortunately there are now quite possibly tens of thousands of Christian scientists who do not compromise. There is YEC scientists in almost every discipline of science. And, we see YEC scientists in South America, Russia, New Zealand, middle East, Canada and even some in USA.

(Science helps confirm the truth of God's word and provides an additional avenue of worship)
Click to expand...

Do you deny that the overwhelming majority of geologists and biologists once believed (~200 years ago) in a young Earth (6000-10,000 yrs old)?
 
G

Greg Jennings

New member
Right Divider said:
:mock: "Fields" believe?
Click to expand...

Dodge count: 5

Yes, the fields (as in the people making these fields up) believed that


Why did the fields of biology and geology once believe as you do, then REJECT your theory after centuries of gathering evidence ???


You look dumber and dumber the more you dodge. Sure you don't want to just cut your losses?

You know about as much about science as the Bible: nada
 
G

Greg Jennings

New member
Stripe said:
:AMR:

Your description of what Six said is fatally flawed. Your request for a explanation is founded upon a lack of comprehension of what was said.
Click to expand...

He said that without the first man, Christ's sacrifice wouldn't be necessary.

If that is incorrect, feel free to correct my statement with the factual version
 
6days

6days

New member
Greg Jennings said:
Sacrifice is necessary bc humanity kept screwing up and had to be redeemed. That's what the sacrifice of Christ was for.
Click to expand...
Why was sacrifice necessary? (DODGE 7?... your dodge count thing is silly). I screw up some times but my wife doesn't demand a sacrifice. As I said before, people who reject Genesis, the foundation to the Gospel do not seem to understand from scripture why Jesus went to the cross. See 1 Cor. 15.... Hebrews 9...Romans 5

Greg Jennings said:
Why is a "first man" necessitated by that?
Click to expand...
Scripture tells us that last Adam, Jesus, was necessary because of first Adam.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Greg Jennings said:
Dodge count: 5

Yes, the fields (as in the people making these fields up) believed that


Why did the fields of biology and geology once believe as you do, then REJECT your theory after centuries of gathering evidence ???


You look dumber and dumber the more you dodge. Sure you don't want to just cut your losses?

You know about as much about science as the Bible: nada
Click to expand...
I never feel bad when an atheist calls me dumb.

You never showed where the Bible says what you said that it did. Lame.
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
6days said:
Biblical creationists are biased starting with evidence of God's Word. But, we don't have the bias corner to ourselves. We have lots of atheists here with us. Actually.... everyone has their own biased starting position in regards to origins and the Bible.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, you admit to a certain bias and people have all sorts of their own as well. What isn't biased however is science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top