It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

[LowellGuy]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>Works for me!! Your point? IT worked for the thief of the cross! It doesn't matter where you are in the race on the back streach. It matters where you are when the race is over.

Yep. Your God doesn't care how good or bad you were in life. Hitler could be in Heaven. Is that where you'd want to be? In Heaven with Hitler? While the Jews he killed are in Hell?

[LowellGuy]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>Creationism fits perfectly with the observed facts, and the origin of life, which will always alude the materialists!

Which "observed facts?" More to the point, you can't even say what a naturally occurring universe should look like, so you are making an unfalsifiable claim and declaring it necessarily true. Invisible pink u icorns are at the center of Pluto!

[LowellGuy]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>I understand it perfectly. THere is just no observational evidence to support it without interpretation. Everything you just communicated was interpreted, and not observed.

You are so stupid. Just stunningly stupid. Please tell me you're donating your body to science, which you claim to love so much, so we can study how a human being was able to function in the absence of brain cells.

[LowellGuy]

MAAT wrote:

<quoted text>
You forgot a part that can be answered:
KAB could you for once in 100,000 posts show us how you think DNA tests are done, and how genetic material is extracted, and how genomes are cataloged.
(Since most of us have posted this kind off information allready thousands of times allover this topic.)

The one thing we know is that DNA tests are NOT done with chemical reactions. KAB says so. Forget everything you think you know about the genome project and DNA testing. No chemistry involved. KAB won't tell us how they are actually done, but it definitely ain't with chemistry. And, that's all you need to know.

[LowellGuy]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
DNA is a conceptually simple "ladder" structure, albeit microscopic. A genome is essentially one organism's set of DNA ladders totalling hundreds of thousands to billions of rungs but comprised of only 2 different types, TA and GC, of rungs. So, similar to 1/0 computer code, it is the sequence (and orientation) of the rungs which provides the information content determining the make-up of the organism. Considering the huge number of microscopic "rungs" involved, "reading" DNA is a complex task involving chemical processes. Not surprisingly, this is where much of the exposure to error arises.
A catalog is a listing or organizing of information for a particular purpose, and genomic info can be and has been catalogued numerous ways and for various purposes. If you have a particular cataloging in mind then just mention it, and I'll consider it.
If there is any of this you do not accept, just identify it and I can provide appropriate data references.

First, you said DNA tests were not performed with chemical reactions. Now, you say they ARE done with chemical reactions. You know you did, don't ask for quotes, as it will only demonstrate your dishonesty. Were you lying then or are you lying now?

[LowellGuy]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>I don't rcall it ever being said they did.<quoted text>I couldn't care less what the church said. THe church is not my authority. THe bible is, and the bible has never made that statement.Much like the church said the sun revolves around the earth. The bible never said that either.<quoted text>What do you think Jeremiah 31 was talking about when GOD was going to make a new covenant? John 1 gives us that new covenant!!!

The Bible doesn't say that the Earth is stationary and immovable, and that the sun stopped moving in the sky (rather than the Earth stopping its rotation)?

[Dogen]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text> THe church is not my authority. THe bible is, and the bible has never made that statement.

Yet you don't know anything about the source of the bible, the people, politics, customs, nor even much about their religion. How can you understand the bible in a vacuum?

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text> What do you think Jeremiah 31 was talking about when GOD was going to make a new covenant? John 1 gives us that new covenant!!!

There is no "new covenant" in Jeremiah 31. You are using the bible as a Christian bias Rorschach test.

[Dogen]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text> A supernatural ex nihilo event of creation by an intelligent designer.

For which there is no evidence. I take it on faith, but it is not science. Theology tells us what God did. Science tells us how he did it.

[QUOTE who="marksman11"] <quoted text> Science is unqualified to deal with the supernatural.

Apparently religion is even less qualified to deal with it.

Science can deal with anything that has a consistent effect on this world. No effect for prayer has been found. Miracles happen about as often as statistics say such events could occur.

Is your faith in the supernatural? The occultist, witches and wizards have the same faith.

[Dogen]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text> I don't remember it. I don't read every post. Just the ones addressed to me by a few posters, and don't read some by other posters. I was disrespected at times in here with foul language and ignorance. I gave each poster that did this a second chance, for those that continued, I've not purposefully read any of their posts or replied to them sense. You and I can disagree all day and I'll always try to give you a thoughtful reply, why? because you are not disrespectful.

Yes, we know you talk like a Christian but do not follow the example Christ gave to us. It is because of your ego and the fact that you can't stand to be beaten that you ignore the people who have beaten you. If you do not respond, you think, then you have not lost. But it does not work that way.

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text> Well, you guys are the ones that have put yourself in that position. I have asked for years, "What evolved that made a non-human into a human? What is the difference?" Still no answer. How can you say that humans evolved from non-humans when you can't even define the difference between the two?

You are being supercilious (AND super silly!) as per usual. You have been given the answers to all of the above. You refusal to acknowledge that does not mean you have not been instructed thusly.

[15th Dalai Lama]

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
"God" is a generic term. Elohim is a SPECIFIC god(s) of the middle east and derive from El. The term is generally plural (gods) and feminine, but can be modified by singular masculine verbs. The name literally means "strong ones" or something very similar.
The English word 'God' may have been derived (through German) from the "pagan" deity Gaad (pronounced Gawd).

...... and that from 'Gaia', the Greek Earth Goddess.

Curiously, yesterday's first reading stopped in the middle of Genesis 2:4. In the second half of that verse Yahweh shows up and starts pushing people around, kind of like Zeus.

Anyway, I reported in the other forum that I don't spend much time in this forum any more becaues I find it disappointing that after two years educated people are still trying to communicate with KAB. It's like a search for extraterrestrial intelligence. It's just not there.

I guess I'll see what marksman has to say.

[15th Dalai Lama]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>I don't remember it. I don't read every post. Just the ones addressed to me by a few posters, and don't read some by other posters. I was disrespected at times in here with foul language and ignorance. I gave each poster that did this a second chance, for those that continued, I've not purposefully read any of their posts or replied to them sense. You and I can disagree all day and I'll always try to give you a thoughtful reply, why? because you are not disrespectful.<quoted text>Well, you guys are the ones that have put yourself in that position. I have asked for years, "What evolved that made a non-human into a human? What is the difference?" Still no answer. How can you say that humans evolved from non-humans when you can't even define the difference between the two?

Hi marksman, how have you been? I hope everything is going well.

I think you may have a problem with logic here and not a small problem with science. Since you have been asking for three years, give or take, what divides human from non-human it should be your responsibility to define human. To date the only defining characteristics of human you have put on the table are 'soul' which is Biblically unfounded and 'liver transplants' or something like that.

God bless you.

[LowellGuy]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
I have not stated that "reading" DNA does not involve chemical processes.

I said that DNA tests are chemical reaction-based, and either the reaction occurs or it doesn't. Airtight. You said that it was NOT chemical reaction-based. Do you REALLY want to go down this road when you know damn well that you said this? Do you really want to deny that you said DNA tests, including the genome project, and all genomic determinations, are not chemical reaction-based? You know what you said. You know what I said. You are caught red-handed in a lie. You know this. I just want you to explicitly deny that you said what you said.

[KAB]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
So you can "take it out of context" but when an atheist quotes it in context it's still "taken out of context?" How .... hypocritical. You can't have it both ways.

Nothing was stated about anybody taking anything out of context.

[KAB]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
The concept of "god," and words for it, are tens of thousands of years old, oddly. The first artifacts we find on the matter were animal worshipers, I think it was about 30,000 BC or some such, give or take a few thousand.

Your thinking has repeatedly proven to be detrimental to progress. Please provide some data for your tens of thousands of years assertion. Otherwise, only those gullible enough to believe dataless statements without seeing the data will believe you.

[LowellGuy]

KAB:
So you think that genetic bottleneck data is airtight, but Earth shape data is not?

ME: Genetic bottlenecks can be directly observed and directly confirmed. Chemical reactions are binary. They either occur or they don't, and they can be confirmed by independent agents anywhere at any time. The shape of the Earth, ultimately, is only directly observed by the scant few people who venture into space. The rest is trust in our instruments. Chemistry is direct observation of the facts. For the direct confirmation of the Earth's shape, we must rely on the scant few's say-so and pictures which we cannot ensure are accurate to the same degree we can ensure chemical reactions are accurate. In other words, chemistry trumps say-so and pictures every time.

KAB: There's more to genetic bottlenecks than chemistry.

ME: Actually, no. Every genetic bottleneck that has been identified is nothing more than a series of chemical reactions. You have no idea how DNA tests are done or genomes are cataloged, do you?

KAB: Perhaps I have a better idea than you, and you can only prove otherwise by providing some confirming data which you know I am eager to see anyway. Why do I provide and want to see data, and your side tends not to do so?

So, I say DNA tests are chemical. You say there's more to it than chemistry. Then, you say that you're right until I prove you wrong. And, you say that you provide data despite a constant refrain of us having to prove your claims wrong. You're a liar, an obfuscator, and a bullshit artist who cares more about old stories than reality.

You think there's more to DNA tests than chemistry? Great. Prove it. Support your claim rather than demanding that we disprove your claims. You made the claim, you have the burden of proof. Follow the rules of logic or admit that you have nothing to back your claims and you're just making shit up.

[KAB]

MAAT wrote:

<quoted text>
get a book on hebrew grammar, a dictionary and read the tanakh. plenty data

Following your suggestion would be an ineffective/inefficient use of resource. You are making very specific points. Provide the corresponding specific data confirming those points. In general, that might be no more than a few lines per point from all that material you reference. If you make the assertions, presumably you know what that material is and specifically where it is located. Thus, you are best suited to most efficiently provide it.

[KAB]

MAAT wrote:

<quoted text>
You forgot a part that can be answered:
KAB could you for once in 100,000 posts show us how you think DNA tests are done, and how genetic material is extracted, and how genomes are cataloged.
(Since most of us have posted this kind off information allready thousands of times allover this topic.)

The fact that you knew which part of your previous post to repeat acknowledges your recognition that my response addresses your request. So, until/unless you demonstrate error in my response by providing appropriate data, we are done for now.

[KAB]

MAAT wrote:

I find it remarkable that when the thread is on the verge of dying out we finally get DATA. The second time i believe.

Yes, I found my vacation remarkable also. In addition to that, research takes time, but you apparently wouldn't know about that.

[KAB]

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
"God" is a generic term. Elohim is a SPECIFIC god(s) of the middle east and derive from El. The term is generally plural (gods) and feminine, but can be modified by singular masculine verbs. The name literally means "strong ones" or something very similar.
The English word 'God' may have been derived (through German) from the "pagan" deity Gaad (pronounced Gawd).

Elohim is not as specific as YHWH, the God which the Bible credits as its "author" (2 Timothy 3:16).

[KAB]

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
I said that DNA tests are chemical reaction-based, and either the reaction occurs or it doesn't. Airtight. You said that it was NOT chemical reaction-based. Do you REALLY want to go down this road when you know damn well that you said this? Do you really want to deny that you said DNA tests, including the genome project, and all genomic determinations, are not chemical reaction-based? You know what you said. You know what I said. You are caught red-handed in a lie. You know this. I just want you to explicitly deny that you said what you said.

I do not deny saying what I said. I deny saying what I didn't say. I didn't say DNA determinations are not chemical reaction based, and you can only prove otherwise by quoting me, and per usual with you, you won't. So that leaves you with the ball on the liars side of the court.