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

[LowellGuy]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, I stated, "There's more to genetic bottlenecks than chemistry.
"
DNA testing and genetic bottleneck determination are not identically the same thing. DNA testing is PART of the process of determining genetic bottlenecks.
Additionally, in the following reference, do you discern the use of probability/statistics in the process?
http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/...
So, my claim is now supported (as I always do upon request when possible) with evidence, interesting!

Without the chemical reactions, you have nothing with which to determine genetic bottlenecks.

Tell us...where does that in any way discuss genetic bottlenecks? Oh, right...nowhere. No chemical reaction, no genetic bottleneck. You do also realize that statistics are used in EVERY genetic test of any kind, right? But, all DNA tests of any kind are chemical reactions. What we make of the chemical reactions depends on the nature of the reactions.

But, is it your contention that the entire scientific community is incompetent regarding genetic bottlenecks in all organisms, or that DNA testing is inherently flawed?

[The Dude]

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>
In order to make such a prediction, you are required to make assumptions that you cannot make... namely... purposes and attributes of an intelligent creator. What self evident facts tell you that creationism predicts a clear dividing line between species? I challenge you to defend your position without referencing relgion.

Oh, so now you're ADMITTING that God could have used evolution? Because it's either that or you're saying that God just made it LOOK like evolution.

Is it a clear dividing line or not? You tell us?

Besides, what makes you think you can tell God what to do anyway?

[KittenKoder]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>A supernatural ex nihilo event of creation by an intelligent designer.<quoted text>Science is unqualified to deal with the supernatural.<quoted text>It's called the bible.

Yes, now show us something that's actually supernatural, so far nothing has been presented, ever, that cannot be analyzed using the scientific method.

[KittenKoder]

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>
In order to make such a prediction, you are required to make assumptions that you cannot make... namely... purposes and attributes of an intelligent creator. What self evident facts tell you that creationism predicts a clear dividing line between species? I challenge you to defend your position without referencing relgion.

For the millionth time, nothing is self evident as that would be paradoxical in itself.

[MAAT]

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!!!

Adam rib eve.

The church wrote your bible. So even if you still go with their bible it's still there opinions.

Jeremiah is ancient-old history and has nothing to do with the NT who's very name is declaration of voiding the Tanakh.
And the perception of the the law and the old god being declared nil and void.

Precicely qouting john 1 makes that obvious. John is nothing but a reflection of the debate and theology of the church fathers.

[MAAT]

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
To bad we don't know who wrote 2 Timothy nor what his credentials are. We also don't know what the author would have considered 'scripture' to be. Presumably he was referring to what we Christians would call the "Old Testament". Not all the books of the bible were written before 2 Timothy. Also, there were many books (Jewish and proto-Christian) running around and not all are included in the bible. The writings of Paul (et al) were not popular in the 1st century as they were considered heretics to Jesus' followers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_t...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bib...

Timothy was a son of paul, in the sense of follower.
Since Pual uses the appelation 'gods' for those following the teachings this must mean that we can safely transport any contribution far into the future.(As in definitely not first century, nor do his travels compute, and a more Syriac interpretation.)
No old bible has paul or even john with the assertions claimed by Markmen.
From 1000 CE you can start contemplating paul and other books as we know them today.
Which is not to say that exerpts and thoughts were not around.
But judging the times then by bibles now is anachronistic.

For some reason that has trouble filtering trough most bigots.

[KAB]

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
Without the chemical reactions, you have nothing with which to determine genetic bottlenecks.
Tell us...where does that in any way discuss genetic bottlenecks? Oh, right...nowhere. No chemical reaction, no genetic bottleneck. You do also realize that statistics are used in EVERY genetic test of any kind, right? But, all DNA tests of any kind are chemical reactions. What we make of the chemical reactions depends on the nature of the reactions.
But, is it your contention that the entire scientific community is incompetent regarding genetic bottlenecks in all organisms, or that DNA testing is inherently flawed?

Neither, oh purveyor of false dichotomies.

If you want to know my position on a matter, don't use a multiple choice approach, especially since considerable experience now has demonstrated that my answer is usually not among your choices. I realize that you present the options as if they are the only possibilities, but alas, you have almost always proven to be incorrect. So why waste the effort? However, if you must continue your pattern, remember to include "none of the above" among the choices.

[LowellGuy]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
Neither, oh purveyor of false dichotomies.
If you want to know my position on a matter, don't use a multiple choice approach, especially since considerable experience now has demonstrated that my answer is usually not among your choices. I realize that you present the options as if they are the only possibilities, but alas, you have almost always proven to be incorrect. So why waste the effort? However, if you must continue your pattern, remember to include "none of the above" among the choices.

Your answer is USUALLY a marvelous exercise in not answering any questions in any way.

Why do you propose there has been no genetic bottleneck detected in all types of organisms around the world, tracing back to 4500 years ago?

[KittenKoder]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
Neither, oh purveyor of false dichotomies.
If you want to know my position on a matter, don't use a multiple choice approach, especially since considerable experience now has demonstrated that my answer is usually not among your choices. I realize that you present the options as if they are the only possibilities, but alas, you have almost always proven to be incorrect. So why waste the effort? However, if you must continue your pattern, remember to include "none of the above" among the choices.

"None of the above" would mean you're wrong in your original assertion.

[KAB]

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
Your answer is USUALLY a marvelous exercise in not answering any questions in any way.
Why do you propose there has been no genetic bottleneck detected in all types of organisms around the world, tracing back to 4500 years ago?

Not all bottlenecks are discernible, and their timing is determined based on gene variation related assumptions. In short, it's educated guesswork. At least that's my present understanding. I am prepared to change that based on the specific data and/or references you provide.

[KAB]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
"None of the above" would mean you're wrong in your original assertion.

Please explain. That's an opportunity to demonstrate ability to use data effectively. Go for it!

[Dogen]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
Please explain. That's an opportunity to demonstrate ability to use data effectively. Go for it!

Her ability to use data is not in question. Your ability to comprehend it without your bias is.

[Thomas Robertson]

All right, then, maybe not exactly alike, but darn close.
There is very little difference between one cheetah and another cheetah, and their bottleneck was a lot longer ago than 2500 BC.

[macumazahn]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
I meant the/a word for "god" in whatever language you choose to consider.

But you insist on "global flood" in English.

Sorry, Sunshine, that horse don't jump.

[macumazahn]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
No, only up to about 6,000 years ago.

Hmm.

6,000 years ago the Sumerian civilization was already at its height.

[LowellGuy]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
Not all bottlenecks are discernible, and their timing is determined based on gene variation related assumptions. In short, it's educated guesswork. At least that's my present understanding. I am prepared to change that based on the specific data and/or references you provide.

And is your understanding greater or less than that of the experts in the field? Why should you trust YOUR understanding and not that of people who have devoted, collectively, tens of thousands of years studying and learning about this very subject? I'm not saying to blindly accept, but you do recognize that the odds of the ignorant being right about something about which they are ignorant versus the odds of the expert being right about something about which they are expert are inversely proportionate, yes? You don't go to a doctor, ask him what he thinks, and then compare that with your personal understanding of disease/injury/etc. and decide if you're going to overrule his judgement, do you? You might seek out another expert, but would you simply allow yourself to use your own ill-informed understanding to trump the expert opinion of someone educated in that field, much less a few, much less hundreds, much less tens of thousands? The odds of you being right and them being wrong are so preposterous that you must be wildly delusional to give it a modicum of consideration. That you think you should accept your own ignorance over the knowledge of the world says a lot about your standards of evidence. Once again, it's "whatever I say must be true until someone proves me wrong." That's invalid reasoning. You should always begin with the premise that your personal understanding is wrong. As soon as you begin doing that, you'll stop being such a horse's ass.

[KAB]

Thomas Robertson wrote:

All right, then, maybe not exactly alike, but darn close.
There is very little difference between one cheetah and another cheetah, and their bottleneck was a lot longer ago than 2500 BC.

Here's a reference and a quote from it indicating the accuracy of the cheetah bottleneck estimate,

"If the mutation rate of the feline FCZ8
family is comparable to the above four rates, the time
required to produce the cheetah's level of variation would be
estimated respectively at 3,529, 6,000, 11,765, and 12,766
years."

In short, it could have been 4500 years ago. What's next?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4...

[marksman11]

Elohim wrote:

<quoted text>Creationism is ALL about religion, no science involved what so ever.

Complexity is not measurable?

[marksman11]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, now show us something that's actually supernatural, so far nothing has been presented, ever, that cannot be analyzed using the scientific method.

The supernatural is not obserbable. If it was it could be examined by science, but science is unqualified to deal with the supernatural by definition. You act as if everything can be explained by science. Far from it sister. Please explain how evolution accounts for consciousness.

[marksman11]

MAAT wrote:

<quoted text>
Adam rib eve.
The church wrote your bible. So even if you still go with their bible it's still there opinions.
Jeremiah is ancient-old history and has nothing to do with the NT who's very name is declaration of voiding the Tanakh.
And the perception of the the law and the old god being declared nil and void.
Precicely qouting john 1 makes that obvious. John is nothing but a reflection of the debate and theology of the church fathers.

You can believe that if you want too. I have another take on it!