PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Anyone change over?
       creationist to evolutionist or vise versa

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm just curious how many people on this forum have crossed over from being a creationist to believing in evolution.  Or vise versa - you used to believe in evolution, but now are a creationist.

This debate is faith vs reason, and as such, can lead to rather heated discussion.  

I'm curious if anyone has been persuaded by the other side.  


 


Posts: 1459 | Posted: 2:57 PM on October 7, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Probably not on this board. We have very few active members here. I'm sure forums like Internet Infidels do a much better job.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:10 PM on October 7, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have, I went from being an evolutionist to being a creationist. I was an evolutionist partly because I thought that just because a person had a PhD that they must be right.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 6:02 PM on October 9, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The question has to do with people who have changed since coming to this board, and if you're claiming to have been an evolutionist on this board sometime in the past, you're making nothing but a patent lie.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:45 PM on October 9, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have, I went from being an evolutionist to being a creationist.

How were you an evolutionist?  You never understood, and you still don't understand, what evolution is or how it works.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:59 PM on October 10, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It seemed to be the logical explanation, with the information that I had at the time. However I makes less sense when I star trying to figure out how specific things come about. It also does not explain the beginning of the Universe.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 2:29 PM on October 10, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It seemed to be the logical explanation, with the information that I had at the time. However I makes less sense when I star trying to figure out how specific things come about. It also does not explain the beginning of the Universe.


Gravity doesn't explain the beginning of the universe either. With your logic, you can no longer accept gravity.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:01 PM on October 11, 2007 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree with your first statement, just because someone has a PhD doesn't mean that they're right about any particular thing.  Both Michael Behe and William Dembski have PhD's, but both these gentlemen's ideas (Behe's Irreducible Complexity and Dembski's mathematical arguements against evolution) are utterly unsupported by mainstream science.  Neither one's ideas stand up to peer reviews.  Both Behe's and Dembski's ideas have been proven to be fatally flawed.

One thing that evolution has going for it, is that it has stood up well in explaining the history of life on earth with further examination of current life, and the fossil record.  The theory of evolution has only been strengthend since Darwin first published his book in 1859.  The entire history of evolutionary theory is a wonderful example of the scientific method in action.

Darwin didn't know the physical mechanism responsible for evolution, but his elegant idea of natural selection explained the driving force behind evolution.  At the same time, geologists knew that the earth had to be far older than the YEC idea of a 10,000 year old earth, but there was the problem of how could the sun be in existence for hundreds of millions of years, its hydrogen fuel would have been used up long before.

Of course, we know the ansers to some of these questions now.  DNA and nuclear reactions.  The discovery of DNA's double helixical structure in 1953 was the physical structure responsible for passing an organism's traits down to it's offspring.  Mutations occur at random, but the process of natural selection is the guiding force that drives the evolutionary process.    

As for the geology and time question, the discovery of nuclear energy revolved the puzzle of the apparent descrepancy in age between the sun and earth.  There really isn't any descrepancy at all, of course.

Now scientists have a new tool of DNA sequencing, in which they can compare the relationships between different species.  And, indeed, the results mesh perfectly with evolutionary theory.  

Evolutionary theory is not just an 'idea', it has been hugely successful in explaining the history of life on earth.  It explains the diversity of life that we now see in the world around us, and how it developed over the ages.  It explains the changes that we see right now, over recent years, of micro-evolution.  Bacteria developing resistence to antibiotics is a classic example.  

The Big Bang is another issue relating to the origin of the universe, seperate from evolution.

It's funny - people don't argue heatedly about other theories in science, such as gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear physics, etc.  But evolution hits a sensitive nerve in people.  That's because evolution really suggests that we are here by sheer accident - by chance.  That doesn't settle well with people.  People like to believe we are here for a purpose, for a reason.  Because God wanted us here.

 


Posts: 1459 | Posted: 1:20 PM on October 11, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The existence of Gravity has not been proven, just the existence of some kind of force.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 1:22 PM on October 11, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The existence of Gravity has not been proven, just the existence of some kind of force.


Try making a point in your next post.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 1:56 PM on October 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It seemed to be the logical explanation, with the information that I had at the time.

The theory of evolution is the only unfalsified explaination for the diversity of life on earth.  The only scientifically valid explaination.  Over 99.9% of the world's biologists accept it, it is the cornerstone of modern biology.

However I makes less sense when I star trying to figure out how specific things come about.

Name one specific thing evolution can't explain, and tell us the research you did.

It also does not explain the beginning of the Universe.

It's not supposed to!  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:26 PM on October 11, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If everbody is wrong than no body is right.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 8:23 PM on October 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If everbody is wrong than no body is
right.


And yet, the theory of evolution is successfully applied in medicine, farming, animal husbandry, industry.  How can everyone be wrong when we can use the TOE so successfully?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:55 PM on October 11, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I do believe in micro evolution. I do not however believe in macro evolution. As of now macro evolution has not been reproduced in a lab.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 3:17 PM on October 12, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

do believe in micro evolution. I do not however believe in macro evolution. As of now macro evolution has not been reproduced in a lab.

No, macroevolution is defined as a change at or above the species level, macroevolution is a fact and has been observed both in the lab, in the wild and in the fossil record.  
From here:
Macro Fossils

"The fossil record provides countless examples of macroevolution over large amounts of geologic time. Different types of animals dominated different time periods through Earth history. Some are still alive today, but most are not."

In the lab, from here:
Lab Speciation

"Several speciation events have also been seen in laboratory populations of houseflies, gall former flies, apple maggot flies, flour beetles, Nereis acuminata (a worm), mosquitoes, and various other insects. Green algae and bacteria have been classified as speciated due to change from unicellularity to multicellularity and due to morphological changes from short rods to long rods, all the result of selection pressures."

In the wild, from here:
Wild Speciation

"Speciation has also been observed in mammals. Six instances of speciation in house mice on Madeira within the past 500 years have been the consequence of only geographic isolation, genetic drift, and chromosomal fusions. A single chromosomal fusion is the sole major genomic difference between humans and chimps, and some of these Madeiran mice have survived nine fusions in the past 500 years (Britton-Davidian et al. 2000)."

So yes, macroevolution HAS been reproduced in the lab, many, many times.  It has been observed in the wild, many, many times and has been confirmed in the fossil record.  If you accept reality, you have no reason to deny the fact of macroevolution.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:10 PM on October 12, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The development of a spiecies has never been created, or absurved in the wild. It has never been reproduce in the lab.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 6:56 PM on October 14, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The development of a spiecies has never been created, or absurved in the wild. It has never been reproduce in the lab.


Dude... Just... Demon cited bona fide observational evidence of just that.

You're hopeless.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:10 PM on October 14, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The development of a spiecies has never been created, or absurved in the wild. It has never been reproduce in the lab.

I just sited numerous, documented instances of speciation.  I defy you to go into detail and explain why they are not actually speciation events and why virtually all biologists say they are.  
Until you can do that, I can back up my assertion that you are 100% wrong and that we have seen many new species come about in both the lab and in the wild.  And these new species have come about because evolution is a fact.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:26 AM on October 15, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Labs have not reproduced evolution in a lab. While animals have been seen to chainge color, they have not become far more advance life forms. They have not made a advanced spiecies from single celled organisms.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 7:13 PM on October 15, 2007 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have to ask - what in the world are you talking about?  From your comments, you reveal that you have no understanding of evolution at all.  How can you intelligently debate something you don't understand?

I'll ask you a simple question - what do you think evolution means?
 


Posts: 1459 | Posted: 9:11 PM on October 15, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Labs have not reproduced evolution in a lab. While animals have been seen to chainge color, they have not become far more advance life forms. They have not made a advanced spiecies from single celled organisms

No, you've ben told numerous times and examples that you can't refute have been provided.  New species of organisms have been produced in the lab.  You are wrong and no matter how many times you deny it, it doesn't change the fact that your claim has been proven wrong.  
Now, you're trying to move the goal posts with your last line.  What's a more advanced speices???  New species of single celled organisms have been created in the lab.  
It seems to me that after all this time, you still don't know what evolution is or how it works and are afraid to do any real research.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:44 AM on October 16, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

its only possible that small, primitive creatures change barely in the lab. however, they do not become a different creature. at all.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 08:59 AM on October 17, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

its only possible that small, primitive creatures change barely in the lab. however, they do not become a different creature. at all.


Rofl... Moving the goalposts already, are we?


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 09:42 AM on October 17, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

its only possible that small, primitive creatures change barely in the lab. however, they do not become a different creature.
at all.


Yes, and who said they did?  Are you even paying attention?  Do you even read the threads????   I said that macroevolution is a fact and I proved it is a fact.  Please, if you don't have anything constructive to contribute, why don't you just keep quiet and try to learn something!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:25 PM on October 17, 2007 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Time for an update

no more talking about Gravity or whatever on this thread.
and for the record, one does not need to know the complexities and details of their side to side with it

eg. one does not need a PhD to be an evolutionist.
if one simply states "evolution is a fact, and I believe it" then that is good enough for them to be classed as an evolutionist
and vise versa of creationists

the original Question is
who, since joining this board (viewing this site) has switched from being a creationist to being an evolutionist or vice versa?


I guess me first.
A.  Nope, I'm still against evolution


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 05:05 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ever since I started participating in the evo-creo debate about a year ago I have never seen anyone switch sides, ever. When I started I was an evo, and I'm still an evo. I will say that I tried to consider creationism for a while, but I couldn't find any good scientific basis or theological basis that supported creationism, and in many cases both flat out rejects the creationist ideas.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 05:55 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A. Unrepentant creo.

This debate is faith vs reason,

Wrong. This debate is about world views.  
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 06:20 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Fencer27 at 08:55 AM on September 22, 2009 :
Ever since I started participating in the evo-creo debate about a year ago I have never seen anyone switch sides, ever.


While it was not on this board, I have seen one creationist 'switch sides.'  It was on the Infidels board about 8 years ago.  The dude posted as 'Hawk'.  He became quite disillusioned after discovering a number of creationist claims that he had steadfastly accepted were in fact false. IOW, he realized that he'd been lied to.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:24 PM on September 22, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 09:20 AM on September 22, 2009 :
A. Unrepentant creo.


I.e., "Nothing will ever change my mind no matter what."

This debate is faith vs reason,

Wrong. This debate is about world views.  

Right.

Worldviews.

Because one worldview tells you that this:

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Department of Genetics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695.

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

is a good example of the demonstration of the
reliability and accuracy of molecular phylogenetic methods, and those from the other worldview will declare that it is all just assumption based, doesn't prove anything, the researchers just got the results they wanted, etc...

That is, one worldview is rational and sensible, the other is just interested in propping up their beliefs.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:27 PM on September 22, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood

is a good example of the demonstration of the
reliability and accuracy of molecular phylogenetic methods, and those from the other worldview will declare that it is all just assumption based, doesn't prove anything, the researchers just got the results they wanted, etc...


Actually Derwood, I'm sure you remember that the argument was that relatedness could not distinguish between the two worldview possibilities ie. is there relatedness due to a common ancestor or a common designer?

The complexity and coding of DNA to make specific proteins shows us (who have eyes to see) quite clearly that intelligence was required to cook up the recipe for integrated parts. Why you think that random changes in a pre-existing genome could make something new and better (over vast periods of time or ever) is quite beyond me.
It can only be because you believe that it is possible!

I don't believe it. Have to go with Timbrx on this one -unrepentant creo, formerly a believer in evolution and now changed forevermore.
The only deception I see going on is from the evolutionists but I suspect that it is due to their philisophical belief system and it can also be called "imagination" - they don't appear to see the difference.




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 03:02 AM on September 23, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -
Why you think that random changes in a pre-existing genome could make something new and better (over vast periods of time or ever) is quite beyond me.


Another statement showing you don't understand evolution.  Its Natural Selection, acting on those random changes, that produces the changes in a population over time.  We see evidence of that today.

The only deception I see going on is from the evolutionists but I suspect that it is due to their philisophical belief system and it can also be called "imagination" - they don't appear to see the difference.


You really believe that, don't you Lester.  What about the deceptive out-of-context quotes that you have cut & pasted all over this forum?  Those have been proven to be deceptive practices from Creationist, and from you.
 


Posts: 1459 | Posted: 11:58 AM on September 23, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I personally understand how natural selection works:
given a variety of mutations, natural selection causes the beneficial mutations to be passed on to the next generation. and those without beneficial mutations die off.

But what I don't understand is how so many mutations, so many Beneficial mutations, can happen.


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 3:39 PM on September 23, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 6:39 PM on September 23, 2009 :
I personally understand how natural selection works:
given a variety of mutations, natural selection causes the beneficial mutations to be passed on to the next generation. and those without beneficial mutations die off.


Those without beneficial mutations don't always die out, as with harmful mutations.

But what I don't understand is how so many mutations, so many Beneficial mutations, can happen.


A lot of what determines if a mutation is beneficial or not is which environment the organism is in. Also, every organism has mutations just about, and every generation there has to be a few beneficial ones. It is not just one organism to another organism that creates the beneficial mutations, but entire populations. If a human generation was 10 million people, that would be over a billion mutations every generation. I think the statistic is 1 in every 10,000 mutations i beneficial, so with a generation of 10 million, ruffly 100,000 beneficial mutations have occurred.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 02:13 AM on September 24, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am not trying to pick your argument apart piece by piece. this is just the way it turned out.

Those without beneficial mutations don't always die out, as with harmful mutations.

beneficial mutations increase chances of survival
non-beneficial mutations decrease chances of survival
no mutations keeps chances of survival somewhere between the two above
(these are with the exception of competition between mutated vs un-mutated species)

increased chances of survival = increased chances of reproduction.
reproduction = spreading genes (good or bad) to next generation

and there will always be some mutation that defies the odds and survives when it shouldn't

Like I said, I am pretty sure I get that part


Also, every organism has mutations just about, and every generation there has to be a few beneficial ones.

we are talking about mutations and not receive genes and the like. right? (just making sure)
I assume the answer will be "Yes"
if so, then lets move on...

If a human generation was 10 million people, that would be over a billion mutations every generation.

not sure I get this part.
when you say "If a human generation was 10 million people" that means X amount of people will have 10,000,000 babies each generation?
I assume the answer will be "Yes" again

But then you say "that would be over a billion mutations every generation"!
that would mean each and every baby, in each and every generation would average 100 mutations

I think the statistic is 1 in every 10,000 mutations i beneficial, so with a generation of 10 million, ruffly 100,000 beneficial mutations have occurred.

I would very much like some proof for this if you have it.
my guessed would have been Much higher given how likely it is for a mutation to cause a failure in a working system rather than an improvement.

and to Finnish off, what of when you need multiple mutations to get an improvement?
as creationists have argued for a long time; a half developed wing or the ability to create poison without the ability to safely store it. these are not going to help the animal to survive while it waits for the next beneficial mutation.


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 04:00 AM on September 24, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've seen average rates per generation of humans listed between 128 and 175.  Since the majority occur in non-coding DNA, they are neutral.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 05:11 AM on September 24, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:02 AM on September 23, 2009 :
Derwood

is a good example of the demonstration of the
reliability and accuracy of molecular phylogenetic methods, and those from the other worldview will declare that it is all just assumption based, doesn't prove anything, the researchers just got the results they wanted, etc...


Actually Derwood, I'm sure you remember that the argument was that relatedness could not distinguish between the two worldview possibilities ie. is there relatedness due to a common ancestor or a common designer?

That was your usual assertion, and that is why I presented tests on knowns to show that 'worldviews' are irrelevant.  An appropriate, logical, ational conclusion to draw from the papers whose abstracts I presented is that molecular phylogenetic analyses produce reliable phylogeny recopnstructions and are therefore supportive of evolutionary hypotheses in general.

Were the methodologies as flawed as non-scientist creationist mudslingers like to make them out to be, then there isno reason at all that those papers hould even exist.


The complexity and coding of DNA to make specific proteins shows us (who have eyes to see) quite clearly that intelligence was required to cook up the recipe for integrated parts.

The argument from awe coupled with the argument form personal incredulity coupled with an argument from ignorance.

You sure like making these silly assertions, but other than bland dismissals and irrationale equivocations, I see that you've presented nothgin that actually counters my position OR supports yours.


Why you think that random changes in a pre-existing genome could make something new and better (over vast periods of time or ever) is quite beyond me.

Indeed it is.  You have demonstrated that even the basics are beyond you.  ost people possess the humility to allow that they do not in fact know everything about everything and defer to those who have appropriate knowledge in specific areas.  But not the christian creationist - nosirree.   The christian creationists simple KNOWS all about everything, even when they don't.

It can only be because you believe that it is possible!

Yeah, that must be it.
I guess the fact that I jsut demonstrated that molecular phylogenetics - which has been employed to reconstruct phylogenies - are accurate and reliable doesn't count.


Your over-reliance on declaring anything that cioutners your position to be premised on mere belief and worldview is comical and pretty immature.  But it seems to be all you have.

I don't believe it.


I don't believe that Yahweh the Hebrew tribal deity created the universe 6,000 years ago, made a fully formed man form dirt, then killled all living things but those that fit on a wooden boar 4,500 years ago, so it must be false.  


Have to go with Timbrx on this one -unrepentant creo, formerly a believer in evolution and now changed forevermore.


I don't believe the usual Winessing BS.

Sorry.

But it is interesting - if you really were an evolutionist at one point, it appears that upon accepting YECism you became monumentall ignorant of what you formerly 'believed.'


The only deception I see going on is from the evolutionists but I suspect that it is due to their philisophical belief system and it can also be called "imagination" - they don't appear to see the difference.

The only deception I see going on is from the YEC cultists but I suspect that it is due to their philisophical belief system and it can also be called "imagination" - they don't appear to see the difference.
Well, that accomplished a lot.

Funny how you didn't even try to deal with what I presented.  I wonder how Pye would stereotype [people like you?



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:16 AM on September 24, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 6:39 PM on September 23, 2009 :
I personally understand how natural selection works:
given a variety of mutations, natural selection causes the beneficial mutations to be passed on to the next generation. and those without beneficial mutations die off.

But what I don't understand is how so many mutations, so many Beneficial mutations, can happen.

That many don't happen.  But when they do, they tend to be favored, at least in sexually reproducing species:

Sexual Recombination and the Power of Natural Selection
William R. Rice,* Adam K. Chippindale

Theory predicts that recombination will increase the effectiveness of natural selection. A Drosophila melanogaster model system was developed that increased experimental power with the use of high experimental replication, explicit tracking of individual genes, and high but natural levels of background selection. Each of 34 independent experiments traced the fate of a newly arisen mutation located within genome-wide, synthetic chromosomes that were propagated with or without recombination. An intrinsic advantage to recombination was demonstrated by the finding that the realized strength of selection on new mutations was markedly increased when recombination was present.








-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:21 AM on September 24, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You have demonstrated that even the basics are beyond you.  ost people possess the humility to allow that they do not in fact know everything about everything and defer to those who have appropriate knowledge in specific areas…….I wonder how Pye would stereotype people like you?


I don’t know. But here we have something that applies to people like you:

If forced to talk about it, they invariably try to "kill the messenger" by challenging any critic's "credentials". If the critic lacks academic credentials equal to their own, he or she is dismissed as little more than a crackpot. If the critic has equal credentials, he or she is labelled as a "closet Creationist" and dismissed. No career scientist can speak openly and vociferously against Darwinist dogma without paying a heavy price.


This happens all the time –interesting.

I don't believe that Yahweh the Hebrew tribal deity created the universe 6,000 years ago, made a fully formed man form dirt


At least we have an external cause for the production of time, space, matter and life. You, on the other hand, have miracles but no cause. Everything came from nothing and then life made itself from dirt. Perhaps it is because you are so incredibly learned that you have come to these monumental truths.  



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 11:33 PM on September 25, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

At least we have an external cause for the production of time, space, matter and life. You, on the other hand, have miracles but no cause. Everything came from nothing and then life made itself from dirt. Perhaps it is because you are so incredibly learned that you have come to these monumental truths.

And yet, you don't have a cause for that external cause, so where does that leave you?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:31 AM on September 26, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 2:21 PM on September 24, 2009 :
Quote from anti-evolutionist at 6:39 PM on September 23, 2009 :
I personally understand how natural selection works:
given a variety of mutations, natural selection causes the beneficial mutations to be passed on to the next generation. and those without beneficial mutations die off.

But what I don't understand is how so many mutations, so many Beneficial mutations, can happen.

That many don't happen.  But when they do, they tend to be favored, at least in sexually reproducing species:

Sexual Recombination and the Power of Natural Selection
William R. Rice,* Adam K. Chippindale

Theory predicts that recombination will increase the effectiveness of natural selection. A Drosophila melanogaster model system was developed that increased experimental power with the use of high experimental replication, explicit tracking of individual genes, and high but natural levels of background selection. Each of 34 independent experiments traced the fate of a newly arisen mutation located within genome-wide, synthetic chromosomes that were propagated with or without recombination. An intrinsic advantage to recombination was demonstrated by the finding that the realized strength of selection on new mutations was markedly increased when recombination was present.








Hi Derwood,
Wasn't model a computer model? The problem I have with these models is that this infers we know everything about the genome.  We don't know if some genes for instance are indirectly involved with other loci, but there has been research that suggest this.  

Also there is the antagonistic pleiotropy hypothesis.
"The antagonistic pleiotropy hypothesis was first proposed by George C. Williams in 1957 as an explanation for senescence. [1] Pleiotropy is the phenomenon where one gene controls for more than one phenotypic trait in an organism. [2] Antagonistic Pleiotropy is when one gene controls for more than one trait where at least one of these traits is beneficial to the organism's fitness and at least one is detrimental to the organism's fitness [3] The theme of G.C. William's idea about antagonistic pleiotropy was that if a gene caused both increased reproduction in early life and aging in later life, then senescence would be adaptive in evolution. For example, one study suggests that since follicular depletion in human females causes both more regular cycles in early life and loss of fertility later in life through menopause, it can be selected for by having its early benefits outweigh its late costs. [4] "Wikipedia

In conclusion, there are too many unknowns at this point to be making solid predictions of selection on a computer in my humble opinion.

(Edited by AFJ 9/26/2009 at 06:26 AM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 05:38 AM on September 26, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 08:38 AM on September 26, 2009 :

Hi Derwood,
Wasn't model a computer model? The problem I have with these models is that this infers we know everything about the genome.  We don't know if some genes for instance are indirectly involved with other loci, but there has been research that suggest this.  


I've been involved in similar scientific debates concerning appropriateness of computer models, both as a participant and reviewer of scientific papers (about some physical properties of the surface of Mars, not genetics).  If you want to prevail, what you need to do is demonstrate what the incorrect assumptions are in the model as run, and show why your assumptions are a closer match to reality.





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:16 AM on September 26, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 08:38 AM on September 26, 2009 :
Quote from derwood at 2:21 PM on September 24, 2009 :
Quote from anti-evolutionist at 6:39 PM on September 23, 2009 :
I personally understand how natural selection works:
given a variety of mutations, natural selection causes the beneficial mutations to be passed on to the next generation. and those without beneficial mutations die off.

But what I don't understand is how so many mutations, so many Beneficial mutations, can happen.

That many don't happen.  But when they do, they tend to be favored, at least in sexually reproducing species:

Sexual Recombination and the Power of Natural Selection
William R. Rice,* Adam K. Chippindale

Theory predicts that recombination will increase the effectiveness of natural selection. A Drosophila melanogaster model system was developed that increased experimental power with the use of high experimental replication, explicit tracking of individual genes, and high but natural levels of background selection. Each of 34 independent experiments traced the fate of a newly arisen mutation located within genome-wide, synthetic chromosomes that were propagated with or without recombination. An intrinsic advantage to recombination was demonstrated by the finding that the realized strength of selection on new mutations was markedly increased when recombination was present.








Hi Derwood,
Wasn't model a computer model?

No, this was direct experimentation.  


The problem I have with these models is that this infers we know everything about the genome.  We don't know if some genes for instance are indirectly involved with other loci, but there has been research that suggest this.  


Yes indeed, that is pretty well known.  It goes to show that arguments about, for example, a beneficial mutation for the appreciation of music is just nonsense.  It also means that most mutations with phenotypic effect will not be good, and thi sis also pretty wellunderstood.  The issue demonstrated by this paper is that bad mutations are more readily weeded out by sexual recombination while at the same time hastening the fixation fo beneficial ones (a point made more explicitly in the paper itself).


Also there is the antagonistic pleiotropy hypothesis.
"The antagonistic pleiotropy hypothesis was first proposed by George C. Williams in 1957 as an explanation for senescence. [1] Pleiotropy is the phenomenon where one gene controls for more than one phenotypic trait in an organism. [2] Antagonistic Pleiotropy is when one gene controls for more than one trait where at least one of these traits is beneficial to the organism's fitness and at least one is detrimental to the organism's fitness [3] The theme of G.C. William's idea about antagonistic pleiotropy was that if a gene caused both increased reproduction in early life and aging in later life, then senescence would be adaptive in evolution. For example, one study suggests that since follicular depletion in human females causes both more regular cycles in early life and loss of fertility later in life through menopause, it can be selected for by having its early benefits outweigh its late costs. [4] "Wikipedia


I hadn't heard of that, interesting, but I don't know what that has to do with what I provided.


In conclusion, there are too many unknowns at this point to be making solid predictions of selection on a computer in my humble opinion.


I do not put a great deal of stock into pure computer modelling either, but the Rice and Chippindale paper was not a computer simulation.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:02 AM on September 28, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:33 AM on September 26, 2009 :
You have demonstrated that even the basics are beyond you.  ost people possess the humility to allow that they do not in fact know everything about everything and defer to those who have appropriate knowledge in specific areas…….I wonder how Pye would stereotype people like you?


I don’t know. But here we have something that applies to people like you:

If forced to talk about it, they invariably try to "kill the messenger" by challenging any critic's "credentials". If the critic lacks academic credentials equal to their own, he or she is dismissed as little more than a crackpot. If the critic has equal credentials, he or she is labelled as a "closet Creationist" and dismissed. No career scientist can speak openly and vociferously against Darwinist dogma without paying a heavy price.


Often times such charges are warranted, as DEMONSTRATED by Pye's claims regardign human evolution (the chromosome 2 issue) and human brain physiology (the 10% myth).
When someone, regardless of their supposed credentials, makes demonstrably ignorant claims like Pye has done, skepticism, if not outright dismissals, of his claims are warranted.

Oh, and thanks for providing evidence supportive of my charge that he engages in martyrdom.


I don't believe that Yahweh the Hebrew tribal deity created the universe 6,000 years ago, made a fully formed man form dirt


At least we have an external cause for the production of time, space, matter and life.

No, you have  a myth wherein one of many deities simply poofed it all into existence on a whim.  


You, on the other hand, have miracles but no cause.

No, we have plausible explanations for things for which there is o direct or indirect evience.


Everything came from nothing and then life made itself from dirt.

You are confusing and conflating cosmology and abiogenesis and ... whatever else you are against.


Perhaps it is because you are so incredibly learned that you have come to these monumental truths.  



Unlike you, I do not pretend ultimate expetise in areas that I am barely able to understand at an introductory level.






-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:09 AM on September 28, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, you have  a myth wherein one of many deities simply poofed it all into existence on a whim.


No, not one of many, only one, the main one, the Alpha and Omega, the one with no beginning and no end, the one that created you, one would think, by mistake. Sorry, I forget, he doesn't make mistakes, even if it looks that way so perhaps you have a purpose that I can't yet ascertain and that you haven't yet stumbled upon. I really hope so.

No, we have plausible explanations for things for which there is o direct or indirect evience.


Plausible explanations are very entertaining but I prefer history books like the Bible that tell you what happened and why.

You are confusing and conflating cosmology and abiogenesis and ... whatever else you are against.


No, I'm not conflating, I'm rapidly summarizing and I'm not confused either, I leave that to you.

Unlike you, I do not pretend ultimate expetise in areas that I am barely able to understand at an introductory level.


Luckily I never pretended ultimate expertise about anything but neither do I lie down and let the self professed experts tell me I evolved from a rock over billions of years. I've been given a brain and I like to use it to sift between reality and storytime. I choose my experts and they are invariably the ones that support their contentions with real evidence sans philosophie.










-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:43 AM on September 30, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:43 AM on September 30, 2009 :
No, you have  a myth wherein one of many deities simply poofed it all into existence on a whim.


No, not one of many, only one, the main one, the Alpha and Omega, the one with no beginning and no end, the one that created you, one would think, by mistake.

And yet there is a commandment that says that no OTHER GODS go before Him.  Does this not imply that Yahweh the foreskin lover acknowledged the existence of other gods?  Is not yahweh described as jealous?  Jealous of what?


Sorry, I forget, he doesn't make mistakes, even if it looks that way so perhaps you have a purpose that I can't yet ascertain and that you haven't yet stumbled upon. I really hope so.

No mistakes, eh?
Ok...


No, we have plausible explanations for things for which there is o direct or indirect evience.


Plausible explanations are very entertaining but I prefer history books like the Bible that tell you what happened and why.

So, why did the walls of Jericho fall down after a series of ritualistic incantation?  And why does the archaeological evidence disconfirm the accounts?

Let's be honest here - you like the certaintly of thinking your book has all the answers, even when it doesn't.  It must be very comforting.  But it doen't make it true.

You are confusing and conflating cosmology and abiogenesis and ... whatever else you are against.


No, I'm not conflating, I'm rapidly summarizing and I'm not confused either, I leave that to you.

No, you are very confused, and very under/mis/dis-informed.  Take your incessant gibberish re: whale evolution.  Despite numerous explanations and the presentation of cladograms and such, you STILL spewed your caricature-based strawman nonsense as if it were a truly great argument.  I have to ask - did YOU come up with that claim and that is why you are so enamored with it?  Or did you read it on some YEC website or in some YEC book and so you just KNOW it is true and THAT is why yuou refuse to acknowledge the silliness of it?

Unlike you, I do not pretend ultimate expetise in areas that I am barely able to understand at an introductory level.


Luckily I never pretended ultimate expertise about anything but neither do I lie down and let the self professed experts tell me I evolved from a rock over billions of years.

Actually, you very much pretend to such expertise.  Look at your 'matter-of'fact' dismissal of radiometric dating.  You assert them as if YOU and only you truly understand how it is done and thus only you understand the shortcomings of the entire field.
Look at what I just mentioned - your repeatedly utterly false and truly ignroant charges re: whale evolution.  You present a truly uninformed position as a rock-solid argument.  Why else would someone do that UNLESS they are convinced that they have some sort of ultimate knowledge on a subject?

I've been given a brain and I like to use it to sift between reality and storytime.

You don't seem able to do a very good job of it.  You seem more adept at a form of prooftexting and exhibit a unidirectional skepticism, inherent in religious conservatives.


I choose my experts and they are invariably the ones that support their contentions with real evidence sans philosophie.

And here is a prime example.

What 'experts' do you choose?  YECs, no doubt.  Are you really convinced that YECs with degrees look at evidence objectively?
Are you unaware of how often YEC scientists have their claims demolished and shown to be without merit?

Look at one of your chosen experts, David Menton. You defended him as an 'expert' because he is an anatomist.  I point out that he is not a paleontologist, that hsi actual area of expertise is wound healing, and that he 'refuted' the claims made re: Tiiktaalik by discussing bones that were not even mentioned in the paper describing the fossil, and your response was what again?

Oh yes - you completely ignored it.

I present a critique of a baraminologyu paper by YEC scientists that documents how they not only used Scripture as their ultimate constraint (so much for 'sans philosophie') but how they REJECTED analyses of objective data because it did not give them the results they wanted!

Your response?

Oh, right - yuo totally ignored that, too.

Seems that you have a tendency to simply ignore refutations of the claims made by your 'selected experts'...






-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 06:40 AM on September 30, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

SilverStar
I have, I went from being an evolutionist to being a creationist. I was an evolutionist partly because I thought that just because a person had a PhD that they must be right.
Can you be an evolutionist without understanding the first thing about the ToE? Well, i guess it depends on the definition.
It seemed to be the logical explanation, with the information that I had at the time. However I makes less sense when I star trying to figure out how specific things come about. It also does not explain the beginning of the Universe.
It also doesn't explain that Pi=3. And the Bible does. So the Bible must be better, right?

Anyway, if someone thinks that a theory about the evolution of life should explain the beginning of the Universe my point that he doesn't understand the first thing about the ToE stands strong.
Labs have not reproduced evolution in a lab.
Labs reproducing in a lab...
If scientists tinker with it in any degree, it's their intelligence that reproduced intelligent design (not evolution). If evolution happens on its own, it's proof of Yahweh's foresight. If things get worse instead of better, it's proof that everything decays (nevermind that they maintain just the opposite as well).
There's nothing they'd take as evidence that they're wrong, and nothing can be predicted from their silly position.
While animals have been seen to chainge color, they have not become far more advance life forms. They have not made a advanced spiecies from single celled organisms.
Yes they do. Some bacterial colonies have learned to behave like multicelled organisms.
However, that's NOT the real issue regarding macroevolution. It's just this guy's red herring. Macroevolution means speciation (if anything). It has ben shown to him.
Creationist should now go and find another nickname for "evolving into more advanced life forms".

anti-evolutionist
But what I don't understand is how so many mutations, so many Beneficial mutations, can happen.
Mutations are not beneficial or harmful per se. You'd think that a mutation for sharper teeth would be "good", but in a cow it wouldn't.

If creationists saw such a mutation in a cow it would be evidence of decay. If they saw it in a wolf it would be evidence of Yahweh's foresight.

beneficial mutations increase chances of survival
non-beneficial mutations decrease chances of survival
Wrong. Non beneficial mutations don't have to decrease any chances of survival. Lots of times they do nothing.
Take that back, please.
no mutations keeps chances of survival somewhere between the two above
(these are with the exception of competition between mutated vs un-mutated species)
Wrong. You're assuming an unchanging environment.
Take that back, please.
Like I said, I am pretty sure I get that part
Take that back, please.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:33 AM on October 20, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from SilverStar at 9:02 PM on October 9, 2007 :
I have, I went from being an evolutionist to being a creationist. I was an evolutionist partly because I thought that just because a person had a PhD that they must be right.


You'd be interested in reading this blog:

The Creation of an Evolutionist


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 01:04 AM on January 2, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I had forgotten about this thread...

So, since you're back, anti-evolutionist...

Take that back, please.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 03:03 AM on January 2, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would appreciate it if Truthworks7 would give an account of his journey.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:38 AM on March 28, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Indeed. I would love that.

I'll paste the link in his new thread.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:55 PM on March 28, 2010 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.