...Continued

For example, Creationists like to point to Hitler and claim that Hitler was an “Evolutionist” because of his idea of “selective breeding” with Humans - which has nothing to to with “Natural selection” mind you. According to this flawed logic Creationists would have to condemn animal breeders – not evolution.

Even if Hitler was trying to emulate evolution, it wouldn't disprove it. This type of flawed logic is akin to saying that stealing is wrong, therefore the act of stealing is non-existent (Yet another example of the poor logic from Creationists; The same kind of poor logic that I was trying to point out to you in the previous thread).

But Creationists do this to try to make people feel sickened by the thought of evolution and reject it. Just one of the many reasons why Creationism is so deceitful.

Anyway, I feel this thread has now run it's course, and I see that you have now resorted to using the Bible to prove Creationism (I have been waiting since the previous thread to see how long that would take), which is absurd considering there is precious little to support anything that the Bible says. So until next time...

I wish you well, Dan.

AJ,
I don’t see why you should accuse me of lies simply for voicing an opinion. Opinions are what this website is about. It seems your main debating tactic over the last few posts is simply to cry ‘liar’ whenever faced with a difficult comment. It almost seems useful, that when you cry ‘foul’ it mainly serves to highlight to us where your argument is weak.

In these inane accusations of spreading falsity, we can see you’ve probably been reading from the Ian Plimer guide to debating, and paid special attention to his chapter entitled, “Throw enough mud at the wall and some of it might stick”.

For your question about adaptation and macroevolution, at risk of being accused of repeating myself, I’ll reiterate. “Mutations are never seen to be adding information to the genome, such that that might bring about new and useful functioning systems, which should be a regular occurrence if [evolution] theory be true.”

Adaptation usually involves selection of genes that were already present. The rare occurrence of a beneficial mutation usually involves the destruction (thus loss) of genetic information. Occasionally destroying certain genes can be useful or beneficial. Such was the case in the Lenski experiments, according to one highly qualified biologist in the field, who points out that E Coli were already able to metabolise citrate under certain conditions.

If I make an expression of faith in the Bible, I do so unashamedly. The history of Western science would be an altogether different scene without men of faith. The Bible contains valuable insights for science, history, ethics, the salvation of one’s soul, and even has marked relevance to this part of the debate (see Matthew 5:11).

I’m sorry for not being able to download the videos from your youtube selection. My Internet connection is not as strong as what you might think it is (I use a mobile phone). So in future, maybe I’ll ask you to summarise their contents into your text, if you want me to comment on them.

Until then, best wishes.

Rstuart,
You raise the issue of teaching creation in science classes.

Nowhere did I suggest that teaching creation be mandated in schools. Neither has this been suggested by any major creationist organisation. Such a mandate would be counter-productive as the creation position would be misrepresented by those who don’t accept it.

Some have dared suggest that more freedom be allowed to discuss the problems and weaknesses with the evolution view. Could such critiquing be allowed, or is evolution such a precious idea that it must be shielded beyond any scientific questioning?

For what am I accused of bullying?

I try to put my points clearly. On one thing I insist, that this debate be conducted on a level playing field. When an atheist holds a philosophical position, it is permissible, but when a Christian holds one, it is not? How can this be? When creation scientists are accused of being influenced by their religion, shouldn’t everyone have to declare their biases?

Is it just coincidence that the main opponents to creation, both on this thread, and others mentioned (Dawkins, Plimer) are declared atheists?

One leading evolutionary geneticist (and self declared Marxist), illustrated how much the debate involves bias and presupposition rather than facts alone.

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, 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.”

Professor Richard Lewontin, 1997.

Dan,

<<I don’t see why you should accuse me of lies simply for voicing an opinion.>>

But we're not talking about mere opinions here, we are talking about facts versus falsehoods. I don't like the word “lies” though. It implies that you know better.

<<It seems your main debating tactic over the last few posts is simply to cry ‘liar’ whenever faced with a difficult comment.>>

Not at all.

In fact, you haven't yet presented me with anything that I haven't been able to answer (please tell me if I've missed something though).

<<It almost seems useful, that when you cry ‘foul’ it mainly serves to highlight to us where your argument is weak.>>

Again, not at all.

Not one of my arguments has been weak so far, and every time I “cry foul”, I have been able to point out why, in an indisputable manner. This is evident in that way that you are unable to give me a counter argument as to why your claims aren't dishonest or slippery.

I don't need to sling mud at all, Dan. You're arguments are covered in them. And again, I am always able to demonstrate why.

<<For your question about adaptation and macroevolution, at risk of being accused of repeating myself, I’ll reiterate. “Mutations are never seen to be adding information to the genome, such that that might bring about new and useful functioning systems, which should be a regular occurrence if [evolution] theory be true.”>>

And at the risk of repeating myself, there are many examples of mutations adding information to the genome. If by “functioning systems” you mean like a new body part, then no, mutations haven't been seen to add a new functioning systems, and nor would they – If we witnessed this in even as short amount of time as a few thousand years, then it would be good evidence against evolution.

<<Adaptation usually involves selection of genes that were already present. The rare occurrence of a beneficial mutation usually involves the destruction (thus loss) of genetic information....>>

This is incorrect... http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html

Continued...

...Continued

<<...who points out that E Coli were already able to metabolise citrate under certain conditions.>>

Not the E-coli that Lenski started with.

<<The history of Western science would be an altogether different scene without men of faith.>>

And these men-of-faith that you speak of were around before Natural Selection was known about or thought of. So of course they would have believed in a God. Heck, They didn't even know dinosaurs existed! Thus your point here is irrelevant.

<<The Bible contains valuable insights for science...>>

Such as?

<<...history...>>

Not really. Much of the Bible's history evidently never happened. The Flood... The Exodus...

<<...ethics...>>

Some of it... yes. But you have to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you follow. Most of it is horrendous.

<<...and even has marked relevance to this part of the debate (see Matthew 5:11)>>

Nope. Matthew 5:11 talks about FALSE claims against one's self.

None of my claims of the dishonesty in your arguments are false, and I have been able to demonstrate why they are dishonest.

As for your internet connection... that's unfortunate. Here are the transcripts of the last two videos that I linked to, but with out the visuals, they won't mean as much...

Mutations: http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/8thFFoC.html

Transitional fossils: http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/9thFFoC.html

<<When an atheist holds a philosophical position, it is permissible, but when a Christian holds one, it is not?>>

But we are not talking about mere philosophies here. We're talking about two views of the origins of everything. One theory is backed by mountains of irrefutable evidence, the other has no evidence to back it at all.

<<Some have dared suggest that more freedom be allowed to discuss the problems and weaknesses with the evolution view.>>

All scientific theories have problems. That's why research continues... to find the answers to those problems.

It would be waisting school time to be explaining the problems of every scientific theory to students.

Your quote is yet another example Creationist deceitfulness...

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Lewontin_on_materialism
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Richard_Lewontin

This is why quote mining is such a "slippery" tactic.

P.S. What does Lewontin being a Marxist have to do with anything?

I was just thinking, Dan... If we're going to start 'quote mining', then I have a quote for you:

"There is no God." (Psalms 14:1)

Now, would you say I was being "honest" here?

You see, my claims of Creationist dishonesty are not an opinion, they are a fact - a clear and demonstratable fact.