Evolution is Dead



Barry Desborough
17 February at 10:21
Update III: Robert, I do not jump through hoops to answer Gish gallops. Let's take one question at a time and then proceed from there. Pick ONE question, for starters, that you want me to address. We can then proceed to address your other difficulties. What's your choice? BTW, in exchange, I will expect you to respond to the evidence for common descent from endogenous retroviruses. You asked me not to change the subject, yet you pose a set of questions about fossils - in a thread concerning endogenous retroviruses! Your failure to post on-topic will be noted by readers of multiple groups on Facebook, where this exchange is being relayed.
Update II: The admin concerned commented on my OP in the group, quoting scripture at me and accusing me of ignoring a 'challenge', but he failed to say what the challenge was! He also accused me of making false accusations, ad hom attacks, not having an argument (despite the links at the bottom of the OP) and making empty claims about my 'religion' (I'm an atheist). None of these accusations are backed up with examples. Oh, this is fun!
Update: the cowardly admins of the "Evolution is Dead" group have gagged me. This is what creationists are forced to do when they cannot deal with the truth.
"The admin has temporarily turned off your ability to post or comment in the group until Sunday, 24 February 2019 at 23:49."
No explanation. Probably the post that follows.
---------------------------------
This is hilarious. I was "discussing"* the evidence for common ancestry from shared endogenous retroviruses (see the links below) with a creationist in a group called "Evolution is Dead".
He quoted the following passage -
"When we examine the collective genome of Homo sapiens, we find that a portion of it consists of ERVs (IHGS Consortium, 2001). We also find that humans share most of them with Chimpanzees, as well as the other members of Hominidae (great apes), the members of Hylobatidae (gibbons), and even the members of Cercopitheciodae (old world monkeys) (Kurdyukov et al., 2001; Lebedev et al., 2000; Medstrand and Mager, 1998; Anderssen et al., 1997; Steinhuber et al., 1995). Since humans don’t and/or can’t regularly procreate and have fertile offspring with members of these species, and thus don’t make sizable contributions to their gene pools, and vice versa, their inheritance cannot have resulted from unions of modern species. As previously mentioned, parallel integration is ruled out by the highly random target selection of integrase. And even if it was far more target-specific than observed, it would require so many simultaneous insertion and endogenizations that the evolutionary model would still be tremendously more parsimonious. This leaves only one way an ERV could have been inherited: via sexual reproduction of organisms of a species that later diverged into the one the organisms that share the ERV belong to, i.e. an ancestral species–simply put, humans and the other primates must share common ancestry."
He couldn't have read it. It outlines the positive case for common descent!
I think he scurried off to creationist/intelligent design blogs and hastily copy/pasted it from one of them, trusting that it would ward off, like some magic talisman, the horrible truth that evolution is in fact correct.
I think he copied it from a scurrilous anti-science propaganda blog, deceptively titled "Evolution News & Science Today".
The passage is from an original article, describing the case for common descent, and blogger "Jonathan M" was quoting it in order to go on and try to poo-poo it.
Here is the original article, and the author's magnificent demolition of Jonathan M's attempted hack-job.
Here, BTW is my own educational blog on endogenous retroviruses. https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/endogenous-retroviruses…
*"Discussing" in the sense of talking about a subject with someone who refuses to read anything about it.


EVOLUTIONARYMODEL.COM
ERVs
Purposes of this site: 1) to present some of the genetic evidence that gives the evolutionary model such a concrete foundation. 2) to refute the creationist propaganda being inserted into an abridged version of Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species.'
Comments

Robert Zuvich (Proverbs 26:4-5)
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

That "fool" part would be you, Barry Desborough.

(Psalms 14:1)
To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Like all atheopaths, when you do not have an argument or can accept a challenge, you cry "big bad wolf" and make false accusations. You were muted because

1. Thrice challenged, you ignored the challenge because you cannot answer it
2. You then continue to make posts filled with ad hominems, and empty claims that your religion is true
3. I did it, and that was because of the above in my statement, not yours. So now you know. When you are five it is called "time out".

Next step is the door....this is a troll free zone. Either put up or, well, you know, I even did that part for you.

His,
Bobby Z.


1
Manage


LikeShow More Reactions
Reply2d

Robert Zuvich (Proverbs 6:16-19)
¶ These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Notice the second thing is "a lying tongue". This is the tongue of the atheopath, who ignores challenges. 

Barry Desborough......you will be unmuted for a time, and if you lie, if you say you ignored no challenges again, you will be gone. I hate lies God like my Father in Heaven does, and so I shall extend grace to you once.

Here it is. Answer and only answer this post and only this post, or admit you cannot like a real man and not a coward. According to the challenge, not according to your desire.

1. Do not falsely accuse me or anyone else
2. Do not put words in my mouth or this post which are not there.
3. Your religious adherents claims that it is true, scientific, and can explain origins, and Creationism is not and cannot explain nothing
4. If you fail, your words will be useful to show how atheopaths actually behave, to the uninitiated.

Evolutionism is simply the emotionally charged, mentally immature religious belief, backed by nothing in science at all, ever, at any place, that there is a naturalistic origin for every thing under the sun, specifically with no CREATOR (the most important aspect/part for any atheopath).

Called "willingly ignorant" (dumb on purpose).

Therefore, a challenge for you atheopaths, since you seem so secure in your "science". This oughtta be so easy a five year old can do it.

(2 Peter 3:3-10)
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up

Using only F.O.R.T. science, in only your own words,

-Falsifiable, (otherwise it is only what you believe) 
-Observable (live, direct, recordable and recorded) 
-Repeatable (and repeated)in a lab or in the field 
-Testable (by anyone from a ten year old to a PhD)

Having fulfilled 2 Peter 3: 3-10 and, since you are convinced that evolutionism and naturalism are so true, scientific, "overwhelmingly proven beyond doubt" by "true science" and can (and does) explain the whole of EVERYTHING that we NEED to know about origins, and that evolutionism and naturalism explain (and only do, to the exclusion of all other beliefs) the origin of all creatures, and that the fossil record itself backs up that claim.
The claim by evolutionists, screamed loudly daily and in every place, is that

"Evolution is the most overwhelming proven explanation for origins there is, and the only one that is based on science!".
And, in fact, they utterly believe that.

That said, here is a challenge for you.
WITHOUT CHANGING THE SUBJECT, WITHOUT DEFLECTIONS, WITHOUT ASKING QUESTIONS BACK, using no suppositions, no presuppositions, no theories, no guesses, no wild stabs, no empty claims (claims are for insurance adjusters after accidents), no ideas, no consensus, no redefinitions of dictionary words, no scoffing, no taunting, no mocking, no links to any web sites or videos, nor any other references to anything outside of yourself, no appeals to authorities, no appeals to majorities, no appeals to credentials, no invoking me or anyone else, no references to Scripture or God, no empty claims, no ad hominems, no deflecting or changing the subject, on your own, using only your own words, from only your own research. Explain how ONLY naturally (purely via natural means), describe the origin of the fossil record, purely naturally, with no Flood, no Creator. Use only your own lab or field science you have done to arrive at the conclusion you have.
***********************************************************************
In fact, any evolutionist, when asked, loudly and proudly proclaims, 
"The Fossils PROVE Evolution is true!"

"EVOLUTION IS SCIENTIFIC! CREATION IS RELIGION!"

Great. That same evolutionist likes to conveniently proclaim, "The present is the key to the past!"(Uniformitarianism, a.k.a. "all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.".

So, that said, please explain the following:

- How is a fossil formed? Purely naturally, I mean.
- Where can one go to observe this natural process?
- How can evolutionism explain, say, the natural formation of a fossil single-celled organism?
-How can evolutionism explain, say, the natural formation of delicate corals? 
-How can evolutionism explain, say, the natural formation of fossils of animals in the process of giving birth?
-How can evolutionism explain, say, the natural formation of fossils in the middle of predation?
-How can evolutionism explain, say, the natural formation of fossils of predator and prey together, all smashed up, all jumbled together, contorted in twisted patterns, same place, same time, which do not even live together?
-How can evolutionism explain, say, the natural formation of millions of clams all in the same condition, closed as opposed today to open when they die?
-What happens today when any creature dies, over time? In the oceans, forests, deserts, rivers, mountains, lakes, plains?
-What is the time frame from your own experience on how long this takes to happen, either decay or fossilization?
-If you claim a local flood of some sort at some time did this, without ANY supernatural conditions, only purely under only natural conditions, please tell us where you know that this happened, which flood, and how, with the eyewitness of yourself or your video camera proving this.

You daily, as evolutionists, use the fossils to proclaim that the fossils prove evolution, so then please explain how they are formed.
Again please, use only uniformitarianism, naturalism, materialism and evolutionism (F.O.R.T. science only) in your answer. Or quite simply, humbly be brave and honest enough to admit you do not know how fossils are formed.

IOW, if you cannot answer, be man enough to simply say so. We all know you cannot. No evolutionist can.

His,
Bobby Z.
Manage


LikeShow More Reactions
Reply21h

Barry Desborough I suggest that you pose your first question about fossils in a new OP, so as not to derail this discussion from the subject of endogenous retroviruses any further. Tag me in it, and I will reply, providing I can take your post as a promise to address the case for common descent from endogenous retroviruses here in this thread.
Manage


LikeShow More Reactions
Reply22h


No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)