i read every post you have written. the basic argument you present is random mutations + natural slection + deep time = every evidence for creation is invalid.
You're a liar or you can't read.
The basic argument I present is random mutation and natural selection and deep time = evolution.
There's ZERO evidence for creationism.
your formula is flawed because mutations cause damage to the DNA.
You're still slamming into a wall of granite, magicfan.
You're getting pretty good at this borderline trolling.
Here is how you argue:
1. Askthepizzaguy, you are wrong.
2. Because, assertion of fact I have failed to prove.
3. Fact: harmful mutations happen
4. Therefore all mutations are harmful. (unproven, leaping to conclusions, ignoring my counter-argument entirely)
You'd have to be bloody insane at this point to still be choking on the concept of some versus all like a freaking chicken bone caught in your throat.
You don't know how to debate. You don't know how to debate.
Magicfan, you're wrong.
Because, assertion of fact: You don't know the difference between some and all.
Fact: Some does not mean all.
Therefore, not all mutations are harmful.
Finally understand that, or stop posting. (or come up with a counter-argument instead of saying well you're wrong because I said so)
nothing in this world exist that has repair system to fix something that is not broken. i keep bringing up mutations because it only fits the creation model of death and decay after Adam's sin.
It's your personal belief lacking evidence and if you were intellectually honest instead of stuck on one track that's already diverted off a cliff, you'd finally admit it.
if you want more info on why Adam's sin mattered. i will be more than happy to provide a quick bible review.
I've read the Bible, it's completely unscientific nonsense that is not worth discussing.
each one of your counter arguments depends on mutations providing a gain in information in which the benefit was not the result of a specific environment. if you disagree plz provide one example in where a function was gained and the organism as a whole did not become less fit. also it must be able to be passed on to the offspring.if not, your argument is a hypothetical situation.
How about the evolution of the eyes from epithelial tissue?
How about developing limbs?
How about hearing?
How about growing hair on ones body instead of scales?
How about you read up on what evolution says instead of acting like these wouldn't be the obvious bloody responses?
nobody can prove anything to an absolute. what i can do is provide enough data points. where a conclusion can be drawn that mutations are harmful to the information in the DNA.
Notice how you said "mutations are harmful".
Guess what? I already conceded that some mutations are harmful.
The big giant fricking wall of granite you keep slamming your skull into is that SOME DOES NOT MEAN ALL.
Get it? DO. YOU. UNDERSTAND.
looking "old" is an objective defition. in your mind what does a "young" earth look like? if the earth looks old you must have something to compare it against. when God made the earth wouldn't he make a hill,rivers,streams, and mountains.
You know bloody well, young earth means younger than what scientists predict, which is that the earth is several billion years old.
Stick to the point, it's not something you've mastered yet. You have to crawl before you walk.
well I'm sorry if i don't see eye to eye with your theory. which states that life came about through random mutations and survival of the fittest selection. which eventually leads someone to believe that life has no real value.
No, that's your conclusion that you pulled out of your butt.
Here's how you debate:
Magicfan, your name contains the word magic, therefore you're a believer in magic, therefore you don't believe in science ever, therefore creation science is invalid.
And that's why you're wrong. God says so.
*throws hands up in air* But if you can prove God wrong, go ahead.
That's not how to debate unless you want to make an
of yourself and frustrate everyone with eyeballs reading that rubbish.
ive presented plenty of arguments for design and complexity. once again all your counter arguments depend on random mutations. natural selection only acts on random mutations. its only a secondary force in the theory of evolution.
By that logic, exhaling is only a secondary force in breathing, and inhaling is the whole point.
You don't look at anything you say with a critical eye before you post, do you?
Seriously, the stuff you say is so simple to refute, because it explodes under the weight of its own illogic.
I'm presenting evidence for creation
YOU NEVER HAVE DONE SO.
so you and anyone reading can respect what the Christianity has to offer. i also agree that religions are mostly harmful and people can often look down on others since were are all in a fallen state. i don't put my faith in a man made religion. its a personal relationship with the creator.
I don't give a flaming kitten if you want people to respect religion, I never will because it is rubbish until proven otherwise by the simple fact it is self-contradictory and contradicting of other religions, whereas non-religion does not contain such fatal errors.
It's also besides the bloody point because you've never presented evidence of creationism ever, anywhere, at any time.
You said mutations are harmful.
I said some mutations are, most are neutral, some are useful, and those get selected for.
You have yet to even come close to refuting it, but you still repeat your assertion that mutations are harmful like I haven't already said "some mutations are, most are neutral, some are useful" like you're a broken record.
Because you refuse to acknowledge that, you haven't proven a danged thing, and you're still slamming skull first into granite while everyone watches you and sympathizes with why trying to have a conversation with you is so ridiculously frustrating.
SOME VERSUS ALL. UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE.
