Philosophy Now Forum

jinx wrote:Rebut.

Is that the best you can do?

jinx wrote:No i am not in the 99% of ignorant atheists who has not even read the bible of the atheism/'evolution' cult ('On the origin of a myth i mean species'). ...

You mean you're in the 100% of dogmatic godbotherers, I mean theists, who've not read it?

Easy question, have you read The Origin of Species or not?

Easy question, have you read The Origin of Species or not?

Yes.

"Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation" Michael Lynch.


Thus, although there is considerable uncertainty in the preceding numbers, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the per-generation reduction in fitness
due to recurrent mutation is at least 1% in humans and quite possibly as high as 5%. Although such a mutational buildup would be unnoticeable on a generation timescale, over the course of a couple of centuries (approximately six generations), the consequences are likely to become serious, particularly if human activities cause an increase in the mutation rate itself (by increasing levels of environmental mutagens). A doubling in the mutation rate would imply a 2% to 10% decline in fitness per generation, and by extension, a 12% to 60% decline in 200 years

, I would rebut this article point for point

Please do. Thanks.

Conclusion: 'Evolution'= the lie and atheists its sheep.

jinx wrote:
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21

Interesting article suggesting an alternative evolutionary explanation to fit the observations.

I don't have a problem with this theory. The author is doing cosmology, but I would say he is doing physical cosmology.

Science is all about alternative competing theories. But the big question will always be the type of physical evidence the author can get together to support his theory.


I only read it briefly, but I will go through it again.

jinx wrote:Yes.

Great!

Then you can tell me where or what it was in his words that led you to think what he was describing was false or in error?

Then you can tell me where or what it was in his words that led you to think what he was describing was false or in error?

To be 'false' one would have to make a clear cut prediction ie 'Tomorrow it will rain, but then again it may not' has no predictive value as it is ambiguous. Charles Darwins pseudo-nonsense takes the cake on ambiguous.

.








...........................................................







.............................................................................................................On the Origin of Species




...........................................................











..........................................................







.

jinx wrote:

Easy question, have you read The Origin of Species or not?

Yes.
.

You are lying, quite obviously.
What common place activity of humans provided Darwin with his best analogy for the identification of Natural Selection?

jinx wrote:

Then you can tell me where or what it was in his words that led you to think what he was describing was false or in error?

To be 'false' one would have to make a clear cut prediction ie 'Tomorrow it will rain, but then again it may not' has no predictive value as it is ambiguous. Charles Darwins pseudo-nonsense takes the cake on ambiguous.

Clearly you have not the slightest idea of the contents of Origin of Species.

jinx wrote:To be 'false' one would have to make a clear cut prediction ie 'Tomorrow it will rain, but then again it may not' has no predictive value as it is ambiguous. Charles Darwins pseudo-nonsense takes the cake on ambiguous.

That'll be a no then and amply confirms to me that you are in the 100% of theists who talk about what they don't know.

Try actually reading what he wrote before you spout off again.

Is jinx worth responding to anymore? He has committed every error that fundie creationists are known to commit.


"Evolution means fish turned into dogs."
"Evolution means an increase in information."
"Evolution requires a chemical mechanism to drive it."
"The truth of Evolution requires that abiogenesis happened, and so otherwise it is false."
"Darwin's primary motivation in writing Origin of Species was to brainwash the world."
"Evolution by Natural Selection is not a scientific theory."
"Natural Selection has no explanatory power."


And this is not even a complete list. For all intents and purposes , jinx appears to be a troll and, consequently, the core "tone" of his posts in this thread are personal attacks or twinged with person attacks. Over and over again, his posts turn to what the posters here have and have not read. "I assumed you read the Bible" or "Sorry, I thought you people knew what science was." and etc.