Two! Four! Six! Eight! JaySecrets Prevaricates!

[TastySuckToy]

I agree. That's why evolution is pure bs

You think evolution is pure BS?

What do you think evolution is?

 

[stxjimmy]

I agree. That's why evolution is pure bs

You’re making a good attempt at proving that, carry on.

 

[YDB95]

Your response to Sowell proves your racism.

My response wasn't to Sowell so much as it was to you. While I don't agree with him on much of anything, I never said he wasn't a very intelligent guy. But that's not the point. The point is why you find him so appealing.

But then again, Darwin would, in fact approve. His full title? On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

By "races", he meant species (i.e. "the human race"). Language evolves too, Jay. And no, Darwin did not approve of the misuse of his theories that you're referring to.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Who have I murdered or expressed my support of the murder of again? A quote please.

You're as complicit in murder, as the people who support a woman's right to choose about their health care are complicit in murder.

See how this works...you fucking murderer.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I agree. That's why evolution is pure bs

and gravity is just a theory, amiright?

Science denial is a core tenet of your Toxic Christianity.

We could have flying cars by now, but no, scientists are forced to explain how an antibiotic (Ivermectin) "cures" the Covid virus.

 

[JaySecrets]

My response wasn't to Sowell so much as it was to you. While I don't agree with him on much of anything, I never said he wasn't a very intelligent guy. But that's not the point. The point is why you find him so appealing.

I find him appealing because he's right about most of what he says and he is brilliant. You dislike him because he's... what was your guy Biden's line... "A clean articulate black man" who dared to leave the plantation your party has kept minorities on for decades. You dislike him because he is one of the faces of the growing number of black Americans leaving your condescending racist lot.

By "races", he meant species (i.e. "the human race"). Language evolves too, Jay. And no, Darwin did not approve of the misuse of his theories that you're referring to.

Nope. We have to use today's definition. Your boy on here said so. (Hope you pick up the sarcasm there.)

Yes Darwin was pro slavery. Yes he was a racist. And yes he was typical of the non-Christian population in the West and the ones of that time who gave a barely literate reading of their Bibles. Atheists openly opposed the Abolitionist movement. agnostics generally did as well. Try again, smalls.

 

[JaySecrets]

You're as complicit in murder, as the people who support a woman's right to choose about their health care are complicit in murder.

False equivalency. I oppose the cult of Catholicism, I oppose the theology that militarizes Christianity, and I oppose any theology that doesn't have at its foundation a Holy and Loving God who made mankind in His image, and thus considers all human life, in or out of the womb, sacred.

You support the ideology that says it's okay to kill a baby in the womb, no matter if you call that baby a fetus or a child. You have no real basis for a value of human life, because you believe we are mere animals (the honest treatment would have to be "A rat is a monkey is a baby"). And you are this actively, in your support, complicit in the murder of those babies, no matter the reason you give. If your money, your voice, or your support goes to such vile crimes against humanity, you are as guilty as if you had killed the baby yourself.

See how this works...you fucking murderer.

 

[JaySecrets]

and gravity is just a theory, amiright?

Nope, in fact Scripture confirms gravity. It's amazing how scientifically accurate a Book that was never written as a science text is.

Science denial is a core tenet of your Toxic Christianity.

Science EXISTS because scientists believed there was a knowable Creator, a Lawgiver who created with order, and we could know Him better by studying His creation. It's literally the foundation of the modern scientific method. If everything were random chance, there is no set law, and no definable constant. You guys said as much. "Evolution didn't defy the Thermodynamic Laws because we don't know if they were there." In other words, there is no set law. No set law, observable and repeatable is out the window. After all, in a century it could all change. No set laws, no science. The study of scientific law only works if there is a Lawgiver. One who is outside and over that creation setting it in place. And that is exactly what the ones who gave us the modern scientific method believed.

We could have flying cars by now, but no, scientists are forced to explain how an antibiotic (Ivermectin) "cures" the Covid virus.

 

[JaySecrets]

You think evolution is pure BS?

What do you think evolution is?

Adaptation, or micro-evolution exists WITHIN A KIND, of course. That's just existing genetic information becoming dominant or, in the case of mutation, information being lost.

But Darwinian, or macroevolution if you will, requires NEW information to mutate, in beneficial ways, and then become dominant, and bring on KIND, say, a monkey, into another KIND, say, man. We don't have ONE example that is observable of that EVER happening. We have exactly zero examples of mutation where new information was gained. All mutations we have are information lost. It's like saying a guy in a society where everyone has to wear handcuffs has evolved because he was born with one arm.

And we know this to be true by observation. We can only breed plants and flowers to a certain point, then they simply can't reproduce past the edge of their kind. Same with animals. The KIND is a barrier we have NEVER observed to be able to be crossed. That alone is enough to disprove every Darwinian evolutionary theory out there.

 

[YDB95]

I find him appealing because he's right about most of what he says and he is brilliant. You dislike him because he's... what was your guy Biden's line... "A clean articulate black man" who dared to leave the plantation your party has kept minorities on for decades. You dislike him because he is one of the faces of the growing number of black Americans leaving your condescending racist lot.

There you go again.
If you want to debate my actual beliefs, that's fine. But either stop putting words in my mouth like that, or it's Ignore time. Your choice.

Yes Darwin was pro slavery.

Cite please, and make it a good one.

Yes he was a racist.

Nearly everyone one who lived in his time was, by modern-day standards. But I doubt you have anything to support your claim here beyond your misinterpretation of the word "Race" in his book title. (Oh, and five minutes of research on your part would have revealed that both of his grandfathers were abolitionists. While that does not preclude the possibility that he was a racist by nineteenth century standards, it does make it rather unlikely.

And yes he was typical of the non-Christian population in the West and the ones of that time who gave a barely literate reading of their Bibles.

Actually, he was a devout Christian early in life, and turned away from it in part because of what he recognized as the lack of historical accuracy in the Bible. Regardless of your opinion on his views, they were not based on a "barely literate reading" of his Bible, quite the contrary.

Atheists openly opposed the Abolitionist movement. agnostics generally did as well. Try again, smalls.

Perhaps, but Darwin himself was a staunch abolitionist: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16503-hatred-of-slavery-drove-darwin-to-emancipate-all-life

 

[TastySuckToy]

*snip*

You're simply appealing to the classic arguement that small evolutionary changes can happen, but not big ones. Which is logically flawed, since accumulated small changes add up to big changes over time.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

False equivalency.

Nice try murderer.

 

[JaySecrets]

You're simply appealing to the classic arguement that small evolutionary changes can happen, but not big ones. Which is logically flawed, since accumulated small changes add up to big changes over time.

That statement itself is logically flawed. Ask any farmer. When they do corn hybrids, they can have the corn reproduce AFTER ITS KIND to the limits of the kind. That's how we get feed corn and sweet corn. But once you get to the outer edges of the kind, the corn no longer has the seed in itself to reproduce, and the farmer has to BUY that particular strand to grow it, because the crop that comes of it is all they get. They can't replant off the corn harvested. The same goes for wheat and beans and other produce.

Ask the breeders of donkeys. Move to the crossbreeding edges, breeding a jackass with a horse and you get a mule. Mules are as far as it goes. They can't reproduce. This kind of thing is consistent throughout the animal kingdom. Animals and plants both reproduce AFTER THEIR KIND, and there is not even ONE observed exception to this in nature.

The other issue is with the NATURE of changes. Adaptation is change that is based on information that ALREADY EXISTS inside the DNA. There is NO NEW information added. The other changes we see are mutations. In EVERY CASE, those mutations involve a LOSS of information, not a gain. There is not even one example of this in nature. For example. A flu bug develops an immunity to a certain vaccine because the viruses that were susceptible were killed off, and the ones left are the ones that lost the piece of information that particular vaccine was attacking. Was there a mutation? Yes. Did it benefit the virus? Yes. But it only benefited because the environment was beneficial to the mutation. It gained no NEW information. For macroevolution to work, you have to have NEW INFORMATION ADDED to the DNA. Where there was no lung, the DNA has to add that information and complexity. We simply do not have one observable example in nature. In fact, that pairs with the issues that come with the AFTER THEIR KIND issue.

If the small changes were cumulative of NEW information, and if we didn't have the KIND limitations, your argument would be valid. However, because it is the cumulative LOSS of information, your argument falls apart. Evolution has NO ANSWER for this problem, yet it is the foundation of every evolutionary argument. An argument that is not based in ANY observable science.

 

[JaySecrets]

There you go again.
If you want to debate my actual beliefs, that's fine. But either stop putting words in my mouth like that, or it's Ignore time. Your choice.

Your beliefs show in your lack of interest in hearing any black American who disagrees with you.

Cite please, and make it a good one.

Nearly everyone one who lived in his time was, by modern-day standards. But I doubt you have anything to support your claim here beyond your misinterpretation of the word "Race" in his book title. (Oh, and five minutes of research on your part would have revealed that both of his grandfathers were abolitionists. While that does not preclude the possibility that he was a racist by nineteenth century standards, it does make it rather unlikely.

His grandfathers were CHRISTIANS.
And I find it fascinating that you make the argument for HIM based on the historical context to his beliefs, but when you deal with Washington or Jefferson, they are horrible people, even though they were seeking to end slavery. Again, read the history NOT fed you in your public school propaganda textbooks. Read their own letters and statements. Sowell has at length, cites them heavily, and proves his case. So unless you are so stupid as to believe a black man in America is cool with his great, great-grandparents being slaves, maybe you should actually read what he has to say as a historian.

Actually, he was a devout Christian early in life, and turned away from it in part because of what he recognized as the lack of historical accuracy in the Bible. Regardless of your opinion on his views, they were not based on a "barely literate reading" of his Bible, quite the contrary.

He turned away from Christianity because a girl he loved died. He took issue with the idea that God would allow death and send people to hell. Yet this is the age-old "Why do bad things happen to good people" argument. And it isn't a contradiction. Free will means the choice to rebel. Rebellion has consequences. God made us eternal souls in His image. He builds the knowledge of good and evil into every one of us, and every one of us constantly violate what we know is morally good. So no one who is at an age of understanding is innocent. We are ALL guilty. God LOVED mankind so much He came to be one of us, took on humanity for eternity, and died, suffered the most agonizing death imaginable, and took the full judgement our sins earned on Himself, then rose from the dead so He could give us Life. When we reject THAT, we have no grounds to complain that God does us dirty by sending us to hell. We sent ourselves there by our daily willful violations of what we know is good. If we don't want God's Holiness and forgiveness, He won't force us to take it. But that means we have rejected fellowship with Him and have to bear the consequences of our moral crimes against Holiness. He offered to take those consequences. We rejected. It's like rejecting a cure for cancer, then saying the doctor is cruel because he let you die. And with sin comes death. That is why people die. We live in a world of sin and death. It's a mess we created. It is disingenuous to blame God.

Whether you LIKE this explaination or not, the Bible gives a well resoned response to the issue.

Perhaps, but Darwin himself was a staunch abolitionist: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16503-hatred-of-slavery-drove-darwin-to-emancipate-all-life

Distort his beliefs all you want. Facts is facts. When your writing is inspiring Marx AND Hitler, Something is drastically wrong with your start point.

 

[John_von_Neumann]

Adaptation, or micro-evolution exists WITHIN A KIND, of course. That's just existing genetic information becoming dominant or, in the case of mutation, information being lost.

But Darwinian, or macroevolution if you will, requires NEW information to mutate, in beneficial ways, and then become dominant, and bring on KIND, say, a monkey, into another KIND, say, man. We don't have ONE example that is observable of that EVER happening. We have exactly zero examples of mutation where new information was gained. All mutations we have are information lost. It's like saying a guy in a society where everyone has to wear handcuffs has evolved because he was born with one arm.

And we know this to be true by observation. We can only breed plants and flowers to a certain point, then they simply can't reproduce past the edge of their kind. Same with animals. The KIND is a barrier we have NEVER observed to be able to be crossed. That alone is enough to disprove every Darwinian evolutionary theory out there.

Oh, you're one of those. The eighteenth century called, they want their arguments back.

 

[TastySuckToy]

*snip*

Your argument against evolution based on "kind" and hybridization is flawed. The concept of organisms reproducing "after their kind" is vague and not scientifically valid. Hybrid sterility, like in mules, does not disprove evolution; it actually supports it by showing genetic differences that accumulate over time.

The claim that adaptation involves no new information is incorrect. Genetic variation arises through mutations, genetic recombination, and other mechanisms. Many mutations add new functions or modify existing ones. Examples include the evolution of antifreeze proteins in Antarctic fish and nylonase in bacteria, which allows them to digest synthetic nylon.

Evolution is about changes in allele frequencies over time, involving both gains and losses of genetic material, leading to adaptation. Multiple lines of evidence from paleontology, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, and observed instances of speciation support evolutionary theory. Observed cases like antibiotic resistance in bacteria and the adaptation of insects to pesticides illustrate real-time evolutionary processes.

Your argument also incorrectly claims that evolution is not based on observable science. Evolutionary biology is grounded in empirical research and observation, providing consistent evidence for evolutionary theory. Evolution explains the diversity of life through natural processes and remains a foundational framework in biology, explaining both microevolutionary and macroevolutionary changes.

 

[John_von_Neumann]

Agreeing with TinyFuckBoi makes me grouchy. Thanks, JaySecretions.

 

[YDB95]

Your beliefs show in your lack of interest in hearing any black American who disagrees with you.

As do yours.

His grandfathers were CHRISTIANS.
And I find it fascinating that you make the argument for HIM based on the historical context to his beliefs, but when you deal with Washington or Jefferson, they are horrible people, even though they were seeking to end slavery.

1. I never said Washington or Jefferson were "horrible". Flawed certainly, as we all are, and they were slave owners, which is an undeniably ugly mark on their records no matter what else they accomplished; but I never said they were horrible people.
2. They were not "seeking to end slavery". Jefferson did free his slaves in his will, but while he was alive...well, I could tell you how he treated them, but it would go in one ear and out the other.

Again, read the history NOT fed you in your public school propaganda textbooks.

I have a degree in history from a private college. In other words, I have done as you say here, albeit still not the books you choose to believe in.

Read their own letters and statements. Sowell has at length, cites them heavily, and proves his case.

Maybe so, but it's not his track record I'm concerned with here. It's yours. You have demonstrated time and again that you will believe anything that fits your worldview and refuse to believe anything that doesn't, regardless of how well- or poorly-sourced either one is. Besides, "Sowell proves his case" is strictly an opinion.

So unless you are so stupid as to believe a black man in America is cool with his great, great-grandparents being slaves, maybe you should actually read what he has to say as a historian.

Sowell isn't a historian, he's an economist. And it shows in his columns that I have read.

He turned away from Christianity because a girl he loved died. He took issue with the idea that God would allow death and send people to hell. Yet this is the age-old "Why do bad things happen to good people" argument. And it isn't a contradiction. Free will means the choice to rebel. Rebellion has consequences. God made us eternal souls in His image. He builds the knowledge of good and evil into every one of us, and every one of us constantly violate what we know is morally good. So no one who is at an age of understanding is innocent. We are ALL guilty. God LOVED mankind so much He came to be one of us, took on humanity for eternity, and died, suffered the most agonizing death imaginable, and took the full judgement our sins earned on Himself, then rose from the dead so He could give us Life. When we reject THAT, we have no grounds to complain that God does us dirty by sending us to hell.

Crises of faith are very, very common. Most of us have them from time to time. Who are you to question anyone's right to have doubts after something horrible happens to them?

Distort his beliefs all you want. Facts is facts.

You're saying this in direct response to a link I posted that establishes the fact that he hated slavery. In other words, you're guilty of exactly what you're falsely accusing me of here.

When your writing is inspiring Marx AND Hitler, Something is drastically wrong with your start point.

Hitler was an anti-smoking activist. Does that mean cigarettes are good for you? No, no it does not. What you are pointing to here is simply that a couple of extremists saw what they wanted to see in someone else's writing - exactly as you do with Thomas Sowell, incidentally. (And that's assuming they really were "inspired" by Darwin, which you recite as fact here - but you have a miserable track record when it comes to factual accuracy.)

 

[ll74]

Found this to be on topic and interesting, though not broken down by religious persuasion

Adoption Stats - URL is being blocked by lit

Although the 1 million same-sex couple households in the United States make up less than 2% of total coupled households, 21% of same-sex couples with children have adopted children versus less than 3% of opposite-sex couples with children. Same-sex couples are seven times more likely than opposite-sex couples to have adopted children. The number of children living with LGBT parents has risen tremendously, and these numbers will only increase as same-sex adoption and parenting becomes more widely accepted.

 

[JaySecrets]

Your argument against evolution based on "kind" and hybridization is flawed. The concept of organisms reproducing "after their kind" is vague and not scientifically valid. Hybrid sterility, like in mules, does not disprove evolution; it actually supports it by showing genetic differences that accumulate over time.

The claim that adaptation involves no new information is incorrect. Genetic variation arises through mutations, genetic recombination, and other mechanisms. Many mutations add new functions or modify existing ones. Examples include the evolution of antifreeze proteins in Antarctic fish and nylonase in bacteria, which allows them to digest synthetic nylon.

Evolution is about changes in allele frequencies over time, involving both gains and losses of genetic material, leading to adaptation. Multiple lines of evidence from paleontology, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, and observed instances of speciation support evolutionary theory. Observed cases like antibiotic resistance in bacteria and the adaptation of insects to pesticides illustrate real-time evolutionary processes.

Your argument also incorrectly claims that evolution is not based on observable science. Evolutionary biology is grounded in empirical research and observation, providing consistent evidence for evolutionary theory. Evolution explains the diversity of life through natural processes and remains a foundational framework in biology, explaining both microevolutionary and macroevolutionary changes.

That adaptation was already built into the DNA.

Give one quote from an actual scientist citing one mutation that added new information to existing DNA that can be observed. It's observable science, so it should be easy.

And the KIND argument isn't even close to antiquated. It is the basis of understanding the species of life. Evolutionists want to reframe it do justify their bad theory, but that's like psychologists trying to distance themselves from Freud or Jung because they were problematic pervs, while still using their logic as their start point. You can change the words, but it doesn't change the facts.

 

[Rightguide]

The battlefield above is littered with the stubborn minds of those unwilling to relinquish their cherished beliefs, no matter how unfounded they may be. Yet one lone figure armed with reason presses on, refusing to yield the field to those emboldened by ignorance and political dogma.

 

[ll74]

Lol

 

[TastySuckToy]

That adaptation was already built into the DNA.

Give one quote from an actual scientist citing one mutation that added new information to existing DNA that can be observed. It's observable science, so it should be easy.

And the KIND argument isn't even close to antiquated. It is the basis of understanding the species of life. Evolutionists want to reframe it do justify their bad theory, but that's like psychologists trying to distance themselves from Freud or Jung because they were problematic pervs, while still using their logic as their start point. You can change the words, but it doesn't change the facts.

The idea that no new information can be added to DNA through mutations is incorrect. A well-documented example is the development of nylonase in bacteria. Nylonase is an enzyme that allows bacteria to digest synthetic nylon, a substance not found in nature. This enzyme arose through a frameshift mutation, adding new functional information to the bacteria's genome. Susumu Ohno, a renowned geneticist, discussed such instances of genetic innovation through mutations. This clearly shows that new information can and does arise through genetic mutations.

The term "kind" lacks a clear definition in scientific taxonomy. Modern biology classifies species based on genetic and reproductive criteria. The concept of species and speciation is supported by extensive research and observable evidence. For example, hybrid sterility, such as in mules (the offspring of a horse and a donkey), supports the idea of speciation through genetic divergence over time. This does not indicate a rigid boundary of "kinds," but rather a point at which genetic differences result in reproductive barriers.

Evolutionary biology is grounded in observable science. Numerous studies and experiments have documented evolutionary processes. For instance, the adaptation of insects to pesticides and the rapid evolution of viruses like HIV show real-time examples of genetic changes and adaptation. These instances involve both the loss and gain of genetic material, demonstrating the dynamic nature of evolution.

The comparison to Freud and Jung misunderstands how science progresses. While early ideas often form the foundation, science evolves with new evidence and understanding. Evolutionary theory has developed significantly since Darwin, with vast amounts of supporting evidence from genetics, paleontology, and molecular biology. Rejecting the outdated "kind" concept is part of this scientific progress, just as modern psychology has moved beyond the limitations of Freud and Jung.

Mutations can and do add new information to DNA, observable in scientific studies. The concept of "kind" is not scientifically valid and has been replaced by more precise definitions in biology. Evolutionary theory is well-supported by a wide range of evidence and remains a cornerstone of modern biology.

 

[ll74]

The idea that no new information can be added to DNA through mutations is incorrect. A well-documented example is the development of nylonase in bacteria. Nylonase is an enzyme that allows bacteria to digest synthetic nylon, a substance not found in nature. This enzyme arose through a frameshift mutation, adding new functional information to the bacteria's genome. Susumu Ohno, a renowned geneticist, discussed such instances of genetic innovation through mutations. This clearly shows that new information can and does arise through genetic mutations.

The term "kind" lacks a clear definition in scientific taxonomy. Modern biology classifies species based on genetic and reproductive criteria. The concept of species and speciation is supported by extensive research and observable evidence. For example, hybrid sterility, such as in mules (the offspring of a horse and a donkey), supports the idea of speciation through genetic divergence over time. This does not indicate a rigid boundary of "kinds," but rather a point at which genetic differences result in reproductive barriers.

Evolutionary biology is grounded in observable science. Numerous studies and experiments have documented evolutionary processes. For instance, the adaptation of insects to pesticides and the rapid evolution of viruses like HIV show real-time examples of genetic changes and adaptation. These instances involve both the loss and gain of genetic material, demonstrating the dynamic nature of evolution.

The comparison to Freud and Jung misunderstands how science progresses. While early ideas often form the foundation, science evolves with new evidence and understanding. Evolutionary theory has developed significantly since Darwin, with vast amounts of supporting evidence from genetics, paleontology, and molecular biology. Rejecting the outdated "kind" concept is part of this scientific progress, just as modern psychology has moved beyond the limitations of Freud and Jung.

Mutations can and do add new information to DNA, observable in scientific studies. The concept of "kind" is not scientifically valid and has been replaced by more precise definitions in biology. Evolutionary theory is well-supported by a wide range of evidence and remains a cornerstone of modern biology.

Yah, I've already used the bacteria example. His answer was *it's not valid because it's still bacteria"

He only sees what his websites tell him is true and all he reads are creationist websites. Definitions don't matter unless the definitions fit his religious worldview.

 

[JaySecrets]

The idea that no new information can be added to DNA through mutations is incorrect. A well-documented example is the development of nylonase in bacteria. Nylonase is an enzyme that allows bacteria to digest synthetic nylon, a substance not found in nature. This enzyme arose through a frameshift mutation, adding new functional information to the bacteria's genome. Susumu Ohno, a renowned geneticist, discussed such instances of genetic innovation through mutations. This clearly shows that new information can and does arise through genetic mutations.

The term "kind" lacks a clear definition in scientific taxonomy. Modern biology classifies species based on genetic and reproductive criteria. The concept of species and speciation is supported by extensive research and observable evidence. For example, hybrid sterility, such as in mules (the offspring of a horse and a donkey), supports the idea of speciation through genetic divergence over time. This does not indicate a rigid boundary of "kinds," but rather a point at which genetic differences result in reproductive barriers.

Evolutionary biology is grounded in observable science. Numerous studies and experiments have documented evolutionary processes. For instance, the adaptation of insects to pesticides and the rapid evolution of viruses like HIV show real-time examples of genetic changes and adaptation. These instances involve both the loss and gain of genetic material, demonstrating the dynamic nature of evolution.

The comparison to Freud and Jung misunderstands how science progresses. While early ideas often form the foundation, science evolves with new evidence and understanding. Evolutionary theory has developed significantly since Darwin, with vast amounts of supporting evidence from genetics, paleontology, and molecular biology. Rejecting the outdated "kind" concept is part of this scientific progress, just as modern psychology has moved beyond the limitations of Freud and Jung.

Mutations can and do add new information to DNA, observable in scientific studies. The concept of "kind" is not scientifically valid and has been replaced by more precise definitions in biology. Evolutionary theory is well-supported by a wide range of evidence and remains a cornerstone of modern biology.

Everything you just said is probably scientifically false. But the blind WILL be blind. Guess when truth is considered flexible, even in science, anything can be "true". You have just shown the truth of that.