There is something I always wondered about... Why are atheists asked to refute biology?

(October 5, 2013 at 7:25 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: What part of the topic's post is false.

at least 30 mutations per generation
mutations are errors
After that it is just simple mathematics.
The conclusion results from that.

Your conclusions are wrong, and based on false calculations. I proved it.

God is wrong, because of the sheer impossibility of it. This has been demonstrated. It's proved. Your christo-logic has been disproved. Since atheism is the opposite, it is correct.

It has been proved.

(October 5, 2013 at 7:25 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:

(October 5, 2013 at 7:23 am)Chas Wrote: Are you acquainted with "all intelligent designers"? Please introduce me, I would love to chat with them.

You have done nothing but make unfounded assertions and

What part of the topic's post is false.

at least 30 mutations per generation
mutations are errors
After that it is just simple mathematics.
The conclusion results from that.

Not quite,

The mutation number may be correct but what you are not taking into account is that a fatal mutation is exactly that fora given individual (thereby removing that individual's genes from the gene pool).

Not fatal mutations are not a problem and continue throughout the lifespan of the species. A few of those may result in changes to the species over time, if it provides advantage, and that will result in evolution.

Thank you for playing and proving evolution along the way. I must admit I hadn't thought of it in those terms.

(October 5, 2013 at 6:50 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: The vast complexity of the life forms in the universe and the universe, with all its orderly laws, must be explained.

That in itself argues for God.

No explanation without God has explained it.

Therefore God must exist.

Next step is to identify God.

Since you repeat the same phrases over and over and over again and ignore every single argument that refutes your claims I have taken the liberty to report you as a spammer.



awwwwwwww, now you may go kaputt

Oh yah, thanks max. Adopting the ersatz term "negative mutations", negative mutations have a greater tendency to result in reproductive failure through death or other mishap than neutral or beneficial mutations. As a result, you cannot calculate the total as a simple linear projection because the actual rate of reproduction of individuals with negative, neutral, and beneficial mutations are each different (by definition, no less). This is essentially the effect of natural selection. The original argument assumes that detrimental mutations will be conserved at the same rate as neutral or beneficial mutations, contrary to the basic definition of a negative or detrimental mutation (negative in this sense implies differential conservation). So calculating out mutation load by multiplying mutation rate by number of generations is itself wrong and an implicit misrepresentation of the theory of evolution (as it ignores natural selection).

You lose, again.

So, you won't submit your claims to a formal, controlled debate with someone. What's that clucking sound that I hear?

(October 5, 2013 at 10:05 am)LastPoet Wrote: There is something I always wondered about... Why are atheists asked to refute biology?

I guess that's one way to find common ground.

Sigh you OP that mutuation are often something as simple as my fingers being a touch shorter then my parents or me being harrier, or perhaps they have small noses and mine is big. It's not usually being born with a extra finger or something.

The way I figure it, creationists envision evolution from Pokemon or X-men...


EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! [/morbo]

SavedByGraceThruFaith


It has not gone unnoticed that you have not responded to any of Zazzy's posts to you.

Why is that? He's a biologist that just wants to educate you with actual science.

Is your faith that weak?

(October 5, 2013 at 6:17 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:

(October 5, 2013 at 12:57 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Saved by grace, I asked you privately now I ask publicly, to a debate thread with me. any topic you choose.

We are discussing the topic at hand.

You have failed to refute the post for this topic.

The conclusion stands.

---

(October 5, 2013 at 12:33 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: JUst one thing to add, you know there never was a theory of upward evolution right?

The evolutionist world disagrees with you.

Go google it.

Yes you are correct in seeing I haven't gotten heavy in refuting claims, only because several users, including zazzy whom you ignore, have done a great job of that already. I still want to test your mentle in a one on one discussion.
And I googled upward evolution here is what I got.
https://www.google.ca/#q=upward+evolution
That's a lot of creationist pieces.