For Christians (or anyone else) who deny Darwinian evolution.

[Godscreated]

 A hypothetical is not reality now is it,

A hypothetical may represent reality, it may not; you can judge nothing about whether it is realistic simply because I referred to it as a hypothetical.

You were the one who said I wasn't dealing with reality and the only thing I was dealing with was your hypothetical, you were the one who judged it as something that wasn't real, not me.

and you don't like it when I'm right, sorry but right is right and C can never be,

I like it even less when you're not right and only think you are.

That says nothing about me actually being wrong and I still say C can't be.

not enough info for C.

You're just restating your original claim which the example disproved.  If you don't have an actual reason why a series of mutations can't reverse the process which resulted in a loss of information, you're effectively claiming that "it can't be because it can't be."  That's just dogmatic denial.  If you have no justification for why you believe this cannot occur other than to quote the alleged law that the example put into question, then you're just begging the question.  And that's a fallacy.  Which means that there is no credible reason to believe your conclusion is true.

In other words, you're still wrong, though you're inventing new ways to be so.

[/quote]
 
  The example is a hypothetical as you said, it is something you made up and have no proof that it will work. I stated that when B lost the information, which you insisted I do, C could not be because the information is lost and no mutation can bring it back, that would be adding info to DNA and that isn't possible. My original statement was the info wasn't lost in B that it was dormant, but you insisted that I couldn't do that because it didn't follow your unfounded hypothetical. I've breed and been involved in breeding Rottweilers for many years and they are still dogs and not only that they are still Rottweilers. We breed out certain things we do not want in the breed, yet they keep popping back up after hundreds of breedings, the info was never lost it just wasn't dominate until the right dogs were breed and bang there is that old thing we were trying to breed away into a recessive gene that wouldn't rear it's ugly head. We even have data bases with dogs to help us to breed out traits we do not want to have such as the white patches that come up on their chest from time to time, this gene is hundreds of years old and try as we may it is still rearing it's ugly head, even in the highest quality Rottweilers.

GC

---

 I knew you were going to get mad. I didn't refer to you now did I, it was others of your kind I referred to. No discussions in hell,

GC

I'm not mad; in fact, I feel sorry for you.  I hope that you don't waste the rest of your life on nonsense.

  I do not waste my time on nonsense, I deal with what's absolutely real. If you were not mad then why the shouting?
GC