Mutations disprove the theory of upward evolution

[Faith No More]

Also, you ever going to go back to those other threads and answer my questions?

Standard operating procedure for a creationist is that when objections to evolution have been refuted, ignore them and blindly go forward with other objections. Any relevant and valid points made against the creationist's objections will dismissed as if they never existed in the first place. That is why engaging with a creationist in debate is a losing proposition.

[TheBeardedDude]

It isn't an assumption, it's the hull hypothesis that is rejected due to a paucity of evidence.

---

Yea, but I still like to learn how they think.

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

Just to preemptively shutdown what point you think you might be trying to make, stasis in the biological world means a group experiences little to no change over long stretches of geologic time because they are adapted well enough to their environment and selection pressures are low enough and population high enough, that change does not occur.

There are no selection pressures on some of the most primitive organisms because they live in areas where competition is low and resources are high.

Then you would have to prove that there was no competition caused by a changing environment or by a mutation to one of the existing population that caused benefit of survival. The proof would have to cover the entire period of time.

[TheBeardedDude]

That's called geology. We have the rocks and the fossils. We win.

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

That's called geology. We have the rocks and the fossils. We win.

My post already disproved that interpretation of the rocks and fossils.

[TheBeardedDude]

No, it didn't.

---

That's quite the arrogant assumption though that you've disproved every field of science in one forum post. What's your iq? It must be astronomical.

[Faith No More]

Yea, but I still like to learn how they think.

There's not much to learn, unless you are interested in understanding confirmation bias. Any claim that doesn't jive with creationism will be distorted or dismissed. They will never offer up any positive evidence for creationism and will rely solely on an argument from ignorance by attempting to poke holes in evolution. If they're fairly educated, they will eventually whittle the conversation down to epistemology, rather than ever provide any support for their proposition.

Deny, obfuscate, deny, repeat. That is what you will get. If you debated one, you've debated them all.

[Doubting Thomas]

Also, you ever going to go back to those other threads and answer my questions?

What do you think? There's an incredibly long list of questions SBG has ignored.

---

No. The primitive forms are still around. Chemosynthesizers are still pumping away in oxygen-starved environments where the aerobes can't survive.

If they are the same as the originals that may disprove the theory of evolution.

Then explain nylon-eating bacteria. Nylon didn't exist until man invented it in the 1930's. Then at some point later, nylon-eating bacteria were discovered. If that's not evolution, then what is it? Did God create these bacteria capable of digesting nylon and left them dormant for thousands of years until man got around to inventing food for them?

---

Standard operating procedure for a creationist is that when objections to evolution have been refuted, ignore them and blindly go forward with other objections. Any relevant and valid points made against the creationist's objections will dismissed as if they never existed in the first place.

Those questions make them uncomfortable, so it's best to ignore them.

---

My post already disproved that interpretation of the rocks and fossils.

Man, you ain't disproved shit.

[Chas]

How so? Please demonstrate how the primitive archaea that are still around are more advanced than their ancestors.

---

Is it "upward evolution" when traits are lost? Like say, sight in bats?

If the primitive archaea are still around, does that disprove evolution?

No.

---

No. The primitive forms are still around. Chemosynthesizers are still pumping away in oxygen-starved environments where the aerobes can't survive.

If they are the same as the originals that may disprove the theory of evolution.

No, it won't.

[Ben Davis]

Mutations are errors.

Just goggle mutation errors. Look at all the prominent sites that say mutation are errors.

Your entire post is incorrect.

I've read your other responses and those on your other threads. I've rebutted your nonsense here so that anyone viewing this site may see how wrong you are. I have no further wish to talk with someone who is only interested in telling lies.

I will, however, watch for any of your other threads and rebut every single one. I won't discuss matters with you further (because you're not interested in adult discussion) but I will counter each thread you post.

Your brand of disingenuity & willfull ignorance must be publically opposed.