Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy

by cofty 174 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Saintbertholdt
    Saintbertholdt
    If you have some reliable evidence please share. It may be out there. I haven't seen it yet.

    You troll you :) No no, both tax evasion and structuring.

    http://www.ecases.us/case/ca11/66823/usa-v-kent-e-hovind - tax evasion
    https://www.unitedstatescourts.org/federal/flnd/43267/208-0.html - structuring

    Here's one of the last judgements.

    https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/DocumentViewer.aspx?IndexID=6019947

    I remember there was this audio recording of Hovind incriminating himself further where he discusses hiding some assets from the government with his son over the phone. This was while he was in jail :)

    There are so many, I'm surprised you could not find any.

    Lets say Hovind is or was guilty of tax evasion. That really has nothing to do with the information on his videos.

    True. However his arrogance regarding taxes is just one of his more endearing qualities.

    Some others:

    His qualifications. As you know his doctoral degree he bought for $100 dollars. The going rate at that time. In his videos he always makes bones about the fact that he worked hard for his doctoral degree. But his thesis only contained four chapters totaling 101 pages, but Hovind’s introduction claimed the work was 250 pages with 16 chapters. It had incomplete citations, was not supervised and was issued by a diploma mill.

    His moral character. When YouTube was still young, people would challenge his videos and post point by point refutations. You had to use his videos in segments for brevity and for believability because people would claim: No No Hovind never said this. You know what he did? His organization would file DMCA after DMCA to try and shut them up.

    An example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckODHCVISVw

    The atheist community has had a very long walk with this man and how he does things.

    Why give him any credence whatsoever?

    As regards his substance:

    Well why don't we start with his theory on red shift?

    Or is there some other topic like his theory on continental drift you would rather want to discuss?

    I still think you're just baiting. There is no serious theist academic on this planet that remotely gives him any credence (Lord knows there's always one right?). With your claimed academic background I cannot understand how you give this man any legitimacy at all.

  • Clambake
    Clambake

    Watching ex witnesses pretend they are evolutionary biologists is kind of like watching jw janitors elders having discussions about the merits of bloodless surgery or the dangers of blood transfusions pretending they are doctors.

    Too funny

  • Esse quam videri
    Esse quam videri

    cofty '...It is impossible for this to happen by chance - really, really impossible. Therefore evolution is true...'

    Now that your so sure something is impossible, even really, really impossible, is there anything that you are so sure is possible, even really, really possible? Oh yeah right, evolution.

    Teacher to his class, " I want you all to know that there is nothing that is absolutely certain." Student puts up his hand. " Yes Bobby " says teach. Bobby asks, " Are you sure of that?" Teacher replies, " Absolutely".

  • Saintbertholdt
    Saintbertholdt

    Hi Clambake,

    Once you understand how little difference there really is within all the major Christian denominations that idea salvation though works or salvation though obedience to a human organization it all seems quite silly.

    Yeah :) Or people claiming to be experts in theology hey?

    People with opinions are fuuuu-ny indeed!

  • 2+2=5
    2+2=5

    I think the problem is we have the posters on one side who accept evolution. They like to throw around evidence and discuss reality, and the financial status of these contributors matters little.

    On the other side of the table the No.1 brains trust is just too wealthy and prosperous to even take the time to debate with the lowly peasants who cry for evidence. Just to God damned wealthy.

  • cofty
    cofty

    EQV - If you go back to page 1 you will notice that Clambake criticised my OP as "It a complex bamboozle no one really understands"

    The post you quoted from is a simplistic parody. I'm astonished you didn't get that.

  • coalize
    coalize
    Nooooo... Not another BS Hovind scam believer......
  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    Lieu - "...Humans are worse than animals. Humans are more akin to viruses and locusts then animals."

    Um, viruses and locusts are part of the animal kingdom.

    And there are animals that do things just as horrible as humans.

    Chimps, for example, wage war, commit murder, and practice cannibalism.

  • average joe
    average joe

    Cofty, "Every living thing from fungi to humans developed through a combination of random mutation and natural selection"

    The word "selection" makes me think choices were made. It selected what it needed and what it didn't need which makes me ask how did it know it needed anything at all? How did it know where to get it and what to do with it and how to connect it and why it needed it and so on and son on I dont see any random mutations I see uniformity among earths creatures such as eyes mouths stomachs waste systems etc. If i look at a snake for example I see fangs and venom glands and a venom distribution system perfectly designed for its body . I see structure and order in everything in nature. I do not see randomness I do not see living things with mistakes such as a deer with a gator tail or a mouse with giraffe legs I do not see things on animals that they dont need . I do not see randomness I do not believe that nature mutated randomly and built the human body by chance and randomness without making any decisions or mistakes. I am not as smart as you guys so I try to keep things simple and the more I learn about the human body the more I see no randomness and human beings could not have come about by chance but had to have been designed. just my opinion..

  • cofty
    cofty

    Hi average joe, thanks for your questions.

    To really answer them properly you are going to have to read a basic introduction to evolution. I can recommend some good stuff if you are interested?

    Let me try to whet your appetite to learn more.

    Evolution is about how populations of living things change over time. Whenever cells reproduce there are always copying errors. Most of these make no difference, some are harmful but some make a positive difference. When this happens the body that is built by the genome with the new mutation will have a slightly better than average chance of leaving offspring than others. Therefore that new version of the gene - known as an allele - is more likely to get passed on until it become ubiquitous in the local population or gene pool.

    This is what we mean by selection. Nobody is selecting anything - that is just a metaphor. All it means is that genes that make bodies better at passing on genes will get passed on. So simple why didn't anybody think of it sooner?

    Because every change has to confer an advantage in order to get "selected" nature can never go back to the drawing board. As a result bodies have many design features that are less than ideal. I will look at some of them later in this series.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit