Posted on 05/21/2003 4:53:28 PM PDT by blam
Typical evolutionist 'refutation' - just an insult with no facts. That the only legitimate way to determine if two individuals are of the same species is to see if they can mate and produce viable offspring. This is science. Only an evolutionist follower of the charlatan Darwin would call such a test ridiculous. Sorta shows that evolutionists are not scientists.
No, you accept the word of the charlatan Darwin over the word of the Bible. There is no proof of evolution. In fact, evolutionists are even unwilling to state exactly what the theory is because they know it is pure garbage and it cannot be scientifically supported. Evolution is not science and it can never be science for two very good reasons:
1. science is about establishing how things happen in repeatable, predictable ways. Evolution proposes both randomness and lack of repeatability as the basis of how things change.
2. science has much stricter standards than those set by the charlatan Darwin. With science you need evidence, you need facts, you need experiments, formulas, repeatability all of which Darwin does not give and denies as unnecessary. All he requires for 'proof' is the possibility that something might have happened. This is not science.
I am saying no such thing and you know it. If it lasts long enough it results in death and the individual cannot be revived at all. However, the fact that someone may have stopped breathing is not a certain indication of death as the person may be revived.
Which leaves you still after some 1000 posts since it was asked and many unsuccessful attempts at refutation with the question of what is the difference in matter between an organism one minute before death and one minute after. Materialists claim that there is no 'magic life substance', that life is just a bundle of matter and nothing else. If that were the case then it should be easy to point out when an organism dies and the differences between the moment before and the moment after death yet there is no material difference that can be pointed out.
Learning is a form of adapting without mutation so yes it is a way in which species can survive without any mutation at all. That you tried to twist my words to mean the opposite of what I was arguing, and that you insult me for preventing you from doing so shows your utter dishonesty. You are a loser, another evo loser who knows that the theory you support is absolute garbage so you must lower yourself to insults, lies and doubletalk to support your theory because it is just plain nonsense.
First of all, in the previous post we were speaking of chihuahuas not German Shepherds, seems you like to create confusion for no reason at all, must be a habit with you and all evolutionists.
The problem with a small genetic pool is not the number of animals, but the variety of the gene pool in them. You can breed millions of animals, but if they come from just two original parents, then the species will die from the small gene pool in it regardless of how many descendants it has. The problem is twofold here. Because these animals are bred often with fairly close relatives, the gene pool gets more restricted the 'purer' the breed becomes. This constant inbreeding leads to bad mutations being passed and destroying the species because when both parents have the same bad mutation the offspring will almost certainly be very unviable. In addition, look at the wolf, from which dogs were bred. Look at the vast variety of genetic diversity which it had in order to be able to produce such a vast variety of breeds. This makes the wild wolf a very hardy species, able to adapt to numerous things. The bred dogs are not as adaptable and it is very doubtful that many of the breeds would survive if left in the wild without humans tending to them. So yes, these breeds are much less viable than the wild stock they came from.
How large is the gene pool in single celled organisms, and are they in danger of extinction?
More insults from an evo loser. Once they see they cannot refute an argument put forth to them by an opponent, the evos turn to insults. So, thanks for the insults! They show me a winner and you a loser of the argument.
albeit they don't lack for whining about wanting a debate, but cannot formulate 2 seconds of one before losing control of their collective tempers. 
Excuse me? Newton's laws of gravity were applied to predict the perihilion of Mercury, and they were proved innacurate when Mercury failed to appear where predicted, yes or no?
No, and I already explained to you why they did not. What the test showed was that the math of Newton's theory of Gravity was not good enough to predict the perihillion of Mercury but that Einstein's theory of relativity did predict it accurately. Einstein's theory of relativity did not deny the LAW of Gravity. It just modified the application of the THEORY of Gravity.
As I said when this discussion started, scientific laws have never been proven false because when (if) they are proven false they are no longer called Laws of science. The LAW OF BIOGENESIS has never been disproven. I asked you for an example of it and that is why you are trying to confuse the issue with unrelated stuff. Your task, which I know you will not even attempt, is to show ONE (1) example of the law of biogenesis (life only comes from life) having been violated.
Then give ONE (1) example of where an evolutionist has proposed a non-materialistic explanation for a species arising. Just one example from Darwin, Gould or Dawkins is all you need. You should be able to find one if what you say is true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.