one.opinion

7 hours ago, David1701 said:

Good grief!

There are so many false assumptions and straw men in this post that it's hard for me to think that it was made in good faith.  Whether it was or not, I've prayed about it and I do not see any prospect of progress, so I'm going to leave it there.

That might be a good idea since you seem unable to react appropriately to scrutiny of your claims.

1 hour ago, David1701 said:

Not "catty", more exasperated.

If reasoned conversation and biological fact are exasperating to you, then that might be a good indication that your hypothesis isn't a good one.

1 hour ago, David1701 said:

An increase of energy, on its own, does not increase order.

Which do you think has more order - phosphates, nitrates, and hydrocarbon or DNA?

1 hour ago, David1701 said:

Mutations to our genes damage said information, leading to a decrease in order.

And God made His living creatures with the capability for natural selection, countering the deleterious effects of mutations.

1 hour ago, David1701 said:

It doesn't need to alter phenotype in the current, or next, generation, to cause reduction of fitness, in the overall population.

Propose a mechanism for this. If there is a reduction in fitness, it is because of altered phenotype.

1 hour ago, David1701 said:

Of course, this reduction of fitness will eventually manifest itself in the phenotype, but could remain hidden for generations.

Ok, but if it eventually manifests in phenotype, that's when natural selection acts to reduce the impact on the gene pool.

1 hour ago, David1701 said:

You're thinking about this on the level of individual members of a population; however, the population, as a whole, will experience genetic entropy;and natural selection will only weed out the worst cases.

So what you are proposing is just a population-wide deterioration in fitness without altered phenotype. How do you suppose that would actually work? This is an interesting thought experiment, but there is no physical explanation for how this would happen. This is why this research is so heavily dependent on Mendel's Accountant and not real world effects.

1 hour ago, David1701 said:

Then why are couples warned about possible birth defects, if they have children at an older age?

First, I mentioned that the potential for mutation is limited in human oocytes, I did not say they were absent. Second, birth defects are clearly not genetic entropy, according to your explanation. Birth defects obviously result in lost potential for procreation.

1 hour ago, David1701 said:

I'm sure that bacteria and viruses have suffered significant genetic entropy; in fact, viruses could be the results of genetic entropy.

Now your argument is changing. Last post, viruses and bacteria were immune from genetic entropy due to short life span, now they have suffered significant genetic entropy. These two explanations are mutually exclusive. Which one do you prefer?

1 hour ago, David1701 said:

No evidence?  There are scientists who study it as the main part of their research.

Cool, then let's take a look. Show me something other than a computer simulation.

Remember, your argument is that genetic entropy shows that life on earth can't be older than 6,000 years old. As far as I have seen, there is no solid evidence that genetic entropy is anything other than a thought experiment, let alone proof of the larger claim.

2 hours ago, David1701 said:

Ah, I see; so, everything else tends to entropy, just not our genes. 

David, I prefer to discuss these things in a civil manner with you, but I am not above responding in kind when your arguments turn catty. Since I really don't want to get catty with you yet, please don't stoop to that level so I'm not tempted to follow you there.

Now back to entropy. It is readily observable that an input of energy can increase order in living systems, so this argument really doesn't hold water. The sum of chemical reactions will indeed lead to overall entropy, but that principle doesn't apply directly to genes. 

To your credit, you have acknowledged the role of natural selection, but you are not fully acknowledging the importance of natural selection in countering any negative effects of mutations.

3 hours ago, David1701 said:

A classic bait and switch...

Not at all. If you claim that a mutation is going to have a negative impact, that can only be through an altered phenotype.

3 hours ago, David1701 said:

Phenotype?  Who restricts the impact of genetic mutations to phenotype?  A struggling debater, that's who!

If you think the introduction of phenotype into the discussion, please explain how a mutation that doesn't alter phenotype might lead to loss of fitness.

3 hours ago, David1701 said:

Only if those mutations have an impact in that generation.  They can (and obviously do) also accumulate, in ways that do not immediately manifest, and those cannot be removed by natural selection.

Think about this in practical terms instead of "natural selection." If negative mutations accumulate, they will naturally lead to decreased ability of any organism with those mutations to procreate. Other members of the population without those negative mutations are left to proliferate.

3 hours ago, David1701 said:

Part of the reason for genetic entropy, is that the longer we live, the more copying errors accumulate in our cells (this is why we age).

This is not relevant beyond the age an organisms is capable of procreating. In fact, human oocytes become singled out in the fetus with no further replication of the DNA, limiting the opportunity for mutation.

3 hours ago, David1701 said:

Bacteria and viruses don't live very long.

A short lifespan doesn't change the principles that genetic entropy would hypothetically be built upon. The idea is that mutations inevitably lead to entropy. Mutations are abundant in bacteria and even more pronounced in viruses. The length of a lifespan is irrelevant to the basic premise.

3 hours ago, David1701 said:

It's really common sense.

If there is no evidence to support the hypothesis, that is a pretty good indication that common sense doesn't actually support it.

54 minutes ago, David1701 said:

You know what I'm talking about.

I know you are talking about the theological principles of primary import, I just don’t know why you consider those too vague. I think they are completely accurate. I suspect you are only claiming they are too vague rather than actually showing any errors because you know I have a point.

47 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Oh come on!  Evolutionists make mutations one of their pillars.

Yes, mutations are essential for evolution. That doesn’t mean the genetic entropy is a viable hypothesis.

48 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Mutations are almost all harmful (at best neutral)

This is not correct. A vast majority of mutations are neutral. A very small proportion of mutations impact phenotype. Those that affect phenotype more frequently have a negative influence on fitness than positive, but those mutations that reduce fitness are removed from gene pools by natural selection.

51 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Each new generation introduces more and more harmful mutations.

No, because natural selection works to remove those mutations that reduce fitness.

52 minutes ago, David1701 said:

It's true that natural selection mitigates this somewhat, but it cannot remove it.

This is speculation that contradicts evidence. If genetic entropy leads inevitably to extinction, then viruses and bacteria would have died out long ago. I’m the appropriate environments these can double in number in roughly 30 minutes.

54 minutes ago, David1701 said:

By the way, the scientists investigating our genetic entropy, use mathematical models that are very optimistic.  The reality is probably far, far worse.

The genetic entropy hypothesis needs more than Mendel’s Accountant to support it. It needs real evidence.

1 hour ago, David1701 said:

This is far too vague to be of much use.

Central tenets of theology are too vague? Really?

1 hour ago, David1701 said:

Mutations are copying errors.  Each generation produces more and more of them and natural selection only slows down the process.

That's not evidence, David. You know this. The hypothesis that genomes are slowly eroding and leading to extinction is not supported by evidence.

51 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Yeah, they did make the claim.

Your claim that hotspots preclude common ancestry is not shared by the authors.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

The truth is that 4 out of 98,000 human ERVs are found in the same location as 14 chimp ERVs

That is not only untrue, but reveals your lack of understanding of this topic. Your new argument is completely inconsistent with your old one. ERVs cannot both show extreme identity in location and sequence due to hotspots AND simultaneously not show extreme identity and location.

It is also physically impossible for 4 sequence to share a location with 14 sequences, yet you claim that I am bad at math.

Further, you continue to ignore additional points I raised.

This conversation takes too much time and is too frustrating for me to continue. I really don’t care enough about what you think to try to change your mind any longer.

20 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Why don't you write these authors and prove your point to them your point?

The authors never made the claim you are making. You are misunderstanding, and therefore misinterpreting, the evidence. You don’t understand point 1 and won’t even touch point 2 or 3, yet you are going to ignore all of it and proclaim all of the evidence debunked.

1 hour ago, David1701 said:

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0014

This is a report regarding a couple of computer programs that Dr. Sanford believes show that genetic entropy proves that large-scale evolution is not possible. Computer programs are not evidence. What evidence do you have that supports the hypothesis of genetic entropy?

2 minutes ago, Sparks said:

but I have already quoted people that say that hot spots are a preference of ERVs.

All you have demonstrated is a misunderstanding of the evidence. Look back at the first point I gave you.

1 hour ago, David1701 said:

The points of theological import are, emphatically, NOT shared!

That’s hardly a fair criticism when you don’t know what my claim is. From my perspective, there are several theological first order points. What you have listed are second or third order. First order points include:

1. God is creator of the universe and all things in it.

2. God created humans special and capable of communion with Him.

3. Humans rebelled and chose their own way rather than obedience to God.

4. The choice of disobedience broke the relationship between humans and God.

5. God foretold of an eventual way for that relationship to be restored.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

That's because when an ERV chooses it's own hotspot, it's over.

Here are three main reasons why your explanation is insufficient.

1. You are mistaking a preference for an insertion site with a requirement.

2. You have not explained the identical outcomes of genetic decomposition in two separate species over tens of thousands of samples.

3. You have not explained how these tens of thousands of sequences have become fixated in the human genome in roughly 6,000 years. Fixated means that a sequence has increased in prevalence to the point that virtually all members of a population have the same feature.

“It was debunked 23 years ago” is simply false.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

I said the 'Kent Hovinds' (plural), because you said the 'Kent Hovinds out there.'  The Kent Hovins have destroyed your arguments, meaning Kent himself, and all the rest of the Kents you are referring to.

Ah gotcha, thanks for the clarification.

My scientific argument can be summed up as this - the evidence God had left us in His creation support an ancient universe, an ancient earth, and common descent of biological organisms. No one - Kent or otherwise - has destroyed this.

My theological argument can be summed up as this - regardless of the time frame with which we view Genesis 1-3, the points of theological import are shared. For that reason, fighting, “destroying”, and demonizing the “other side” is pointless at best, and potentially harmful to our witness.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

It's probably not wise to be critical of Kent, if you can't beat him in a debate.

Kent can do what he wants, it is just silly and false to claim he has “destroyed” anything.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

It's about facts

That would be ideal for such a debate, but they are all functionally just show - like the Gish gallop.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

when it comes to evolution theory, you have none.

This is not accurate. Molecular evolution (heritable change over time) is directly observable. The supporting evidence for larger scale change over time is abundant. Large scale evolution is supported by paleontology, biogeography, anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, and genetics.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

That's why you won't debate him.

Hovind can believe what he wants. I don’t really care what he thinks. I’m not a natural thespian. I have a life. Those are several reasons I have zero interest in debating him.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

You don't even point out your arguments here.  I am only aware of the ERVs, and maybe the heavens. 

You won’t engage in ERV discussion. You metaphorically plug your ears and claim “debunked!” as if I haven’t countered your claim. Why would I put any effort into a different form of evidence when you won’t address ERVs?

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

I guess you don't think God cause pause time, or run it forward trillions of years in 1 second being possible, or something like that.

Of course He can, the evidence He left us simply suggests otherwise.

44 minutes ago, teddyv said:

A capable orator or debater can probably "destroy" someone tasked with defending the position "the sky is blue".

Yes, it's been my experience that whenever I see a YouTube video of a debate where someone "destroys" someone else (regardless of topic and/or viewpoint), it is almost certainly a matter of theater and not substance.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

I posted the hydroxychloroquine study that was retracted because the study was full of lies, and they did the entire study wrong.

It seems that you are missing the point the retracted story you are referring to was retracted.

An ivermectin study was also retracted because it was "full of lies". Somehow, I don't see that pop up in many of your arguments.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

You had the whole database to search, so I guess you didn't.  I remember you were 'database challenged,' as I recall.  Maybe math challenged, too.

Ah ok, just tossing out random aspersions instead of actually making a point. That's a pretty good strategy when you have nothing meaningful to build an argument upon.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

I already did.

You claim you "already did" give an example of me "running to a liberal media". You certainly didn't "already do" this in this thread. I don't use "liberal media" as an argumentation source.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Maybe you should show your sources claiming Yamamoto was misrepresenting his sources.

The source is the Lancet article itself, quite obviously. Yamamoto claims that the article shows immune suppression, but it doesn't. Go back, look at the actual article. Show me where immune suppression is indicated.

Here is the Yamamoto letter: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35659687/

Here is the Lancet article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8816388/pdf/main.pdf

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Said by the person who has never seen Kent debate.

You said earlier that Hovind "destroyed my argument", whatever that means. That's an empty boast since I've never debated him, nor ever plan to.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Well, if you think you can beat Kent in a debate

I have no idea if I can "beat" him in a debate. I'm not interested in "beating" anyone.

These "debates" usually boil down to who can talk the fastest and loudest and look the most proud while doing it.

37 minutes ago, David1701 said:

You mean like the genetic degeneration that should have wiped out humanity long ago, if we had been around for as long as molecules-to-man evolution claims?

As always, I'm happy to look at evidence with you. Let's have an evidence-based conversation about this.

3 hours ago, Sparks said:

The Kent Hovinds destroy your argument, every time.  You could learn a lot from Kent.

This is an empty boast, with nothing to back it up.

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

Government tends to lie

This is often the case. However, the CDC is collecting information from hospitals and hospitals are not finding the need to correct their published numbers.

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

peer reviews are often from silos that are paid to lie

Academic silo-ing has been significantly reduced with COVID. There are multitudes of researchers that have other areas of specialty that jumped in to help with COVID research. The collaboration has been unprecedented. If you are accusing COVID researchers of lying, you should probably have some sort of evidence ready.

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

I have shown you this, you even seemed to understand the problems, once.

You showed me one individual working in an area that very few people were working on that was able to get away with repeatedly publishing false evidence. The situation is very different from what we see currently with COVID.

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

When I have shown you when government figures sometimes deny their own public statements, you run to the liberal media

Maybe you could provide an example rather than making vague derogatory statements.

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

Scientists always argue, and there is not agreement on anything and that is the way it is supposed to be in the science field.

Agreed. That's why we have things like Dr. Yamamoto writing letters that get published even when he is misrepresenting his sources.

8 hours ago, Sparks said:

No reason evolution theory won't fall on it's own 'merits.'  It is just another religion.

Hmmm… yet somehow, despite all the Kent Hovinds out there, the molecular basis for evolution remains a fact and evidence for broader evolution only strengthens with time.

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

Seems like a red herring or a veiled ad hominem.

No reason it couldn’t be both…

A bit of a tangential question, but should there really be a requirement for someone to share their “conversion experience” for us to accept that they believe in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ?

28 minutes ago, Rick-Parker said:

And you get all your misinformed drivel from government agency and "medical" websites that only spew the party line.

I get information from peer-reviewed journals and government agencies that collect information from hospitals. I know some people don’t like that, but they really are better resources for accurate information than fringe websites and social media.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

I am Libertarian, not a liberal nor an ultra right-wing, anything.

I stand corrected. You get your misinformed drivel from Libertarian websites. Thank you for the clarification.