How could creationism not be dishonest?

Someone tried to accuse me of lying while simultaneously adopting the hopeless task of arguing that creationism isn't always dishonest. Not wanting to elevate the ego of yet another internet nobody, I've opted not to highlight the identity of my accuser, and only to respond to the allegation with an illustration of why it is that creationism is necessarily deceitful by design.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• AronRa
• double
• standard
• evolution
• creationism
• intelligent
• design
• Michael
• Behe

[xXsakkelaoXx]

@Greyclouds40 okokok, let me get this clear: you are actually stating that having the gene duplicated and resulting in being a dude with downs syndrome will get humans to a HIGHER level of complexity and BETTER suited for our environment in the future?

and was it THAT kind of mutations/duplications that brought us here in the first place from the simplest living organisms (which were extremely complex) which came from something you don't know?

[Greyclouds40]

@xXsakkelaoXx "a normal fucking human compared to a human with down syndrome"

What is a normal human on the genetic level? We have a human reference genome constructed, but when we sequence more individuals, we find significant differences between their genotype and the reference genotype.

On the microscale (SNPs, indels) and macroscale (structural variations, CNVs) humans differ greatly from each other.

This is due to genetic drift and such differences have been proven to be significant.

[Greyclouds40]

@xXsakkelaoXx "Where did I say that it gets lossed everytime?"

You said that it was a "degeneration" of information, but this does not "jive" with the data we've accumulated.

Kimura et al. have posited that most mutations are synonymous, or silent, mutations. This means that a mutation between individuals likely does not influence fitness. Populations are full of these silent mutations. Then, when selective pressures arise, one of these mutations is selected for over all others and is fixed.

[transtlantic]

@cRetard

what do you mean by "more complex" and "Better"? do you comply to what you claim? do you have a point of reference?

it's obvious you do not know what is a Genotype, a Phenotype, an Atom or a Cell

and FACT IS: you keep failing to explain Plant speciation w/out using evolution theory.

it's obvious that you are either a stupid uneducated kid or a moronic bigot person, an imbecile.

[transtlantic]

@cRetard

where does it say, in any science textbook, that species have to be "better"? Why do you claim that Down syndrome people are not human? are you fucked up retarded?

"exceptional trait"? what the fuck is that? name me one.

Weirdo? I proved that Harrison's principles of internal medicine, 18th edition prove you wrong. It's the most world wide used book in any medical school or by any medical doctor in the world.

Where does it say it must be more "complex or better"?

[transtlantic]

@cRetard

You wrote, and i quote: "you have LOST the information for A and B"

How can you be A or B phenotype and lost both A and B? doesn't make any sense. You are retarded.

"normal fucking human"? Name me one. Are you a "normal fucking human"? are you saying you do not have one single gene with a tendency to heart disease, diabetes or even bone disease? think about your grandparents, who died and first and with what?

Why do you hate ppl with Down syndrome? are you moronic?

[TheZooCrew]

@xXsakkelaoXx

You could probably use about a decade of school and a few kicks in the ass. You're wrong about everything and hurl insults like it's your job.

[xXsakkelaoXx]

@xXsakkelaoXx I conclude: you believe that downs syndrome renders the individual MORE complex and BETTER fit for the environment

I repeat: you are officially a retard

nuff said