The evidence for Evolution.

[AV1611VET]

Why should that be the case for the theory of evolution? We don't call the theory of relativity Einsteinianism either. In fact, science does not tend to call it's theories after the name of the originators.

QV please:

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

What's changed?

 

[USincognito]

I'm partial to Wegenerism.

 

[pat34lee]

Incorrect.

Ok, now try the rest without flaming.
(hint) don't mention me or what you think I don't know.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It seems that you didn't understand the line of "science proves nothing".

No, I do understand, that's what you all don't get. I understand it is an absurd rule that most people when they think about it, know it's not the least bit factual. It appears to be a rule designed by liars in order to carry out the process of getting folks to believe them, whether they have proof or not.

My way of thinking is, I know it's not the truth, so something is amiss.

I've seen those opposed to creation redefine a few words here, and often it is not the definition in the dictionary, but a special definition for science, but not really even for science...it's a special definition for people with an agenda, in that if they can get others to buy it, they can pull the wool over their eyes even easier.

 

[Kenny'sID]

That's some seriously warped logic.



Just because you are a christian, it doesn't give you a free pass to make obviously fallacious statements.

As a christian, you should be saying this instead:
"I believe satan exists, because the bible says he does and I believe what the bible says".

Which is a very different statement from the truth claim the previous point. And it is a statement that IS perfectly in line with christian beliefs.

Yep, I really need to take an atheists advice on how I should act as a Christian...lol.

That does it there, I'm going to have to go with the "Atheist say the darnedest things" as a signature now...no question about it.

 

[Belk]

No, I do understand, that's what you all don't get. I understand it is an absurd rule that most people when they think about it, know it's not the least bit factual. It appears to be a rule designed by liars in order to carry out the process of getting folks to believe them, whether they have proof or not.

My way of thinking is, I know it's not the truth, so something is amiss.

I've seen those opposed to creation redefine a few words here, and often it is not the definition in the dictionary, but a special definition for science, but not really even for science...it's a special definition for people with an agenda, in that if they can get others to buy it, they can pull the wool over their eyes even easier.

You think that scientists are trying to pull the wool over your eyes?

 

[Speedwell]

I've seen those opposed to creation redefine a few words here, and often it is not the definition in the dictionary, but a special definition for science, but not really even for science...it's a special definition for people with an agenda, in that if they can get others to buy it, they can pull the wool over their eyes even easier.

No, it's just a definition for science. Very often words have different definitions in specialized fields than they do in common speech. Nothing sinister about it.

 

[HitchSlap]

No, I do understand, that's what you all don't get. I understand it is an absurd rule that most people when they think about it, know it's not the least bit factual. It appears to be a rule designed by liars in order to carry out the process of getting folks to believe them, whether they have proof or not.

My way of thinking is, I know it's not the truth, so something is amiss.

I've seen those opposed to creation redefine a few words here, and often it is not the definition in the dictionary, but a special definition for science, but not really even for science...it's a special definition for people with an agenda, in that if they can get others to buy it, they can pull the wool over their eyes even easier.

There's a cure for this; education.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yep, I really need to take an atheists advice on how I should act as a Christian...lol.

I don't think I told you how to act.
I merely noted that the language you are using is not justified.

As a christian, you believe things. You believe satan exists. You believe the bible.

That does it there, I'm going to have to go with the "Atheist say the darnedest things" as a signature now...no question about it.

Hey man, whatever keeps you from facing the painfully obvious, right...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, I do understand, that's what you all don't get. I understand it is an absurd rule that most people when they think about it, know it's not the least bit factual. It appears to be a rule designed by liars in order to carry out the process of getting folks to believe them, whether they have proof or not.

Errr, no.... it's just intellectual honesty.

It's the recognition that the discoveries of tomorrow have the potential of overruling what we think to know today - no matter how confident we feel about current knowledge.

It's the strength of science. It is what makes sure that everything is open to reasonable questioning and scrutiny.

My way of thinking is, I know it's not the truth, so something is amiss.

You don't know it, if you can't show it.

I've seen those opposed to creation redefine a few words here, and often it is not the definition in the dictionary, but a special definition for science, but not really even for science...it's a special definition for people with an agenda, in that if they can get others to buy it, they can pull the wool over their eyes even easier.

Such as?

 

[USincognito]

Ok, now try the rest without flaming.
(hint) don't mention me or what you think I don't know.

Wow. That is very, very dishonest. Let's play back the tape to see just how dishonest this response is:

>>> Incorrect. Vestigial organs are still vestigial. Junk DNA is still junk DNA (please please please cite ENCODE, for one thing it will show you don't even know what junk DNA is). It is is FACT that the broken genes are indeed the genes in question and they are broken. Worse for your desperate hand waving, even if GULO for example had a function of some sort, unless that function was making vitamin C, it would STILL BE A BROKEN VERSION of GULO.

Because, unlike you, I know what I'm talking about. The genes in question are there and do no function in the groups listed while they DO function in other animals groups. I love your hubris, you don't even know what GULO or Shh/Hand2 are, but you think you're smarter than the actual geneticists who conducted the studies.



This gibberish in no way addresses the facts:
1. GULO and the Shh/Hand2 pathway only have 1 purpose.
2. In primates and cetaceans, they are broken and do not function.
3. You need to explain why the genes are present and broken if you want to claim in "common designer" put them there.
4. You can also explain why the designer put 203,000 endogenous retroviral insertions into both humans and chimpanzees in such a way as to mimic common ancestry. <<<

A. All of the parts in blue address the topic. You chose to avoid responding to any of that and change the topic (because Creationists cannot stay on topic) and engage in meta-debate about tone and tenor. Any chance you can actually address the parts in blue or will you demonstrate my evaluations to be correct?
B. The parts in red are chances for you to show you know what you're talking about and are not just parroting stuff you got from dishonest professional Creationists. You chose to avoid responding to those parts and engage in meta-debate about tone and tenor. Any chance you can show you actually know what junk DNA is, why ENCODE does not "debunk" junk DNA or what Shh/Hand2 are?

 

[Kenny'sID]

You think that scientists are trying to pull the wool over your eyes?

Not for the most part, if at all.

No, it's just a definition for science.

I know.

There's a cure for this; education.

And let the Atheist scientist educate me?

Or maybe you?

Hey man, whatever keeps you from facing the painfully obvious, right...

That *was* the painfully obvious.

Errr, no.... it's just intellectual honesty.

Errr Uh, no.

You don't know it, if you can't show it.

I could have throw that ol' line at you so often it'll make your head spin, but I try to keep it at a minimum.

Such as?

I believe "evidence" was one. Check back with me in a few months, I'll write them down as they come up so I remember them all.

 

[pat34lee]

Wow. That is very, very dishonest. Let's play back the tape to see just how dishonest this response is:

At a glance, I count 3-5 insults just in the black font depending on
how you separate them. Why should I respond to anything there?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I could have throw that ol' line at you so often it'll make your head spin, but I try to keep it at a minimum.

The difference would be, that I actually can show it.
You... you are just repeating "god dun it" like some kind of mantra.

I believe "evidence" was one

How was this word "redefined"?
Be specific. For once, don't just make the claims and leave it at that.

 

[USincognito]

At a glance, I count 3-5 insults just in the black font depending on
how you separate them. Why should I respond to anything there?

Are you to respond to the blue and red font or are you going to continue with the meta-debate and avoidance?

I think the real reason you won't address the substance is because you can't.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The difference would be, that I actually can show it.
You... you are just repeating "god dun it" like some kind of mantra.

You haven't show me jack, you just think you have. Made up assumptions. And at least my God dun it makes some logical sense. Beats the heck out of it just happened and some of this other nonsense you come up with. ee


How was this word "redefined"?
Be specific. For once, don't just make the claims and leave it at that.

I forget and I'm not going to search the board for it. If you think I'm lying, all considered, that's not a problem for me. And again, I said I believe so that would mean not positive that was one of the terms but as I said, I'll keep an eye open, and make a list....there are a few. You only need to be barely awake to see that it happens here so keep an eye open and be enlightened.

When do you have a general problem with me being specific? and please be specific.

 

[Jimmy D]

I forget and I'm not going to search the board for it. If you think I'm lying, all considered, that's not a problem for me. And again, I said I believe so that would mean not positive that was one of the terms but as I said, I'll keep an eye open, and make a list....there are a few. You only need to be barely awake to see that it happens here so keep an eye open and be enlightened.

When do you have a general problem with me being specific? and please be specific.

So why mention it? Or have you forgotten since saturday? You were quite specific in your accusations, accusing people of being liars and having an agenda.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I forget and I'm not going to search the board for it. If you think I'm lying, all considered, that's not a problem for me. And again, I said I believe so that would mean not positive that was one of the terms but as I said, I'll keep an eye open, and make a list....there are a few. You only need to be barely awake to see that it happens here so keep an eye open and be enlightened.

So....... you made these claims and when asked to back them up, you can't?

When do you have a general problem with me being specific? and please be specific.

Well... to give you a recent example, you just made this claim about "them' atheists" changing definitions of words only to apparantly be able to argue against creationism and when asked to be specific about which words you are talking about and which atheists, you came back with basically "i dunno, i don't remember"

 

[Kenny'sID]

So why mention it? Or have you forgotten since saturday? You were quite specific in your accusations, accusing people of being liars and having an agenda.

What does since Saturday have to do with something I semi recall from months ago? Oh I see, it makes it look a lot worse than it is and the insecure among you need all the help they can create. Funny thing you are so predictable, but have a field day with it, it's kind of funny to watch...certainly a lot more interesting that the redefined words.

Then you are saying I am most certainly a liar or not? Does the fact I don't recall it mean some people are not liars?

Why? I mentioned it because it's true of course. Even some of the Atheist around here, if they are honest can verify it, but I would suspect that's not the way many of you work. Instead you will keep quiet and let it be used used it for your benefit instead. Sound about right?

BTW, are you aware of the redefining? I'd be very careful with my answer.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So....... you made these claims and when asked to back them up, you can't?

What claim did I make, I mean exactly?

Well... to give you a recent example, you just made this claim about "them' atheists" changing definitions of words only to apparantly be able to argue against creationism and when asked to be specific about which words you are talking about and which atheists, you came back with basically "i dunno, i don't remember"

You weren't paying attention to the question. Asked in "general" because you alluded to the fact it was a general problem, but I would expect you to skirt that one since you know it is not and your claim was baseless or a lie as we are putting it.

It's glorious morning for you two, isn't it?