Important Facts about Evolution

[dad]

Sorry dad, you have shown yourself not to be honest too many times. We can go over what evidence is first. Then we'll see.

What might you be waiting for to do so?? Walk the walk.

No, that is not true. Your beliefs are not based upon evidence. You don't know what evidence is. But it is nice to see that you admit that you are a religious zealot.

Noo one seems to know what evidence is but you, and funny thing is, you can't seem to say!!

No, Last Thursadyism is a sin of people like AV. That is never used in evolution.

You think AV believes there was no last month?? Honesty is needed here.

And yet you have no real evidence that the Bible is God's Word.

Takey or leavy.

 

[KWCrazy]

Evolution and religion are as compatible with religion as one is willing to let them be.

Evolution is not compatible with any religion that acknowledges man was created by God from the dust of the earth, nor is it compatible with any religion that acknowledges a universal flood which destroyed animal life not saved on an ark. It is not possible to reconcile evolution with the Holy Bible.

...evolution doesn't require universal common decent to be true in order for evolution to be valid. Same goes with abiogenesis.

In one contends that all living things descended from the animals saved on the ark, then it could be true. For universal common descent to be true, God would have to be a liar; which would mean He wasn't God; which would leave no possible mechanism for the origination of anything.

...unless you provide evidence that deities themselves exist, you shouldn't expect to make atheists like myself believe that to be the case, as one can easily argue evolution itself would have no apparent differences guided or not.

I wouldn't expect those who pick and choose which physical laws they wish to believe to do any less with concepts of the deity.

You cannot legitimately consider "microevolution" to occur and not "macroevolution", both processes work by the exact same means,

Hogwash! Micro-evolution or adaptation is a conservative process by which information is lost but never magically acquired. Repeated subtraction doesn't ever equal addition, and no, they aren't the same processes.

It takes millions of years, with some variation in time depending on the environment and other factors which impact evolution.

Beyond that, it takes the invention of new genetic information and the encoding of that information into the reproductive cycle. Even though that process would have to be common and easily demonstrated, increasing complexity has never been replicated in the history of mankind.

The only things which reproduce fast enough for us to see changes like that are organisms such as bacteria...

So microorganisms which are designed to be the waste disposal system of the planet adapts to a changing diet and we're supposed to be impressed? Ever see a bacteria evolve into anything but another bacteria? Ever? How about them fruit flies?

It doesn't guide our lives, it isn't a philosophy, it is about as much of a religion as gravity.

They must teach this foolishness in high school now days.
I can drop a rock and demonstrate gravity.
If you can't so easily demonstrate evolution, your comparison is false.

You can argue with these points all you like, claim they are wrong all you like, but these are the facts...

Perhaps you should learn the definition of a fact.
These are not facts. They haven't been proven and established to be absolutely reliable.
Fervent belief in an unproven theory does not constitute proof of said theory.

 

[USincognito]

Hogwash! Micro-evolution or adaptation is a conservative process by which information is lost but never magically acquired. Repeated subtraction doesn't ever equal addition, and no, they aren't the same processes.

Please provide for us a quantifiable metric by which we can measure "genetic information" and determine if there has been a "gain" or "loss".

 

[lasthero]

I can drop a rock and demonstrate gravity.

There were a lot of things wrong about what you said, KW, but I'm in a bit of a hurry, so I don't have time to really pick it all apart. I would like to focus on this, though, because it's a common misconception.

Dropping a rock is not science. Dropping a rock doesn't demonstrates anything. All it does is tell you that objects tends to fall downwards. It doesn't tell you why that happens, or what's causing it, or anything. People have seen things fall since they had eyes to see anything at all, and all without knowing the reason behind.

The theory of gravity is much more than 'things fall to the ground'. The purpose of the theory is to explain WHY that happens, and much more. For instance, dropping a rock won't tell you why we should never expect to find a planet that's shaped like a cube or anything other than a spherical shape. The theory of gravity explains this.

 

[lasthero]

Ever see a bacteria evolve into anything but another bacteria? Ever? How about them fruit flies?

Okay, one more.

Do you honestly think any scientist ever expected a bacteria to evolve into something that was not a bacteria? If that happened, it would pretty well falsify the theory.

Also, I think you're underestimating how different bacteria can be. There a millions of species of bacteria, with a wide variety of different traits, sizes, and abilities.

 

[AV1611VET]

There a millions of species of bacteria, with a wide variety of different traits, sizes, and abilities.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe bacteria is not considered a "species" per se.

It is exempt from Linnaeus' [unholy] classification system and given a code all its own.

That way, just like Pluto, bacteria won't clog up the lists of binomials.

 

[lasthero]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe bacteria is not considered a "species" per se.

Bacteria are not a species, they're a domain. Within that domain, there are species.

 

[AV1611VET]

Within that domain, there are species.

Name one, please.

 

[lasthero]

Name one, please.

I can give you a list.

List of clinically important bacteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, I think that fragrant crap would have expedited my decision to flee the madness of Satan. Of course it someone told you back then worm sex was what was responsible for all of mankind, they may have stoned you for being mad or possessed!

And yet people in the past were willing to believe things we find crazy in modern times. What would have been crazy to ancient peoples who thought demons caused all illness and that breathing in night air was bad for you aren't exactly what I would base how reasonable an idea is on.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe bacteria is not considered a "species" per se.

It is exempt from Linnaeus' [unholy] classification system and given a code all its own.

That way, just like Pluto, bacteria won't clog up the lists of binomials.

AV fails 8th grade biology.

 

[AV1611VET]

I can give you a list.

List of clinically important bacteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you, sir!

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet people in the past were willing to believe things we find crazy in modern times. What would have been crazy to ancient peoples who thought demons caused all illness and that breathing in night air was bad for you aren't exactly what I would base how reasonable an idea is on.

The Israelites didn't follow Misma theory.

Else they would not have cremated those who died of leprosy.

In that respect, they were ahead of the scientists of the time.

In addition, the Israelites knew that "the life is in the blood".

Something our first President, a national military hero, didn't take seriously.

And he paid for it with his life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What might you be waiting for to do so?? Walk the walk.

I am. If you want evidence you first have to be able to recognize evidence. You fail in the ability to recognize evidence. Your prejudice overrides your honesty.

Noo one seems to know what evidence is but you, and funny thing is, you can't seem to say!!

No, lots of people know what evidence is. But very very few creationists do. That is one reason your side always loses court cases. You don't know what is and what is not evidence.

You think AV believes there was no last month?? Honesty is needed here.
Takey or leavy.

Actually he does. His "embedded age" nonsense is exactly what Last Thursdaysim is.

 

[justlookinla]

I am. If you want evidence you first have to be able to recognize evidence. You fail in the ability to recognize evidence. Your prejudice overrides your honesty.

Shovelfuls of nothing.

No, lots of people know what evidence is. But very very few creationists do. That is one reason your side always loses court cases. You don't know what is and what is not evidence.

The evidence that all of life, including humanity, is the result of only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago will be examined in court in the not so distant future. The evidence for that particular creationist view will be the same evidence you have.....imaginary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Shovelfuls of nothing.

You are being dishonest again.

The evidence that all of life, including humanity, is the result of only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago will be examined in court in the not so distant future. The evidence for that particular creationist view will be the same evidence you have.....imaginary.

 

[dad]

Shovelfuls of nothing.

Nothing has no odor.

 

[dad]

I am. If you want evidence you first have to be able to recognize evidence. You fail in the ability to recognize evidence. Your prejudice overrides your honesty.

So babble and blather rather than posting something akin to evidence. OK. You are predictable.

No, lots of people know what evidence is. But very very few creationists do. That is one reason your side always loses court cases. You don't know what is and what is not evidence.

More evasive blather about evidence--as if you had some remote connection to any.

Actually he does. His "embedded age" nonsense is exactly what Last Thursdaysim is.

False. Embedded age is absolute fact to some degree that had to exist at creation. That was not last week either. Cut the gossip.

 

[dad]

And yet people in the past were willing to believe things we find crazy in modern times.

In many cases they were right. So? The modern demonic so called science two bit phony religion is NOT the judge of sanity by any stretch of the imagination.

What would have been crazy to ancient peoples who thought demons caused all illness

They do. This is news?? Even if they do not cause it by possession, their evil dirty influence can cause STDs, AIDS, and all manner of diseases caused by the filth that follows their influences.

and that breathing in night air was bad for you

Would you be conflating old wives tales with wisdom of the ancients??

aren't exactly what I would base how reasonable an idea is on.

What a godless evo bases anything on is not really all that important in the big picture. They are pregnant with misconceptions and infested with bias and delirious denial.


Come on over to the reasonable, winning side.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So babble and blather rather than posting something akin to evidence. OK. You are predictable.
[]/quote]

Correction dad, you babble.

And you are projecting again. You have no evidence.

I am tired of dealing with dishonest deniers. All you have to do to prove that you are not a dishonest denier is to learn what evidence is.

More evasive blather about evidence--as if you had some remote connection to any.

No blather, again you are projecting. That is your flaw. And nothing evasive. A simple challenge to people that have been proven to be dishonest. Learn what evidence is and you will not make your false claims any longer.

False. Embedded age is absolute fact to some degree that had to exist at creation. That was not last week either. Cut the gossip.

A, so you admit to being a Last Thursdayist too. Why am I not surprised.