A thread on evolution

[bhsmte]

Even if evolution is true, that doesn't mean that God is non-existent.

God simply would be the force guiding evolution.

And this also would mean that the book of Genesis is allegorical, which isn't a problem, because there are other books in the Bible, which are full of symbolism, such as Revelation.

Honestly, I find the idea of the universe being billions of years old to be more divine and awesome, than a young universe, only 7 thousands years old. Something about the universe being so old, so many countless, innumerable years - I find it to be very profound and sublime. It makes me realize just how beautiful and amazing God is - that throughout all that time, He has been there and even way before, for eternity.

Thats all cool. The thing is, the mere thought of evolution being true, creates so much cognitive dissonance in certain types of christians, you end up getting the behaviors and crude defense mechanisms you see displayed in this thread. For some, it is far too painful to acknowledge well evidenced reaility, so they need to manufacture their own reality.

 

[createdtoworship]

No problem. As soon as you come through with what you are supposed to do first.

You are a long long way behind. Before you can expect an answer from your demands you need to do your homework.

sorry bro, I see you have nothing else to do other than insult, putting you on ignore.

 

[createdtoworship]

There hasn't been any debate here. Heck, there's barely been a discussion. You flat out refuse to engage anyone on any topic, even on things you post yourself.

Other than blatantly trolling, I can't figure out why you're even here.

every issue I have addressed, name one I havent'

 

[createdtoworship]

Who's debating here? All you have done in this thread so far is making claims that you don't back up.
You don't understand what the term "quote mining" means, you don't understand what "peer review" actually means and you also don't get what the word "evidence" entails.

Either you're the best troll I've seen in a long time or you're the worst debater I've ever came across.

oh yeah and you forgot, one thing.....I asked a basic and simple question about macrevolution that no one can answer. Not a single evolutionist in 10 years has answered it. I wasn't going to ask it because most of the time evolutionists separate themselves afterward. But if you wish to actually discuss evolution, then try macroevolution. Microevolution I agree with anyway.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, that's not how a quote-mine works. I cannot quote-mine myself. To quote-mine someone, you have to take out something that has been said by someone that, by itself, means the opposite of what that person was saying.
xianghua gave a perfect example in post #582, and then there is also the brilliant example of quote-mining the Bible: "... there is no God."

but again if I talk about peaches for 9 minutes and bananas for 1 minute right in the middle. then if you quote the banana part in the speech, it will be a quote mine. The point is that you cannot prove a quote out of context. you can make a rational case for it. But not even that was done. But any quote taken word for word if it is not in the same topic of peaches is automatically a quote mine, even if he was really talking about bananas. I hope that makes sense. I can change it up if it doesnt' make sense. Basically you can only allege that there is a quote out of context you cannot prove it. Nor can I prove that God did not actually mean "there is no God." I have the spirit and the spirit testifies of what the scriptures mean. But I cannot prove that to you, because the spirit is invisible. I cannot take a picture of the spirit.

 

[createdtoworship]

Who's debating here? All you have done in this thread so far is making claims that you don't back up.
You don't understand what the term "quote mining" means, you don't understand what "peer review" actually means and you also don't get what the word "evidence" entails.

Either you're the best troll I've seen in a long time or you're the worst debater I've ever came across.

again please state an issue i have not addressed. Thats on topic. trolls are ones who don't address all the questions asked of them. I have, so try again. Although I did block a troll earlier today.

 

[HitchSlap]

"Macroevolution" really isn't a thing. At least not in the way dishonest creationists use it.

 

[createdtoworship]

Personally when I see the use of quotes out of context to dishonestly misrepresent their source (colloquially "a quote mine") used on this board, I like the phrase: bearing false witness against your neighbour.

Personally when I see the use of quotes out of context to dishonestly misrepresent their source (colloquially "a quote mine") used on this board, I like the phrase: bearing false witness against your neighbour.

sorry I don't honor atheists attempts to define a religion they don't believe in. It's hypocritical.

 

[createdtoworship]

"Macroevolution" really isn't a thing. At least not in the way dishonest creationists use it.

A Peer review proves you wrong, macro evolution is not at the species level:"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level."

Erwin, D. H. (2000), Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evolution & Development, 2: 78–84. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x

Article found online here:
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution

although I typically think wikipedia is error prone, here is a link that shows that the journal is peer reviewed:

Evolution & Development - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

then I asked for you to define "evidence" once again, and you did not. apparently from your posts you neither know what evidence is and what peer review is, you are a troll. You never state posts about your own beliefs and when asked you refuse to answer. That is the definition of trolling, and it's against the rules.

And I explained to you that you don't get to make such demands. I will gladly help you learn but I will not lecture you. Creationists tend to simply deny instead of learning.

So, are you ready to learn? If you are then I will gladly start the lesson.

 

[Subduction Zone]

sorry bro, I see you have nothing else to do other than insult, putting you on ignore.

What insults?

You are projecting again. You are the one that has made false claims about others. But putting me on ignore when you are so obviously wrong is simply you owning up to the fact that you have nothing.


I will still gladly help you to learn what is and what is not evidence. But I will not lecture someone that has shown that at best he is not willing to learn.

 

[TBDude65]

oh yeah and you forgot, one thing.....I asked a basic and simple question about macrevolution that no one can answer. Not a single evolutionist in 10 years has answered it. I wasn't going to ask it because most of the time evolutionists separate themselves afterward. But if you wish to actually discuss evolution, then try macroevolution. Microevolution I agree with anyway.

What is this supposed stumper of a question that you've not had satisfactorily answered in a decade?

 

[pitabread]

every issue I have addressed, name one I havent'

Um, pretty much every time you issue hand waving dismissals rather than look at what people post?

You asked about "missing links" of higher taxa. I pointed you to a website that has been around for two decades that has a whole catalog of them. You handwaved it away claiming it's not peer-reviewed. I pointed out it has a list of references as long as your arm. You continue to handwave and repeat the lie that your question hasn't been answered.

Heck, even when you post stuff yourself (such as that article about supposed intelligent design of birds), you refused to engage in a discussion about it.

You've shown no indication you're here for discussion or debate. Your modus operandi has all the hallmarks of a basic internet troll.

 

[pitabread]

What is this supposed stumper of a question that you've not had satisfactorily answered in a decade?

He asked where the "missing links" are that show evolution from one taxa to another. He was repeatedly given answers or websites but he just handwaves them away or otherwise refuses to look at sources.

 

[bhsmte]

He asked where the "missing links" are that show evolution from one taxa to another. He was repeatedly given answers or websites but he just handwaves them away or otherwise refuses to look at sources.

When you think about it, when you are in that deep, you really have no choice but to deny well evidenced reality. Too painful to do otherwise.

 

[TBDude65]

He asked where the "missing links" are that show evolution from one taxa to another. He was repeatedly given answers or websites but he just handwaves them away or otherwise refuses to look at sources.

I see. Well you can't blame people for not giving answers if you don't actually look at the answers being given. Or...I guess you can blame them?

Neil Shubin's "Your inner fish" is a good start for anyone that actually wants to see a good example of a hypothesized and then subsequently discovered "missing link." PBS did it as a documentary, which might not be a bad place to start before reading the book.

The "missing link" that was discovered was Tiktaalik, a lobe-finned fish (sometimes dubbed a "fish-o-pod") that is a transitional form between fish and amphibian (making it one of our direct ancestors)

 

[Subduction Zone]

When you think about it, when you are in that deep, you really have no choice but to deny well evidenced reality. Too painful to do otherwise.

And put those on ignore that are actually willing to help you to learn. At least that was his last threat towards me.

 

[HitchSlap]

A Peer review proves you wrong, macro evolution is not at the species level:"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level."

Erwin, D. H. (2000), Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evolution & Development, 2: 78–84. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x

Article found online here:
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution

although I typically think wikipedia is error prone, here is a link that shows that the journal is peer reviewed:

Evolution & Development - Wikipedia

A Peer review proves you wrong, macro evolution is not at the species level:"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level."

Erwin, D. H. (2000), Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evolution & Development, 2: 78–84. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x

Article found online here:
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution

although I typically think wikipedia is error prone, here is a link that shows that the journal is peer reviewed:

Evolution & Development - Wikipedia

So I comment that dishonest creationists deliberately misuse "macroevolution" to mean something it's not, and you link a study proving my point.

LOL.

 

[createdtoworship]

He asked where the "missing links" are that show evolution from one taxa to another. He was repeatedly given answers or websites but he just handwaves them away or otherwise refuses to look at sources.

please post one peer review proving your point, political blogs and fake news don't count.

 

[createdtoworship]

So I comment that dishonest creationists deliberately misuse "macroevolution" to mean something it's not, and you link a study proving my point.

LOL.

I guess if you treat peer review this way, then we can see your bias against science and logic.