On the dangers of arguing via quote (YEC-style)

[AirPo]

If poor attempts at sounding religious were scented candles, this one would be doggie doo.

-CryptoLutheran

I was thinking more along the lines of doggie poe.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

I was thinking more along the lines of doggie poe.

My (prideful) reasoning often is I understand the bible is true because I am so clever. However, the real reason has nothing to do with my cleverness, but everything to do with God's kindness, which He showed to me by enabling me to see His words are true.

This is why I describe it as grace.

 

[Brightmoon]

My (prideful) reasoning often is I understand the bible is true because I am so clever. However, the real reason has nothing to do with my cleverness, but everything to do with God's kindness, which He showed to me by enabling me to see His words are true.

This is why I describe it as grace.

. And when Bible ideas are demonstrated repeatedly with verifiable evidence to be incorrect , do you still ignore the evidence and superstitiously follow the Bible? I don’t because that’s like accepting a lie and calling it the truth

 

[pitabread]

Happens every time I speak with evolutionists.

Surely you can point to a single example then?

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Surely you can point to a single example then?

Let's do a worked example.

Please define evolution.

 

[Brightmoon]

Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations . That’s the Wikipedia definition and it’s accurate . Now where in that definition do you see a barrier between, for example theropods and birds. You creationists keep trying to claim that they are different “kinds” but where’s your actual physical barrier(s) that would prevent birds from being relatives to crocodilians. You do realize that there are 2 DNA lineages that confirm that birds are diapsids and that their closest living relatives are crocodilians . Mitochondria have DNA too.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Okay. I have numbered my points, so we can more easily reference to our worked example. We have basically covered to step 3.
1 Evolutionist: The evolution of microbes to man is a proven fact.
2 Creationist: Evolution has never been proven.
3 Evolutionist: Yes it has. Evolution simply means change over time. Are you denying that changes happen over time?
4 Creationist: Well, anyone can see that changes happen, and this takes time. I renovated my house - changed it over time. No one would deny that.
5 Evolutionist: There you have it. Evolution of microbes to man is a proven fact.
6 Creationist: !? What have changes over time got to do with microbes or men?

Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations . That’s the Wikipedia definition and it’s accurate . Now where in that definition do you see a barrier between, for example theropods and birds. You creationists keep trying to claim that they are different “kinds” but where’s your actual physical barrier(s) that would prevent birds from being relatives to crocodilians. You do realize that there are 2 DNA lineages that confirm that birds are diapsids and that their closest living relatives are crocodilians . Mitochondria have DNA too.

Now - I will respond with 4. 'Of course creationists don't deny that organisms give birth to slightly different organisms. A child may have her mother's hair and father's eyes, for example, but she is still a human, albeit there are minor changes from the parent organisms.'

 

[Brightmoon]

Okay. I have numbered my points, so we can more easily reference to our worked example. We have basically covered to step 3.
1 Evolutionist: The evolution of microbes to man is a proven fact.
2 Creationist: Evolution has never been proven.
3 Evolutionist: Yes it has. Evolution simply means change over time. Are you denying that changes happen over time?
4 Creationist: Well, anyone can see that changes happen, and this takes time. I renovated my house - changed it over time. No one would deny that.
5 Evolutionist: There you have it. Evolution of microbes to man is a proven fact.
6 Creationist: !? What have changes over time got to do with microbes or men?



Now - I will respond with 4. 'Of course creationists don't deny that organisms give birth to slightly different organisms. A child may have her mother's hair and father's eyes, for example, but she is still a human, albeit there are minor changes from the parent organisms.'

. Those minor changes from the parent organism over about 4 billion years is what led to ‘microbes to man’ evolution. Again I’m going to ask , where is the the barrier that would prevent this from happening? You creationists imply that it’s there and by claiming separate creation , you must have some evidence that it’s there. So what is it? And where is your verifiable evidence for it?. The ball has been in your court since the late 1800s . I’m not holding my breath, by the way.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

. Those minor changes from the parent organism over about 4 billion years is what led to ‘microbes to man’ evolution. Again I’m going to ask , where is the the barrier that would prevent this from happening? You creationists imply that it’s there and by claiming separate creation , you must have some evidence that it’s there. So what is it? And where is your verifiable evidence for it?. The ball has been in your court since the late 1900s . I’m not holding my breath, by the way.

Okay. You have just responded item 5, as per the playbook.

Surely you can point to a single example then?

There you have it. A single worked example for you, posts 45 - 48.

 

[Brightmoon]

Where’s that barrier that prevents common descent. Still waiting!

 

[pitabread]

Let's do a worked example.

Please define evolution.

Nah, I've already got my answer. What you posted was an obvious strawman if not an outright lie.

 

[pitabread]

There you have it. A single worked example for you, posts 45 - 48.

Nope. You're still creating and arguing based on a blatant strawman.

 

[pitabread]

Now - I will respond with 4. 'Of course creationists don't deny that organisms give birth to slightly different organisms. A child may have her mother's hair and father's eyes, for example, but she is still a human, albeit there are minor changes from the parent organisms.'

I find it interesting that in your initial strawman example you refer to house renovations (someting that has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution), yet in the above you invoke the process of biological evolution.

It's also fascinating to me that creationists continue to accept the process of evolution, just not the output.

 

[xianghua]

. Those minor changes from the parent organism over about 4 billion years is what led to ‘microbes to man’ evolution. Again I’m going to ask , where is the the barrier that would prevent this from happening?

one example will be an ic system. such a system cant evolve step by step and therefore cant be the result of evolution. so a creature without an eye cant evolve into a creature with eye.

 

[pitabread]

one example will be an ic system.

No, "irreducible complexity" is NOT synonymous with being unevolvable. This has been explained to you many times in the past.

 

[Brightmoon]

Irreducible complexity that shows up stepwise can be illustrated by having a stream with 3 stepping stones on it at first . Then someone lays a slab of concrete on the stepping stones to make a bridge. Finally someone removes the middle stepping stone. The remaining stones still hold up the slab .. The creationist version of IC basically says that the middle stone was never there and that the concrete slab just poofed into place .

 

[Ophiolite]

No, "irreducible complexity" is NOT synonymous with being unevolvable. This has been explained to you many times in the past.

As you and I both know it is populations that evolve, not individuals. Some individuals provide profound evidence that individuals do not evolve. No names, no pack drill.

 

[xianghua]

Irreducible complexity that shows up stepwise can be illustrated by having a stream with 3 stepping stones on it at first . Then someone lays a slab of concrete on the stepping stones to make a bridge. Finally someone removes the middle stepping stone. The remaining stones still hold up the slab .. The creationist version of IC basically says that the middle stone was never there and that the concrete slab just poofed into place .

if i understand you right- its not the same, since any stone is functional in this case in any step. this isnt true for an half of a biological system.

 

[Strathos]

if i understand you right- its not the same, since any stone is functional in this case in any step. this isnt true for an half of a biological system.

There's never 'half' of a biological system. There's a less refined version of it.

 

[tas8831]

If evolutionists just expect everyone to believe the evolutionary fairy tale when it's so clearly false,

This is why most creationists are worthless when it comes to honest debate.