Thread to collect Evolutionist Lies.

[CabVet]

Which more than one person has done but you would rather muddy the waters, and ignore what has been pointed out.

Yet you haven't provided a single example of it.

 

[Metal Minister]

You, sir, are bearing false witness.

*Ahem*

Cite me some 'tainted science'.

Me: climategate

So who's bearing false witness? I would say it was you. As you can see I in no way confused evolution with global warming.

 

[Metal Minister]

Yet you haven't provided a single example of it.

having a hard time seeing the forest for the trees are we?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Only problem is all the evidence points to Creationism as the better explanation. Not evolution. OEC covers the last 4.5 billion years, GAP covers the last 12982 years and YEC covers the last 5982 years. YEC does not explain GAP and GAP does not explain OEC. YEC is more of a history book then anything else. But YEC is very much common ancestor and decent from a common ancestor. The very foundation of evolutionary science. It's the modification part that is up for discussion. Esp when you look at something like the Cambrian radiation or explosion, where there is no modification. Between when the fossils first appear and when they go extinct, there is no change, they remain the same. 98% of the fossil record has come and gone with no modification and no change. Only the normal variation that we see in all species as they adapt or fine tune themselves with their biodiversity ecosystem.

Oh, Christians believe in modification as a result of the fallen condition that creation is in. When there is a new heaven and a new earth, there will be no more war and the species will not longer fight or consume each other.

*slow clap*

Bravo. You just added about eight more items to the 'creationist lies' thread with a single post.

Unless you're just that ignorant, which wouldn't surprise me.

 

[CabVet]

having a hard time seeing the forest for the trees are we?

How about you show me a tree? A single one? All I want is one example of a person, here or anywhere else, changing their definition of evolution during the course of a discussion.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Forget trees. I haven't even seen a shrub.

 

[Metal Minister]

How about you show me a tree? A single one? All I want is one example of a person, here or anywhere else, changing their definition of evolution during the course of a discussion.

I could drop a logging truck worth of them on you, and you'd still deny it....how many times have even you yourself, conflated historical and operational evolution? (Hint: historical and operational are not remotely the same thing).

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

how many times have even you yourself, conflated historical and operational evolution?

Even granting this, it would not constitute an example of someone changing the definition of the ToE. I've never even heard either of those referenced in relation to the ToE, so I suspect you've concoted yourself yet another fallacy of equivocation.

I could drop a logging truck worth of them on you

Give me your number one absolute best example from this truckload you have.

 

[Metal Minister]

Whole bunch here: Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection

You gave me a page talking about adaptation...did you even read their first argument? It stated that e-coli grown at 47c was better than the parent sample, and that grown at 32c was better than the parent sample, but that grown at 37c was basically the same as the parent sample...all this proves is that e-coli likes certain conditions for growth! In fact it inadvertently proves that it may well have been designed that way. E-coli lives in our bodies as a natural part of our digestive system. Our body temps are generally very close to 37c. Much cooler or warmer and it would take over and kill us.

 

[Loudmouth]

You gave me a page talking about adaptation...did you even read their first argument? It stated that e-coli grown at 47c was better than the parent sample, and that grown at 32c was better than the parent sample, but that grown at 37c was basically the same as the parent sample...all this proves is that e-coli likes certain conditions for growth!

Then why wasn't the parent strain able to grow as well at higher temperatures compared to the evolved strain?

In fact it inadvertently proves that it may well have been designed that way.

Then why couldn't the parent strain grow as well at the higher temp?

 

[Loudmouth]

I could drop a logging truck worth of them on you, and you'd still deny it....how many times have even you yourself, conflated historical and operational evolution? (Hint: historical and operational are not remotely the same thing).

Still waiting for a single example. I see a lot of chest thumping, but very little in the way of actual facts.

 

[Metal Minister]

Even granting this, it would not constitute an example of someone changing the definition of the ToE.

Yes, it would! Like I said, can't see the forest for the trees. Operational evolution is what we can see, test, demonstrate, and falsify. Historical (what you use to say everything came from a single cell) is untestable, undemonstrable, and cannot be falsified! Conflating the two is in fact changing your definition of evolution!

Give me your number one absolute best example from this truckload you have.

...

View attachment 127849

 

[The Engineer]

I could drop a logging truck worth of them on you, and you'd still deny it....how many times have even you yourself, conflated historical and operational evolution? (Hint: historical and operational are not remotely the same thing).

You just failed to provide the name of a single person that changed the definition of evolution, three times in a row. I'll conclude from this that you are incapable of providing one.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Yes, it would! Like I said, can't see the forest for the trees. Operational evolution is what we can see, test, demonstrate, and falsify. Historical (what you use to say everything came from a single cell) is untestable, undemonstrable, and cannot be falsified! Conflating the two is in fact changing your definition of evolution!

Ah. That would explain why I've never seen the terms 'operational evolution' and 'historical evolution' in any scientific literature - because they're not scientific concepts. They are made up by ignorant creationists. I suspected as much. Thanks for clarifying.

View attachment 127849

And... fail.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Pages: 20
'Evolutionist lies' demonstrated: 0

 

[Jamin4422]

Unless you're just that ignorant, which wouldn't surprise me.

Nope, just the opposite. Don't worry, you will catch up to me in about 20 years. Maybe by then you will be 12 feet tall. I just have a kind of vision sometimes I can see where this is all going.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Nope, just the opposite.

So, what then? You make asinine, false claims that can be refuted with forty-five seconds worth of research just for fun?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, it would! Like I said, can't see the forest for the trees. Operational evolution is what we can see, test, demonstrate, and falsify. Historical (what you use to say everything came from a single cell) is untestable, undemonstrable, and cannot be falsified!

We can add this post to the list of creationist lies as well.

Historical evolution is testable, demonstrable, and can be falsified:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

We can add this post to the list of creationist lies as well.

Historical evolution is testable, demonstrable, and can be falsified:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

More to the point, it's not a changed definition of evolution.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Oh, gee. Look at that. The only reference to 'operational' and 'historical' evolution I can find comes from that paragon of integrity, Answers in Genesis:

Chapter 1: What Is Science? - Answers in Genesis

So it is another creationist non-concept with no precedent in science. Knock me over with a mouse fart.