What would falsify creationism?

[Loudmouth]

Are all those theatrics always necessary? This is why I tend to stay away from where atheists and Theists debate because you tend to get rather ugly with each other

Is all the avoidance necessary?

He has already clarified what he meant



and you are rather pettily ignoring his point in order to attack his intelligence

I directly addressed his point.

"Evolution of humans from a single celled ancestor is also life from life."

The only attack on intelligence is being perpetrated by creationists who are trying to convince us that people completely ignorant of biology know more than 99.9% of degreed biologists.

 

[Dpierre]

I've already covered this in my birds with boobs thread.

Would that be the falsification of evolution or how you know alien probes don't leave marks? If the alien abduction left birds with boobs that would be worth reading

 

[crjmurray]

Would that be the falsification of evolution or how you know alien probes don't leave marks? If the alien abduction left birds with boobs that would be worth reading

The first one.

 

[Dpierre]

I directly addressed his point.

"Evolution of humans from a single celled ancestor is also life from life."

It is obvious to any unbiased person he is talking about life from non life. He states as much in his clarification. You have no credible answer for abiogenesis as you have already admitted to me. So at this point you are just being deliberately obtuse about his point in order to YES attack his intelligence as you do not so subtly here

The only attack on intelligence is being perpetrated by creationists who are trying to convince us that people completely ignorant of biology know more than 99.9% of degreed biologists.

You don't know what he is completely ignorant of and if you keep up with this insulting pedigree you will just derail the thread with nastiness.

 

[Dpierre]

The first one.

Boring. Ya big tease....I had high hopes it was the second

 

[Loudmouth]

It is obvious to any unbiased person he is talking about life from non life.

It should be obvious to anyone that humans being the terminal end of a lineage that includes single celled eukaryotes does not require life to come from non-life. The lineage starts with life, and it is life producing life the entire way.

He states as much in his clarification. You have no credible answer for abiogenesis as you have already admitted to me.

The two are unrelated. If the God created the first simple cell that evolved into all the species we see today, the theory of evolution would be unchanged.

You don't know what he is completely ignorant of and if you keep up with this insulting pedigree you will just derail the thread with nastiness.

He didn't think that humans could come from a single cell. I think that speaks volumes.

 

[bhayes]

Is all the avoidance necessary?



I directly addressed his point.

"Evolution of humans from a single celled ancestor is also life from life."

The only attack on intelligence is being perpetrated by creationists who are trying to convince us that people completely ignorant of biology know more than 99.9% of degreed biologists.

I never meant to insult your intelligence so I apologize. I also was referring to abiogenesis in all of my posts. either way I dont think this is going anywhere so lets call it a day

 

[Loudmouth]

I never meant to insult your intelligence so I apologize. I also was referring to abiogenesis in all of my posts.

No, you weren't. You asked how all life could evolve from a universal common ancestor that was a single cell:

"This is describing the theory of macroevolution, or species changing into other species like somehow all of life originated from a single cell."--bhayes, post 215

That is not abiogenesis. That is macroevolution, just as you describe it. If you have no problem with life evolving from a universal common ancestor, then we can move past this example.

 

[Dpierre]

The two are unrelated. If the God created the first simple cell that evolved into all the species we see today, the theory of evolution would be unchanged.

What two? i did not specify abiogenesis in relationship to evolution. You have the habit of thinking everything must fit into your evolution creation ego war you have going but creation goes beyond evolution. I need not limit it.

He didn't think that humans could come from a single cell. I think that speaks volumes.

I think your acidity speaks volume. I am a creationists so please feel free on that basis to call me dumb so I can hit the report button. I have little tolerance for this childish insult everyone who disagrees me behaviour in what was a civil conversation.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

The main concern wasn't even originally 'evolution vs young earth creation'. It somehow evolved into that, but originally the problem was why God would create the entire natural foundation to be one of suffering and death.

There's all sorts of interesting things in the Bible relevant to this- for example, before Noah it was demanded among the people of God to be vegetarians. As another, Jesus ate primarily fish-- fish are not conscious of pain even though they undergo the same physical processes, as they do not have a frontal cortex in their brain like mammals do.

As well, a kosher sacrifice has in tradition been a very quick death. Today, the Passover sacrifice is a process of piercing all the main arteries simultaneously.
The suffering of animals has always been considered through biblical history to now, it seems, so the issue was not something simply created by some guy studying finches.

 

[Dpierre]

I never meant to insult your intelligence so I apologize. I also was referring to abiogenesis in all of my posts. either way I dont think this is going anywhere so lets call it a day

well done being the bigger person. I would not feel badly though . It was perfectly obvious you were referring to abiogenesis

but as the good book says - Blessed are the peace makers

 

[Dpierre]

No, you weren't. You asked how all life could evolve from a universal common ancestor that was a single cell:

"This is describing the theory of macroevolution, or species changing into other species like somehow all of life originated from a single cell."--bhayes, post 215

Gee Whiz dude. give it up. he already clarified what he meant from that and went to the totally unnecessary step of apologizing and you are still on a war path ungraciously still coming at him. Whatever you got going on in your life its not his fault.

 

[AV1611VET]

Gee Whiz dude. give it up. he already clarified what he meant from that and went to the totally unnecessary step of apologizing and you are still on a war path ungraciously still coming at him. Whatever you got going on in your life its not his fault.

Welcome to CF, Dpierre!

 

[Loudmouth]

What two?

Abiogenesis and evolution are two independent theories. You could have a supernatural origin for life and evolution. You could have abiogenesis then a designer who changes that life.

i did not specify abiogenesis in relationship to evolution.

Yes, you did.

"This is describing the theory of macroevolution, or species changing into other species like somehow all of life originated from a single cell."--bhayes, post 215

"It is obvious to any unbiased person he is talking about life from non life."--Dpierre

It was clear that the poster was talking about evolution, but you tried to turn it into a conversation about abiogenesis. Species from species and life evolving from a single celled ancestor is evolution, not abiogenesis.

You have the habit of thinking everything must fit into your evolution creation ego war you have going but creation goes beyond evolution. I need not limit it.

Ego is when people with no scientific knowledge proclaim that 99.9% of scientists are wrong because of a story in a 2,000 year old book.

I think your acidity speaks volume. I am a creationists so please feel free on that basis to call me dumb so I can hit the report button. I have little tolerance for this childish insult everyone who disagrees me behaviour in what was a civil conversation.

Do you need help nailing yourself to that cross? Enough with the feigned persecution.

You have avoided the evidence in every single post, and you still can not show how creationism is falsifiable which is the topic of the thread.

 

[Loudmouth]

Gee Whiz dude. give it up. he already clarified what he meant from that and went to the totally unnecessary step of apologizing and you are still on a war path ungraciously still coming at him. Whatever you got going on in your life its not his fault.

If bhayes says that there is no problem with all life evolving through natural mechanisms from a shared single celled ancestor over billions of years, we can happily move on.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well because it is not the same thing is it? If we are saying that two living beings such as humans procreated then yes life comes from life. But you are not saying that. You are saying that there was a cell, somehow nobody knows where it came from. It reproduced how? and somehow survived the environment of the earth and over billions of years formed complex organisms that somehow evolved from each other yet today not one single type of this has been observed.

How is this not talking about evolution? How could this ever be a statement about abiogenesis?

If you don't know how single celled organisms reproduce, we could discuss that. In the lab, we can go from a single bacterium to trillions of bacteria in just 24 hours. It is pretty well understood.

 

[Dpierre]

Abiogenesis and evolution are two independent theories.

Sorry they are both included in creationism under one banner along with the creation of the universe (so nah not even the two). You might not have noticed but we believe God created everything so creationism includes it all

It was clear that the poster was talking about evolution, but you tried to turn it into a conversation about abiogenesis.

Poster already stated as i suspected he was talking about abiogenesis. You sure will have zero credibility claiming to know what was in his head more than he does. Are you calling him a liar?

Ego is when people with no scientific knowledge proclaim that 99.9% of scientists are wrong because of a story in a 2,000 year old book.

No ego is what we are seeing in your angry posts. Having a really bad day? or is this kind of standard for you?

 

[Loudmouth]

Sorry they are both included in creationism under one banner along with the creation of the universe (so nah not evebn the two).

So? That doesn't mean that one is reliant on the other as I already discussed. Creationism includes geology and biology, but that doesn't make erosion and evolution the same thing.

Poster already stated as i suspected he was talking about abiogenesis.

The previous posts show otherwise. It seems that the poster is trying to rewrite history.

You sure will have zero credibility claiming to know what was in his head more than he does. Are you calling him a liar?

I know what is in those posts, and those posts were clearly describing evolution, not abiogenesis. Single cells evolving into complex animals is evolution, not abiogenesis.

No ego is what we are seeing in your angry posts. Having a really bad day? or is this kind of standard for you?

Still can't tell us how creationism is falsifiable?

 

[Dpierre]

If bhayes says that there is no problem with all life evolving through natural mechanisms from a shared single celled ancestor over billions of years, we can happily move on.

Or what? You going to hold the whole thread hostage to your will if he doesn't agree. I don't and won't so go for it mate

Now what are you going to do? Call 911?

 

[Loudmouth]

Or what? You going to hold the whole thread hostage to your will if he doesn't agree. I don't and won't so go for it mate

Still need help nailing yourself to that cross?