Why creationists can never convince me that evolution is false.

[pitabread]

However, since they can’t seem to find any missing links where a species made the jump, it’s highly unlikely that evolution was how it was done.

But they found "missing links" (insofar as transitional fossils which bridge prior gaps in morphological changes in the fossil record).

Once again, this reinforce the topic in the thread which speaks to a gap in knowledge and understanding in the respective parties of the discussion.

 

[pitabread]

evolution is not science its a theory people call it a science but its not.

You'll never convince me of a statement like the above because it's clear we don't share the same understanding of evolution.

You're just reinforcing the thesis of the thread topic.

 

[BeyondET]

Please stop derailing the thread. If you want to ask questions about how specific things evolved, start a new topic for that.

If you continue to derail the thread, I will start reporting your posts.

because i am not agreeing with the thread and your going to report it. your defining of the word derailing is simply judging people who do not agree with it so you call it derailing unbelievable.

 

[pitabread]

because i am not agreeing with the thread and your going to report it. your defining of the word derailing is simply people not agreeing with it so you call it derailing unbelievable.

It has nothing to do with you agreeing with the thread topic. It has to do with the fact that this is not a thread for discussing the evolution of random individual species.

If you want to ask about evolution of specific species, feel free to start a thread on those topics.

 

[BeyondET]

It has nothing to do with you agreeing with the thread topic. It has to do with the fact that this is not a thread for discussing the evolution of random individual species.

If you want to ask about evolution of specific species, feel free to start a thread on those topics.

then want is it about, if its not about evolution vs creation then what is it.

 

[BeyondET]

random vs design occurrences is that what this is.

 

[pitabread]

then want is it about, if its not about evolution vs creation then what is it.

It's not about evolution vs creation.

I suggest reading the opening post.

In short, the topic is about the gap in knowledge and understanding of evolution between myself and creationists. And that creationists are unable to convince me that evolution is false, because their understanding of the subject isn't the same as my understanding of it.

 

[BeyondET]

i did and there is no one wondering you made it up

wonder how organisms could "decide" to evolve (as though it was a conscious process)

 

[BeyondET]

there is no gap more made up stuff.

For example, when creationists speak of evolution as happening to individuals (as opposed to populations) or wonder how organisms could "decide" to evolve (as though it was a conscious process), there is a clear gap in the creationist conceptualization of how the process works.

 

[pitabread]

i did and there is no one wondering you made it up

wonder how organisms could "decide" to evolve (as though it was a conscious process)

there is no gap more made up stuff.

For example, when creationists speak of evolution as happening to individuals (as opposed to populations) or wonder how organisms could "decide" to evolve (as though it was a conscious process), there is a clear gap in the creationist conceptualization of how the process works.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Btw, if you want to quote from the OP, please use the proper quote function in the forum. It's really confusing to read when you mix your own words with text from another post.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've spent a couple decades learning about biology and evolution.

This has included taking University courses, reading various evolution textbooks, pop-sci books, published research papers, and other sources.

In debating creationists, I find that 99% of the time said creationists don't share that level of knowledge and understanding.

Dear me.

I'm glad you didn't spend three decades.

I'd die of old age before I was qualified enough to even try to convince you otherwise.

Why did it take you two decades? did evolution change so fast, it took you that long to catch up to it?

Yesterday's science:

 

[BeyondET]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Btw, if you want to quote from the OP, please use the proper quote function in the forum. It's really confusing to read when you mix your own words with text from another post.

your own words confuse you huh, interesting rather i quote or no quote you probably would still be confused.

 

[pitabread]

Why did it take you two decades?

The two decades is simply how long I've been learning about biology and evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Organizations like DI, AIG, and ICR actively use scare tactics like telling school age kids that they risk salvation if they read a book on "atheist dawinism."

They don't need DI, AIG, and ICR to tell them that.

Paul says it all.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

And kids shouldn't enter the public education system without being born again first.

 

[AV1611VET]

The two decades is simply how long I've been learning about biology and evolution.

Ya ... I know. I'm glad it wasn't three.

 

[pitabread]

your own words confuse you huh, interesting rather i quote or no quote

I'm confused as to the point you're trying to make. Especially when I start reading your own words and then the next paragraph aren't your own words, but there is no clear distinction between them.

Usually when quoting someone else, one marks up the text according (like using the quote tags) to make it clear which text is their own and which is not.

But if you're not interested in making your communications more clear, that's up to you.

 

[pitabread]

Ya ... I know. I'm glad it wasn't three.

In another decade, it will be three. Because then it will have been three decades I'll have been learning about biology and evolution.

If you have a point you're trying to make, I'm not sure what it is.

 

[BeyondET]

I'm confused as to the point you're trying to make. Especially when I start reading your own words and then the next paragraph aren't your own words, but there is no clear distinction between them.

Usually when quoting someone else, one marks up the text according (like using the quote tags) to make it clear which text is their own and which is not.

But if you're not interested in making your communications more clear, that's up to you.

i haven't learned how to quote a little part of your whole opening post, sorry i thought you might be able to recognized your own words, i guess not sorry again for confusing you. until i do i will just place the name in front

 

[pitabread]

i haven't learned how to quote a little part of your whole opening post

If you highlight a section of the post and then hit the "reply" option on the popup buttons, it should quote that automatically.

Alternatively, you can highlight a section of the post and use the +Quote button.

Or when you're typing in a reply, you can hit the "+" button which opens a submenu to insert quote tags around text you want to quote.

sorry i thought you might be able to recognized your own words

I recognize my words, which is why I'm pointing out how to quote things. This just has to do with proper ways of formatting quotes to improve the readability of your post.

 

[BeyondET]

If you highlight a section of the post and then hit the "reply" option on the popup buttons, it should quote that automatically.

Alternatively, you can highlight a section of the post and use the +Quote button.

Or when you're typing in a reply, you can hit the "+" button which opens a submenu to insert quote tags around text you want to quote.

thanks for the info on how to do it, but the second quote doesn't say my name, that is technically not much better than leaving out the highlights. i recognize it but that's like you mentioned before.