Why creationists can never convince me that evolution is false.

[pitabread]

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.

In a case where a person chops up a quote for a multi-part reply, the implication is that the person quoted is the same as the name in the first quote.

Regardless, using the quote tags still reinforces that the text quoted isn't the respondent's own. Otherwise, omitting quote tags is more jarring to read when the tonality of the text abruptly changes.

In short, there is no good reason to not use the quote feature for the purpose of improving readability of one's posts.

 

[BeyondET]

In a case where a person chops up a quote for a multi-part reply, the implication is that the person quoted is the same as the name in the first quote.

Regardless, using the quote tags still reinforces that the text quoted isn't the respondent's own. Otherwise, omitting quote tags is more jarring to read when the tonality of the text abruptly changes.

In short, there is no good reason to not use the quote feature for the purpose of improving readability of one's posts.

almost anything can be used for good or bad reasons lol, i have seen people quote multiple statements from different people yet no name around none of them. but i get what your saying and i will learn to use them Maybe. I guess if people use them it should be done rightly and not wrongly. not saying anything like that has happened in this thread but it does happen which is equally confusing.

 

[Frank Robert]

evolution doesn't even teach life from a ball of soup.

Evolution don't teach OOL for the same reason soup cooks don't teach evolution for the simple reason it is not in their job description to do so.

You yourself have no idea how life formed yet your convinced is humorous.

Many Christians believe that God created life and along with the laws of nature and left it to those laws to do the grunt work.

 

[Frank Robert]

deleted

 

[AV1611VET]

deleted

And here I was gonna respond.

 

[o_mlly]

The team took careful measurements and calculated each specimen’s ability to transmit muscular force and motion to the part of the claw that swings out to smash or spear their prey ...

Sounds like the beginning of a good sci-fi read. Just one edit suggestion, add to the beginning of the first sentence, "Huddled in the back of the cave on a cold, dark and dreary night, ...".

On a serious note, the evolution enthusiasts often post their opinions as facts, and where their research citations use the indicative mood to report tentative possibilities, the enthusiasts often elevate to the imperative mood as science facts. That's not good science.

 

[Frank Robert]

yea and there are many species and processes that evolution has no solid leads to how they had formed or how the process is done in nature. my example about the mantis shrimp is like no other creature on earth. how does evolution explain the one of kind animals and there are many.

How mantis shrimp evolved many shapes with same powerful punch | Duke University

Summary:
The miniweight boxing title of the animal world belongs to the mantis shrimp, a cigar-sized crustacean whose front claws can deliver an explosive 60-mile-per-hour blow akin to a bullet leaving the barrel of a gun. A study of 80 million years of mantis shrimp evolution reveals how these fast weapons evolved their dizzying array of shapes -- from spiny and barbed spears to hatchets and hammers -- while still managing to pack their characteristic punch.​

The natural world contains about 8.7 million species today. Why do expect that evolution should know everything about their evolution? Why not be in awe of all that humans have learned since Darwin. You could even even attribute such accomplishments to God's will and do so without needing to deny the dominance of evidence for evolution.

​

 

[Frank Robert]

And here I was gonna respond.

I am sure I make as many mistakes as the next guy.

 

[pitabread]

On a serious note, the evolution enthusiasts often post their opinions as facts, and where their research citations use the indicative mood to report tentative possibilities, the enthusiasts often elevate to the imperative mood as science facts. That's not good science.

Generally those who promote science understand that scientific conclusions are provisional and typically based on the available data or research findings at a particular in time. This is why I added the addendum in the OP about the nature of science itself.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am sure I make as many mistakes as the next guy.

All I was going to do is say: Hi

Meaning I often argue evolution with my fellow Christians.

 

[Frank Robert]

All I was going to do is say: Hi

Meaning I often argue evolution with my fellow Christians.

There are always many exceptions to global claims. What I usually try to get to is that are many more Christians and agnostics that affirm evolution than atheists.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are always many exceptions to global claims. What I usually try to get to is that are many more Christians and agnostics that affirm evolution than atheists.

Roger that.

 

[driewerf]

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:

Today's science:

 

[AV1611VET]

Today's science:

Tomorrow's science:

 

[lsume]

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.

As I currently understand it, no true missing links have been found. They should be all over the place as I understand it.

 

[pitabread]

As I currently understand it, no true missing links have been found. They should be all over the place as I understand it.

This sounds like the "no transitional fossils" argument that is common among creationism. As I said, transitional fossils (e.g. fossils that bridge taxonomic groups) exist. There is no debate on this.

 

[AV1611VET]

This sounds like the "no transitional fossils" argument that is common among creationism. As I said, transitional fossils (e.g. fossils that bridge taxonomic groups) exist. There is no debate on this.

DNA is all nice and concatenated, isn't it?

 

[pitabread]

DNA is all nice and concatenated, isn't it?

What?

 

[AV1611VET]

What?

From an amoeba, all the way up Darwin's tree to mankind, DNA traveled like sap?

In other words, we're all linked somehow, aren't we? and that somehow is by DNA?

 

[pitabread]

From an amoeba, all the way up Darwin's tree to mankind, DNA traveled like sap?

I don't know what you mean by "traveled like sap".

DNA is generally inherited by the offspring from the parent(s). Though there are also horizontal gene transfer mechanisms (common in bacterial organisms) that can transfer DNA that way as well.

In other words, we're all linked somehow, aren't we? and that somehow is by DNA?

We're linked by common ancestry, which does imply a genetic relationship between all life on Earth.

That said, the resulting relationship pattern in question (especially due to HGT mechanisms) is quite complex.