Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My thoughts on creation and evolution,

Wow. Such a clever mind you have. That will definitely change people's minds.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Not suitable for this forum. Not worth the trouble, anyway. I've seen most of the creationists' arguments on this point and found them vacuous. I am satisfied with a view of scripture which has served Christendom well for 2000 years. What do I need with the politically-motivated apologetics of some 19th century Protestant pop-up?

That doesn't even look like a reply to what you replied to. No idea how that fits there.

No matter, that pales to what the very start of your proof seems to have brought on.

Why would you think there would be any "funny business?" What exactly do you think is going on here? Do you really think I am trying to fool you? That especially makes no sense with what we are talking about now, which you could easily verify for yourself.

Why?

First, when someone goes on, and on and on....about something, yest cannot prove it, then they tell me I should not expect proof, because it's true but cannot be proven, I get a little itch with just that, and am wary of what to expect from them next.

Secondly, just take a look at what ensued already with your "credence" and you haven't even gotten in the door, and precisely what I meant by funny business. Is your evidence evidence, or funny business? doesn't look good at least at this point, but I haven't read the last couple pages

The very reason I wanted it posted here, so good people that know more about this than I can do just what they are doing. And I'd guess that is why no one ever accepted the challenge, because also as I expected, your evidence would be ripped to pieces. I just didn't expect it to happen so early on.

That's why.

Random variation is just what it says. Each generation of a species presents a range of variants. Some are shorter, some are taller, have more or less hair, longer or shorter digits, etc. These variations are distributed randomly, that is, they approach a random (or "bell curve") distribution. Consequently, for each trait, most of the individuals possess the trait at or near the average value but there are more extreme outliers at the tails of the distribution.

Thought so, just wanted to be clear.

But now what? How can I continue where there appears to be funny business right off?

I won't pretend I know all what those that oppose you here are talking about, but I have seen these basics happen often, and I believe what they are saying, it makes perfect sense.

I also expected the fact you go on assumptions all to often, and NOT facts, and then you have the nerve to call the conclusions drawn from those assumptions, fact. But that's something I concluded right off in the first attempt at this way back when I first started asking for proof, so no surprise.

Anyway, I'll read the next few pages and see if what you have presented thus far holds even a few drops of water, then determine if I can even answer when what you're feeding me may not even be fact. See the dilemma?

 

[xianghua]

You saying 'no it's not' without any attempt to support your claim does not outweigh a huge scientific consensus based upon huge numbers of independent lines of research

sure. we have no evidence that a creature can change into another different creature. we both agree on that. right? so the excuse is that its take millions of years. so first: its just a belief and not a fact. and second: its non scientific since we cant falsy it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

To be quite frank, I don't think you're ready for evidence yet.

I don't think you're ready to prove evolution. And what is that, a pre excuse in case someone asks you to prove it?

One of the more frustrating aspects of the Crevo debate is the obstinate clinging to ignorance and misperceptions on the part of Creationists.

Then go through it step by step, and clear it all up for us...this is just the thread to do that

Do you honestly expect us to take childish mockery like this seriously?

Childish Mockery for the childish concept of evolution. Perfect match.

This is a nonsense. Science is built on observations

Observations of assumptions in the case of evolution.

You could try reading instead of getting your info from pictures.

I think he was trying to bring things down to the picture level for you, not him, but I won't tell anyone.

Ridiculous ideas exist to be ridiculed. Bad ideas exist to be destroyed.

And both apply to evolution.

 

[Jimmy D]

That doesn't even look like a reply to what you replied to. No idea how that fits there.

No matter, that pales to what the very start of your proof seems to have brought on.



Why?

First, when someone goes on, and on and on....about something, yest cannot prove it, then they tell me I should not expect proof, because it's true but cannot be proven, I get a little itch with just that, and am wary of what to expect from them next.

Secondly, just take a look at what ensued already with your "credence" and you haven't even gotten in the door, and precisely what I meant by funny business. Is your evidence evidence, or funny business? doesn't look good at least at this point, but I haven't read the last couple pages

The very reason I wanted it posted here, so good people that know more about this than I can do just what they are doing. And I'd guess that is why no one ever accepted the challenge, because also as I expected, your evidence would be ripped to pieces. I just didn't expect it to happen so early on.

That's why.



Thought so, just wanted to be clear.

But now what? How can I continue where there appears to be funny business right off?

I won't pretend I know all what those that oppose you here are talking about, but I have seen these basics happen often, and I believe what they are saying, it makes perfect sense.

I also expected the fact you go on assumptions all to often, and NOT facts, and then you have the nerve to call the conclusions drawn from those assumptions, fact. But that's something I concluded right off in the first attempt at this way back when I first started asking for proof, so no surprise.

Anyway, I'll read the next few pages and see if what you have presented thus far holds even a few drops of water, then determine if I can even answer when what you're feeding me may not even be fact. See the dilemma?

So where is the "assumption" in what Speedwell typed, what is not factual?

"Random variation is just what it says. Each generation of a species presents a range of variants. Some are shorter, some are taller, have more or less hair, longer or shorter digits, etc. These variations are distributed randomly, that is, they approach a random (or "bell curve") distribution. Consequently, for each trait, most of the individuals possess the trait at or near the average value but there are more extreme outliers at the tails of the distribution."

 

[xianghua]

Most of all, I see a PRATT.

so you have no real answer. thanks.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I don't even know yet whether you accept the fact that random variation occurs. You won't tell me.

Before I continue, show me where you ever once asked before now?

 

[Kenny'sID]

So where is the "assumption" in what Speedwell typed, what is not factual?

Where did I say there was one. Please don't waste our time with not thought out comments that accuse where there is nothing to accuse of. Read everything carefully before you speak. Now what did I say exactly?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Why should he?

No one said he had to, that simple.

 

[Kenny'sID]

so the excuse is that its take millions of years.

Millions of years that it just so happens no one can observe to know exactly what happened.

its just a belief and not a fact.

Yep, an assumption, the very thing the first attempt at proof ended on, for me anyway, at least as I recall it.

 

[xianghua]

Given that we have here many people who want to disprove evolution, and they can't find a single valid objection to a non-strawman theory of evolution

if you want to try and falsify evolution you first need to make a testble test for it. do you have any suggestion?

 

[xianghua]

I don't care to get into a protracted debate about it, but:

1. Evolution is a scientific fact

since we cant see it happen (its take millions of years) its not a fact.

2) we have many evidence against it, as you can see in my signature link.

 

[Speedwell]

That doesn't even look like a reply to what you replied to. No idea how that fits there.

It's a response to your bogus claim that you could prove the literal inerrancy of Genesis

No matter, that pales to what the very start of your proof seems to have brought on.



Why?

First, when someone goes on, and on and on....about something, yest cannot prove it, then they tell me I should not expect proof, because it's true but cannot be proven, I get a little itch with just that, and am wary of what to expect from them next.

Secondly, just take a look at what ensued already with your "credence" and you haven't even gotten in the door, and precisely what I meant by funny business. Is your evidence evidence, or funny business? doesn't look good at least at this point, but I haven't read the last couple pages

The very reason I wanted it posted here, so good people that know more about this than I can do just what they are doing. And I'd guess that is why no one ever accepted the challenge, because also as I expected, your evidence would be ripped to pieces. I just didn't expect it to happen so early on.

That's why.



Thought so, just wanted to be clear.

But now what? How can I continue where there appears to be funny business right off?

I won't pretend I know all what those that oppose you here are talking about, but I have seen these basics happen often, and I believe what they are saying, it makes perfect sense.

I also expected the fact you go on assumptions all to often, and NOT facts, and then you have the nerve to call the conclusions drawn from those assumptions, fact. But that's something I concluded right off in the first attempt at this way back when I first started asking for proof, so no surprise.

Anyway, I'll read the next few pages and see if what you have presented thus far holds even a few drops of water, then determine if I can even answer when what you're feeding me may not even be fact. See the dilemma?

In other words, you have to guard yourself constantly against the possibility that I am lying to you. You're so paranoid that you can't even answer the three simple questions I asked you. Sad.

Never mind, you win. We can't prove evolution. It's just a made-up lie concocted by us evil atheistic liberals so we can deny the truth of the literal and inerrant scriptures.

 

[tas8831]

Then, of course you should be embarrassed that you, as well as others who keep spouting the same claim in order to throw the blame on me for your own inability to prove evolution.

Blah.

I and others have explained things to you and presented evidence to you that my freshmen can easily grasp yet you come back days or weeks later, asking the same questions, making the same assertions, etc.

You clearly either do not actually want to learn anything, or are incapable of doing so.

This is why I pretty much ignore you. Like I go back to doing now.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so you have no real answer. thanks.

I could explain for the upteenth time how it's not about "similarities", but rather about "matches". And not just matches, but more specifically about the pattern of distribution of such matches into nested hierarchies.... But what good would it do?

It's not like you are going to stop repeating the same nonsense, right?
You have been informed of your mistakes time and time again, and yet here you are once more, with the exact same PRATT.

You ignored the first bazillion times that people informed you of your mistake. Why wouldn't you ignore the next bazillion times?

It's rather obvious that trying to inform you of your mistakes, is an exercise in futility....

There's only so much intellectual dishonesty I can deal with. After a while, I just lose the motivation to engage you again of the exact same nonsense over and over again.

So... yeah....

In the first paragraph of this post, I once again informed you of your mistake when refering to just "mere similarities" and how it's not about that, but about the pattern of distribution of matches/similarities instead.

I give it exactly 0 chances of it sticking this time.
I'm willing to bet thousands of dollars that it will go in one ear and out the other, once again.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It's a response to your bogus claim that you could prove the literal inerrancy of Genesis

Please point out where the post you responded to claimed anything of the sort?

In other words, you have to guard yourself constantly against the possibility that I am lying to you. You're so paranoid that you can't even answer the three simple questions I asked you. Sad.

Of course I have to guard myself and your minimizing that to mere paranoia is just not realistic, but if it makes you feel better to "think" that, have at it.

You're not telling the truth now because you've backed yourself into a corner and you need to do what you all do best, start blaming the opposing party when you can no longer produce...simple as that.

The reality there is not that I can't answer, that's a cinch, but I have not answered "yet", here is what I said on answering:

Anyway, I'll read the next few pages and see if what you have presented thus far holds even a few drops of water, then determine if I can even answer when what you're feeding me may not even be fact. See the dilemma?

So you see what you did there, you are making stuff up....again, and for the very reason I said, because things are already falling apart for you. You did this to yourself so don't get mad at me.

Never mind, you win. We can't prove evolution.

That's not news to me at all...do you really think I'd a bothered asking if I thought you could? If you could have proved it, it would be common knowledge that it has been proven but it is not, because it has not...just a claim, and will never be anything more than that.

And yes, this would be a great time for you to blame your inabilities on me, and get out fast...smart move.

 

[tas8831]

since we cant see it happen (its take millions of years) its not a fact.

So creation/ID is also not a fact via your criterion. Got it.

2) we have many evidence against it, as you can see in my signature link.

No, that bogus argument of yours is nonsense and has been shown to be so dozens of times.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's not news to me at all...do you really think I'd a bothered asking if I thought you could? If you could have proved it, it would be common knowledge that it has been proven but it is not, because it has not...just a claim, and will never be anything more than that.

Here are some other things that "can't be proven":
- atomic theory
- germ theory of desease
- tectonic theory
- theory of gravity
- theory of relativity
- heliocentric theory
- ...


Just out of interest: just how many times does it need to be explained to you by how many people that theories in science are NEVER considered "proven", before you'll drop this silly point?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Blah.

I and others have explained things to you and presented evidence to you that my freshman can easily grasp yet you come back days or weeks later, asking the same questions, making the same assertions, etc.

You clearly either do not actually want to learn anything, or are incapable of doing so.

This is why I pretty much ignore you. Like I go back to doing now.

Hmm, no proof there either.

Show me where you proved evoplution in the past or please stop going on like you have.

Don't want to learn? lol, You people never quit with the blaming others for your short comings. I was very willing to learn from the start here, go look for yourself, it's all right there in at least fairly discernible english...geez, but things fell apart so quickly, running my teacher off, that we didn't get anywhere, yet you are seriously blaming that on me?

Unbelievable.

I've never ignored anyone on any board ever, it's almost creepy to me to even consider it, but I do get that sometimes it a bit tough to deal with reality

 

[Kenny'sID]

Here are some other things that "can't be proven":

Sorry you feel that way.