Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Kenny'sID]

Indeed, he is not here for honest debate.

You should be clear by now on what I'm after so with that in mind, instead of the cop out, put the blame on others, state your case, and then you can also make your case where I get dishonest.

Can you do that or are you just talking?

 

[VirOptimus]

You should be clear by now on what I'm after so with that in mind, instead of the cop out, put the blame on others, state your case, and then you can also make your case where I get dishonest.

Can you do that or are you just talking?

I’m not responsible for your education.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I’m not responsible for your education.

I was at least hoping for an original cop out....oh, well.

 

[pitabread]

And that goes right back to blaming it all on me, my reality is bogus and yours is just fine.

Now you're getting it.

 

[Jimmy D]

And that goes right back to blaming it all on me, my reality is bogus and yours is just fine....it's automatic and goes without saying here.

Does it occur to you that it might actually be you?

A rhetorical question as Ophiolite was correct, there is enough material in this thread to expose your antics (as there is on all the threads you “participate” in).

Good day to you and good luck to you in your trolling.

-ignore-

 

[Kenny'sID]

Good day to you and good luck to you in your trolling.

-ignore-

Two down.

I see several hours of time gained in my future....cool.

 

[Speedwell]

Where *I* ripped you to shreds?

Now you know I didn't say that.

Did I distinguish what you presented, evidence or otherwise? Of course I didn't, so stop that.

Now rephrase your comment using nothing but reality, and I'll reply, that is, if it will still work using the actual facts.

IOW "Quite frankly, I think it's you"

You had your chance, and you took off when what you presented was ripped to shreds, and then you tried to blame your exit on something I had done, of course. If you don't believe me, go back and read it again...I saw it, you saw it, everyone saw it.

Do you want to try it again? Be my guest.

Who, then, ripped what I presented to shreds?

 

[Speedwell]

Does it occur to you that it might actually you?

A rhetorical question as Ophiolite was correct, there is enough material in this thread to expose your antics (as there is on all the threads you “participate” in).

Good day to you and good luck to you in your trolling.

-ignore-

Actually, I feel sorry for Christians like Kenny, putting their their faith in Christ unnecessarily at risk by tying it to a dubious interpretation of Genesis. It must be very hard for them.

 

[VirOptimus]

I was at least hoping for an original cop out....oh, well.

Cop out? From what?

As you clearly are wholly ignorant about even the very basics of science (and theology) there is no point in debating you until you have educated yourself.

 

[Jimmy D]

DogmaHunter, Speedwell, JimmyD, US Incognito and others. Kenny'sID's posting behaviour is classic, provocative trolling. The First Rule of Internet Forums - Don't Feed the Troll. There is sufficient material on hand for the objective lurker to see what's going on. Your work is done. My blood pressure has settled since I put him on Ignore.

I had thought from the content of his posts that he was a teenager, turns out he’s a grown man of 63, embarrassing.

 

[xianghua]

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.

again: 95% of your commet is about me rather then about the evidence. so i will give you evidence against your claim. since we can find nested hierarchy among designed objects (image below)the fact that we can find the same hierarchy in nature doesnt prove evolution. very simple.

 

[xianghua]

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

incorrect. we can detect design in a watch for instance without watching the designer.

 

[pitabread]

since we can find nested hierarchy among designed objects (image below)

Have you already completely forgotten that when this claim was tested it doesn't actually happen?

I mean, c'mon, we spent dozens of pages discussing this and here you are pretending that entire discussion never happened.

 

[xianghua]

Oh OK. Well, we didn't see creation happen either. Guess that didn't happen. And my conception? Didn't see it, so it didn't happen.

no. we can detect design without watching it designed. we do that all the time when we walk on the street and see a car or a pc. we know that such complex system are the product of design. right? on the other hand: we cant prove that a banana and a dog are related.

 

[pitabread]

we do that all the time when we walk on the street and see a car or a pc. we know that such complex system are the product of design.

This is strictly due to pattern recognition. We're not actually "detecting design" so much as detecting patterns we recognize relative to their environment. However, even that pattern recognition is flawed given our ability to recognize familiar shapes (particularly faces) in things by pure coincidence. See the "face on Mars" as a prime example.

 

[xianghua]

First, your language is misleading. You say 'no creature can change into another different creature.' This is ambiguous as 'creature' usually means an individual not a species, or population.

Clearly individuals do not evolve. Species may evolve, but the fundamental unit of evolution is a population. But, that doesn't match what you say either.

The problem with discussing things with you is that you aren't putting forward a clear argument. Therefore I need to paraphrase out your error. However, that's difficult here as you are even more muddled than usual. I have no confidence that I understand what it is that you are trying to say

Do you mean to claim that a species cannot arise from a parent species by speciation? If not, what?

i just saying that we cant prove that a banana and a cat share a common descent. this is a belief.

2) evolution isnt scientific since we cant test it.

 

[pitabread]

2) evolution isnt scientific since we cant test it.

Like everything in science, evolution tested via forming hypotheses based on the underlying theory and then testing those hypotheses. In that sense, evolution can be tested.

But to understand how this works first requires understanding the scientific method and the theory of evolution.

 

[xianghua]

Have you already completely forgotten that when this claim was tested it doesn't actually happen?

Have you already completely forgotten that we found the same with living creatures?:

Bony Vertebrate Evolution: Elephant Sharks Closer To Humans Than Teleost Fish

Shark, human proteins are surprisingly similar | Cornell Chronicle

 

[xianghua]

This is strictly due to pattern recognition. We're not actually "detecting design" so much as detecting patterns we recognize relative to their environment. However, even that pattern recognition is flawed given our ability to recognize familiar shapes (particularly faces) in things by pure coincidence. See the "face on Mars" as a prime example.

so you cant detect design if you will see in your first time a flying saucer for instance?

 

[xianghua]

In that sense, evolution can be tested..

prove it. show us how we can falsify evolution.