Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Bungle_Bear]

@Kenny'sID, I'll consider taking on your challenge to "prove evolution". But first we need to agree terms of engagement. I've been watching your dance and evasions for quite a while now, and it's fairly clear that you are not being honest or truthful in your engagement with others. So, are you prepared to engage honestly with me, answer straightforward questions in a truthful manner and not prevaricate?

 

[Kenny'sID]

@Kenny'sID, I'll consider taking on your challenge to "prove evolution". But first we need to agree terms of engagement. I've been watching your dance and evasions for quite a while now, and it's fairly clear that you are not being honest or truthful in your engagement with others. So, are you prepared to engage honestly with me, answer straightforward questions in a truthful manner and not prevaricate?

Evade what?

I asked for proof evolution and that hasn't happened, I don't understand how that makes me an evader?

Due to your past attitude, I shouldn't even bother with you, however, I'll spend a bit of time on you and see how it goes, but I should add, your off to bad start on accusing me of evading anything.

So answer my question first and then show your proof of evolution. If you are keeping of with the actually reality here, and not your out there view, you would know my requirements. If this is headed down the road of taking forever to set up an "I win" scenario for me to agree with, before we even get to you proving evolution, don't bother...

 

[Jimmy D]

@Kenny'sID, I'll consider taking on your challenge to "prove evolution". But first we need to agree terms of engagement. I've been watching your dance and evasions for quite a while now, and it's fairly clear that you are not being honest or truthful in your engagement with others. So, are you prepared to engage honestly with me, answer straightforward questions in a truthful manner and not prevaricate?

Well, that went well.

 

[pitabread]

Considering Kenny'sID fights people even when it comes to how dictionaries work, there really isn't much hope of a reasonable discussion.

 

[xianghua]

Where's your Precambrian rabbit? How can you assert and complain that evidence for your position would be dismissed when you don't have any evidence to begin with? You don't have anything to complain about.

here is something similar:

Fossils push back snake origins by 65 million years

as you can see: we can even push back a creature by about 65 my. its like pushing back human to dinos age. so this is one example of "out of place" fossil. but as you can see: no problem for evolution.

All you have to do is find something like that, but in which 100+ base pairs in a row are identical. Until you can do that, your claims are entirely empty. I'm not even asking for an entire gene necessarily, just 100+ identical base pairs that couldn't feasibly be inherited by a common ancestor. The more distant the lineages, the better.

but this gene is indeed shared between far species but not in some species between them. so according to this we can never tell where is a case of convergence. we can always claim for convergent loss. see the problem?

 

[xianghua]

Yes, it is possible for life to diversify rapidly. But that's not the same thing as taking the entire 4+ billion year history of life on Earth and squishing it does to appearing at the beginning of Earth's history.

its actually the same thing. there where no much species before the cambrian. as far as i aware most species of creatures on earth evolved after the cambrian. means in a 500 my window we get most creatures on earth. so we only need to shrink it into 100-200my. i realy see no problem with that.

 

[PsychoSarah]

here is something similar:

Fossils push back snake origins by 65 million years

as you can see: we can even push back a creature by about 65 my. its like pushing back human to dinos age. so this is one example of "out of place" fossil. but as you can see: no problem for evolution.

The oldest known snakes from the Middle Jurassic-Lower Cretaceous provide insights on snake evolution
-_- it's not out of place; significance of the fossil is showing that when the snake lineage diverged from the lizard lineage that it is likely the first distinguishing trait to develop may have been the signature snake skull shape.

Snakes evolved from lizards, and the oldest lizard fossil found thus far is about 220 million years old. The high range for this fossil is 167 million years old, leaving 53 million years for snakes to diverge. Rabbits from the Precambrian would predate amphibians, which is completely out of order. This situation is not even similar, let alone the same.

but this gene is indeed shared between far species but not in some species between them. so according to this we can never tell where is a case of convergence. we can always claim for convergent loss. see the problem?

-_- convergent loss has the opposite effect of convergent gain of genes. It would lead people to mistakenly conclude lineages are LESS closely related to each other than they actually are. Furthermore, your argument is dependent upon genes being present, not absent. That is, you argue that the reason identical PRESENT sequences exist is that they could feasibly arise independently. Convergent loss cannot explain genes being PRESENT at all, only absent.

-_- I did not know it was possible for a person to shoot themselves in the foot so badly. Based on convergent loss being possible to you, you should think that chimps and humans could be MORE closely related than is actually thought, because the genes thought to be exclusive in those lineages actually could have been shared by both and just lost entirely in one lineage. Wow. Not that complete deletions of genes in separate lineages that are like the ALX3 genes are super common, given that each occurred many millions of years apart. Are we done with convergent loss now?

 

[pitabread]

its actually the same thing

No, no it's not. I'm not sure if you're claiming this because you aren't familiar with the history of life on Earth, or if you're just trying to make another false equivalence fallacy argument and were hoping I wouldn't notice.

there where no much species before the cambrian. as far as i aware most species of creatures on earth evolved after the cambrian. means in a 500 my window we get most creatures on earth. so we only need to shrink it into 100-200my. i realy see no problem with that.

Once again, there are two problems here:

1) This was never my original argument in the first place.
2) Evolutionary output is dependent on environmental conditions; you're talking about changing environmental conditions and expecting the exact same output. It doesn't work like that.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Evade what?

I asked for proof evolution and that hasn't happened, I don't understand how that makes me an evader?

Due to your past attitude, I shouldn't even bother with you, however, I'll spend a bit of time on you and see how it goes, but I should add, your off to bad start on accusing me of evading anything.

So answer my question first and then show your proof of evolution. If you are keeping of with the actually reality here, and not your out there view, you would know my requirements. If this is headed down the road of taking forever to set up an "I win" scenario for me to agree with, before we even get to you proving evolution, don't bother...

A simple "no" would have sufficed.

I asked if you'd engage honestly - you failed to do so. I asked if you'd answer straightforward questions - you have failed to do so. I asked you not to prevaricate - you prevaricated. What are you so afraid of that you cannot engage in an honest, truthful and straightforward manner?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I did have a hard time clarifying my question, so I kinda gave up on it (may still have to). I know how evolution is generally supposed to work so you don't have to give me a lecture on it, but I just have difficulty seeing, even in gradual increments (because at some point something would have to become more human-like than animal-like), how something would survive beyond that point. I know, the answer is it would happen very slowly. It's just hard for me to see an animal transitioning into a human-like form, even very slowly, and at some point having the more animal-like (however little difference there is) raise a more human-like successfully.

Still on this? I thought we were finally settled on it... The change in species is so marginal that what you would call the first human in our family tree would essentially be indistinguishable from its parents. There would never be such a thing as a nearly human looking ape giving birth to and looking after a nearly ape looking human baby - that's exactly what Didn't happen... -_-

You realize a lot of Creationists are going to agree with that statement.

Well, they'd be right - but right for the wrong reasons...

Proper terminology causes misunderstandings?

And where is that come from anyway? I though we were on scientific method?

Makes no difference at all to me if you care or not..if your proper terminology or scientific method or wherever you are at now is unreasonable, I'm not going to go with it, that simple. IOW if it's unreasonable it's ok, as long as it helps with the misunderstandings? You have GOT to be kidding.

You ought to work on your reading comprehension. Did you even read what was said, or are you deliberately misreading things to be argumentative and confrontational?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Still on this? I thought we were finally settled on it... The change in species is so marginal that what you would call the first human in our family tree would essentially be indistinguishable from its parents. There would never be such a thing as a nearly human looking ape giving birth to and looking after a nearly ape looking human baby - that's exactly what Didn't happen... -_-

Well, they'd be right - but right for the wrong reasons...

You ought to work on your reading comprehension. Did you even read what was said, or are you deliberately misreading things to be argumentative and confrontational?

You have turned an assumption into a fact, and a wrong fact at that, but you'll fit right in here as a defender of evolution.

Of course I read it, your crystal ball needs a tune up, or are you deliberately assuming things to be argumentative and confrontational?

You people are hilarious at times, accusing others of things you are doing right there in front of yourselves, and you don't even see it. Maybe that explains why I even bother...the laughs.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

You have turned an assumption into a fact, and a wrong fact at that, but you'll fit right in here as a defender of evolution.

Of course I read it, your crystal ball needs a tune up, or are you deliberately assuming things to be argumentative and confrontational?

You people are hilarious at times, accusing others of things you are doing right there in front of yourselves, and you don't even see it. Maybe that explains why I even bother...the laughs.

Righto, perhaps you can explain why you went on a rant about how silly it would be be that using proper terminology would cause misunderstandings when @pitabred actually said the exact opposite, and explained why?

I have to assume you're just trolling at this point...

 

[Snappy1]

Righto, perhaps you can explain why you went on a rant about how silly it would be be that using proper terminology would cause misunderstandings when @pitabred actually said the exact opposite, and explained why?

I have to assume you're just trolling at this point...

Lol at this point? Not weeks ago?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Righto, perhaps you can explain why you went on a rant about how silly it would be be that using proper terminology would cause misunderstandings when @pitabred actually said the exact opposite, and explained why?

I have to assume you're just trolling at this point...

Show me.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Show me.

Just to clarify, I don't care why you don't want to use proper terminology given the context of the discussion. My only point is that it leads to unnecessary misunderstanding, something which you have been complaining endlessly about.

Proper terminology causes misunderstandings?

And where is that come from anyway? I though we were on scientific method?

Makes no difference at all to me if you care or not..if your proper terminology or scientific method or wherever you are at now is unreasonable, I'm not going to go with it, that simple. IOW if it's unreasonable it's ok, as long as it helps with the misunderstandings? You have GOT to be kidding.

**Edited to include the "Rant" that @Kenny'sID claims in post#1217 wasn't there.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I asked if you'd engage honestly - you failed to do so.

What gave you that idea? You're the one that chooses not to engage and then lie and blame it on me, but no surprise there.

I asked if you'd answer straightforward questions - you have failed to do so.

What straightforward questions did you ask? As far as I know, the debate was never started.

I asked you not to prevaricate - you prevaricated.

How so, I said have at it, yet instead of doing so, you evade due to your lack of proof, by lying once again, and calling me evasive. How embarrassing for you to have to stoop to such levels. Sad.

What are you so afraid of that you cannot engage in an honest, truthful and straightforward manner?

I believe I said I was ready when you are. Looks to me like the "actual" honest truth is, you were afraid to start the debate and chose to go on about nothing instead as your preamble to a cop out...gee, I wonder why? lol You do know there are people reading every clear lie you tell here, right?

See how this poster took advantage of my giving him a one chance in spite of his past, and how he chose to blow it as a means to get out of the debate? Yeah, I know, hilarious.

Once again, and I mean no offense, but you people really need to get someone in here that won't embarrass your cause. This really is pitiful.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Where is the "rant"? Whee did I even suggest proper terminology was silly? You don't think I can see you dismissed the rest of that post about "context" the very thing you just tried to destroy? You people are now starting to see things that aren't there out of complete desperation...seriously sad.

Think I stick around for a little longer in order to see just how bad this get's, it's almost scary as it is.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What gave you that idea? You're the one that chooses not to engage and then lie and blame it on me, but no surprise there.

It would be very refreshing if, just once, you engaged in an honest manner. No dodging, no evasion, just a straightforward honest reply.

What straightforward questions did you ask? As far as I know, the debate was never started.

You were unable to give a straightforward answer to the question "Will you give a straightforward answer?" Seriously, it doesn't come much more straightforward than that.

How so, I said have at it, yet instead of doing so, you evade due to your lack of proof, by lying once again, and calling me evasive. How embarrassing for you to have to stoop to such levels. Sad.

What you actually said was (paraphrased) "Don't try to get me to engage in an honest manner because I don't do that."

I believe I said I was ready when you are. Looks to me like the "actual" honest truth is, you were afraid to start the debate and chose to go on about nothing instead as your preamble to a cop out...gee, I wonder why? lol You do know there are people reading every clear lie you tell here, right?

Perhaps you should reread your response. You'll find it says something more along the lines of "I know what you're going to say so don't bother."

See how this poster took advantage of my giving him a one chance in spite of his past, and how he chose to blow it as a means to get out of the debate? Yeah, I know, hilarious.

Once again, and I mean no offense, but you people really need to get someone in here that won't embarrass your cause. This really is pitiful.

Let me repeat myself. It would be very refreshing if you would engage in an honest and truthful manner just once. The forum rules ask Christians to represent Christianity in an honest, truthful and positive light. Why are you unable to do that?

 

[Kenny'sID]

It would be very refreshing if, just once, you engaged in an honest manner. No dodging, no evasion, just a straightforward honest reply.

You were unable to give a straightforward answer to the question "Will you give a straightforward answer?" Seriously, it doesn't come much more straightforward than that.

What you actually said was (paraphrased) "Don't try to get me to engage in an honest manner because I don't do that."


Perhaps you should reread your response. You'll find it says something more along the lines of "I know what you're going to say so don't bother."

Let me repeat myself. It would be very refreshing if you would engage in an honest and truthful manner just once. The forum rules ask Christians to represent Christianity in an honest, truthful and positive light. Why are you unable to do that just once?

You still haven't figured out your done here? Remember? you were going to prove evolution, then you chose not to, so why do you want to waste more of our time with waffling excuses?

Maybe you like doing this to yourself.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You still haven't figured out your done here? Remember? you were going to prove evolution, then you chose not to, so why do you want to waste more of our time with waffling excuses?

Maybe you like doing this to yourself.

Kenny, please answer "yes" or "no" to this simple question: hand on heart have you engaged honestly and truthfully?

Be aware that everyone who reads your response will understand exactly what it says about you.

ETA: Everyone will also understand what a failure to respond says about you.