[_ Old Earth _] Creationist vs evolutionist, whos the fool?

[Blazin Bones]

But didn't you even say Evolution consists of things more than Only Speciation, such as genetic shift, changing of the allele frequency, mutation. Now you say macroevolution is only speciation. I'm done argueing with you, you can't stick to a story.

 

[Asimov]

Okay, then why here are you claiming that it's evolution, not only speciation? Keebs, you can't have both.

Because Speciation IS evolution.

 

[keebs]

But didn't you even say Evolution consists of things more than Only Speciation, such as genetic shift, changing of the allele frequency, mutation. Now you say macroevolution is only speciation. I'm done argueing with you, you can't stick to a story.

No, I said speciation was macroevolution. You obviously don't understand the concepts of causality. Speciation is macroevolution, but the converse is not necessarily true. I have stuck to my story, the only reason you don't see it that way is because you can't comprehend (something you've shown repeatedly in your posts).

 

[Blazin Bones]

[quote="Brutus/HisCatalyst":0d4aa]
Okay, then why here are you claiming that it's evolution, not only speciation? Keebs, you can't have both.

Because Speciation IS evolution.[/quote:0d4aa]

Thank you for the clarification Tua.

 

[keebs]

But didn't you even say Evolution consists of things more than Only Speciation, such as genetic shift, changing of the allele frequency, mutation. Now you say macroevolution is only speciation.

Oh, and in order for speciation to occur, there must be mutations and the changing of allele frequencies and such anyways. And remember that Tua said that speciation is evolution, not evolution is speciation. Don't confuse them, as I know you will.

 

[Featherbop]

So they(scientists, evolutionary) make up with assumptions what they lack in observations. It is very unimmpressive. Humans are incompetent until they observe this. I would beleive in the common descent of all life from a single celled lifeform, but noone can show it to me. (or what have you, varies from person to person). A guess isn't significant, the evidence being highly capable of being circumstancial doesn't help either. :-?

Sorites Fallacy, by the same argument a poor man never becomes rich, no matter how many pennies you give him, because a penny doesn't change enough of his wealth to make him rich.

It follows logically that if speciation happens, enough speciation will lead to the branching of genuses. This is THE best explanation for the heirarchical nature of paleotaxonomy. Since the only issue you could possibly raise here is philosophical, then you cannot make a scientific assertion against evolution.

Next you'll argue that because you can't see the airplane in front of the contrail, there is no airplane and humans can't create flying machines.

Right, nice way to avoid saying what hasn't been observed. Half of your post is a product of you superiority complex as I see it. Let me simplify: Small changes do not prove that over millions of years these have let us say "accumulated" and produced a new creature. Especially if the original form of the life is uncomplex(kind of an oxymoron, but you know what I mean.). It is a guess, not one beyond a shadow of a dought a that. So, the guesses are still guesses, the evidence is still able to interpreted, the evolution claimed to have happened millions of years in process has still not been observed, and the evidence for important evolutionary ideas is still circumstancial. Well, you really didn't have to make my point for me, but thanks anyway.

 

[Asimov]

Right, nice way to avoid saying what hasn't been observed. Half of your post is a product of you superiority complex as I see it.

Marck, lay off the personal attacks.

Let me simplify: Small changes do not prove that over millions of years these have let us say "accumulated" and produced a new creature.

So then tell us, Marck...what exactly do small changes over millions of years prove?

Especially if the original form of the life is uncomplex(kind of an oxymoron, but you know what I mean.).

Well, tell me what you mean by complex.

And then tell me what explains the order of fossils found in the geological column.

It is a guess, not one beyond a shadow of a dought a that. So, the guesses are still guesses, the evidence is still able to interpreted, the evolution claimed to have happened millions of years in process has still not been observed, and the evidence for important evolutionary ideas is still circumstancial. Well, you really didn't have to make my point for me, but thanks anyway.

Marck, asking a biologist to prove that over millions of years, small changes result in larger changes, is like asking a geologist to prove how mountains form over millions of years.

It's not a guess, it's a theory based on the evidence collected. So far, Marck, you haven't done a very good job of offering a counter explanation as to the evidence that hasn't been falsified.

 

[Guest]

There's been enough information posted on here about what evolution really is, that no-one has any excuse for that kind of mistake. The only possibility is that Rmills is deliberately mis-representing evolution so that he can easily refute it.

That is a dis-honest tactic and, technically, bearing false witness...

8-) No he isn't! Crying like a big baby when you lose a debate is
not the way to score brownie points for your team.
rmills could tell you all about what you believe in and tell you why it's
silly all rolled into one. He is the one who makes the most sense on
this topic.

 

[Guest]

BTW...I could care less if whether or not you are "done with me," as the only thing you do is post inane theories of evolution, attack them, and say that since your misrepresentation of the theory of evolution is wrong then evolution is wrong.

: It's rude remarks like those you just made that make
people get fed up with you. It's almost like you just don't want to
believe anything else other than what you want to believe.
You don't even have any evidence to believe in it for.
Are you just here to try to make new converts to your
religion?

 

[Guest]

Evolution fits with Evolution, tautologically. I'm not sure you could actually make an argument that concludes that Evolution refutes itself unless you get into some pretty wonky logic, philosophy or the drawer in Soma-sight's nightstand.

8-) Don't you get it? your religion of evolution would have led
a trail that all could see by now if it were the truth. Fruitfly's don't
change,and mutations cause them great damage,and even kill them.
We do not know of any creature that has changed to another species
and for sure if they did,it would be on a large enough scale that it could
be viewed. You have got no evidence.
Evolution not only refutes itself,but all those that believe it too.
It's an insult to human intelligence!

 

[Guest]

: keebs he explained it to you in the easiest way possible.
You just don't understand it.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Evolution fits with Evolution, tautologically. I'm not sure you could actually make an argument that concludes that Evolution refutes itself unless you get into some pretty wonky logic, philosophy or the drawer in Soma-sight's nightstand.

8-) Don't you get it? your religion of evolution would have led
a trail that all could see by now if it were the truth. Fruitfly's don't
change,and mutations cause them great damage,and even kill them.
We do not know of any creature that has changed to another species
and for sure if they did,it would be on a large enough scale that it could
be viewed. You have got no evidence.
Evolution not only refutes itself,but all those that believe it too.
It's an insult to human intelligence!

How does evolution refute itself?

 

[Blazin Bones]

BTW...I could care less if whether or not you are "done with me," as the only thing you do is post inane theories of evolution, attack them, and say that since your misrepresentation of the theory of evolution is wrong then evolution is wrong.

: It's rude remarks like those you just made that make
people get fed up with you. It's almost like you just don't want to
believe anything else other than what you want to believe.
You don't even have any evidence to believe in it for.
Are you just here to try to make new converts to your
religion?

Not in his case Blue. In his case it's because he can't admit when he's wrong, and I'm nice enough not to beat a dead horse. :-D 8-)

 

[Asimov]

BTW...I could care less if whether or not you are "done with me," as the only thing you do is post inane theories of evolution, attack them, and say that since your misrepresentation of the theory of evolution is wrong then evolution is wrong.

: It's rude remarks like those you just made that make
people get fed up with you. It's almost like you just don't want to
believe anything else other than what you want to believe.
You don't even have any evidence to believe in it for.
Are you just here to try to make new converts to your
religion?

Not in his case Blue. In his case it's because he can't admit when he's wrong, and I'm nice enough not to beat a dead horse. :-D 8-)

Where was keebs wrong?

 

[Featherbop]

[quote="Darck Marck":c6c4b]
Right, nice way to avoid saying what hasn't been observed. Half of your post is a product of you superiority complex as I see it.

Marck, lay off the personal attacks.

Let me simplify: Small changes do not prove that over millions of years these have let us say "accumulated" and produced a new creature.

So then tell us, Marck...what exactly do small changes over millions of years prove?

Especially if the original form of the life is uncomplex(kind of an oxymoron, but you know what I mean.).

Well, tell me what you mean by complex.

And then tell me what explains the order of fossils found in the geological column.

It is a guess, not one beyond a shadow of a dought a that. So, the guesses are still guesses, the evidence is still able to interpreted, the evolution claimed to have happened millions of years in process has still not been observed, and the evidence for important evolutionary ideas is still circumstancial. Well, you really didn't have to make my point for me, but thanks anyway.

Marck, asking a biologist to prove that over millions of years, small changes result in larger changes, is like asking a geologist to prove how mountains form over millions of years.

It's not a guess, it's a theory based on the evidence collected. So far, Marck, you haven't done a very good job of offering a counter explanation as to the evidence that hasn't been falsified.[/quote:c6c4b]

I wasn't attacking Syntax, just expressing an indirect observation. Besides, Syntax is more of a personal attacker, and he also doesn't like opinions that disagree with his own, although it seems the people is who he doesn't like. See? You'd most like likely say this was an attack, but I am just making, and expressing an observation. Now on to business....

Small changes over millions of years doesn't prove anything really. First, I see no evidence of microevolution having occurred for that long, and second, it may just indicate that small changes happen over millions of years.....perhaps. Although.....the possibility that microevolution over millions of years equals macroevolution is well, a possiblity, but then you have the multiple evidence problems.

As for life's complexity, I could just give a definition or more right now, but I don't think it needs to be defined....I see it as pointless for you, and possibly an arguement starter, and.....I've no care to start arguing over definitions, always useless in the face of opinions, and well, then no dought we'll start calling definitions into question regarding their validity. So....I'm not going to do it.

One more thing, and nice dodge with that 'asking to have small changes over millions of years proven is like asking a geologist to prove how mountains form over millions of years.' Not my problem. You can make predictions, guesses, educated guesses, interpret the evidence, what have you, but it isn't good enough for me, it gives me nothing. Except guesses. And I don't care for that. Show me abiogenesis, the full process of common descent, macroevolution, and that is it, you win. If you can't do it, well, not my problem.

I also, do not neccisarily dought that the TOE is a theory based on collected evidence, but I do dought whether the evidence is interpreted correctly, whether the study is unbiased, if some of the evidence is real, if the predictions/guesses are correct, and if definitions are accurate, appropriate, and correct.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Tua, look for yourself, he couldn't stop flip flopping. That in it self is being wrong at least half the time.

 

[Asimov]

Marck, just some cross-exmaninatory questions.

1)How old do you think the earth is?

2)Do you not believe anything that can't be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt?

3)Do you accept the Theory of Relativities explanation for how gravity works?

4)What religion are you?

 

[Asimov]

Tua, look for yourself, he couldn't stop flip flopping. That in it self is being wrong at least half the time.

He didn't flip flop at all. You quoted him out of context to make him look bad.

Show me where is has been wrong once.

 

[Blazin Bones]

No I quoted his in context, saying one thing at one time and another thing at another time.

 

[Featherbop]

Marck, just some cross-exmaninatory questions.

1)How old do you think the earth is?

2)Do you not believe anything that can't be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt?

3)Do you accept the Theory of Relativities explanation for how gravity works?

4)What religion are you?

I won't answer anything now. I want to know your motives first, and then maybe I will answer your questions.