Total Posts:201|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Put on your party hats, creationists, you win

janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 12:17:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Now that "evolution" is only defined as "a change in gene frequencies in populations", and has nothing to do with one species changing into another, or descent from a common anscestor, it looks to me that even scientists are admitting there isn't enough evidence for these things to include them in the definition of evolution.

At least they are admitting it, if only indirectly.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 12:57:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 12:17:42 PM, janesix wrote:
Now that "evolution" is only defined as "a change in gene frequencies in populations", and has nothing to do with one species changing into another, or descent from a common anscestor, it looks to me that even scientists are admitting there isn't enough evidence for these things to include them in the definition of evolution.

At least they are admitting it, if only indirectly.

Oh, please. It's defined as a change in allele frequency which, over time and with enough changes, produces new species. No one it giving up on anything and creationism still doesn't have a leg to stand on. You should really quit trolling with such foolishness or people will stop talking to you.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 1:01:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 12:57:10 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 7/24/2015 12:17:42 PM, janesix wrote:
Now that "evolution" is only defined as "a change in gene frequencies in populations", and has nothing to do with one species changing into another, or descent from a common anscestor, it looks to me that even scientists are admitting there isn't enough evidence for these things to include them in the definition of evolution.

At least they are admitting it, if only indirectly.

Oh, please. It's defined as a change in allele frequency which, over time and with enough changes, produces new species. No one it giving up on anything and creationism still doesn't have a leg to stand on. You should really quit trolling with such foolishness or people will stop talking to you.

"with changes, produces new species" is only conjecture,and not part of the definition. Sorry. Obviously this is due to no proof of speciation. At least they are being honest now.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 1:07:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 1:01:18 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/24/2015 12:57:10 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 7/24/2015 12:17:42 PM, janesix wrote:
Now that "evolution" is only defined as "a change in gene frequencies in populations", and has nothing to do with one species changing into another, or descent from a common anscestor, it looks to me that even scientists are admitting there isn't enough evidence for these things to include them in the definition of evolution.

At least they are admitting it, if only indirectly.

Oh, please. It's defined as a change in allele frequency which, over time and with enough changes, produces new species. No one it giving up on anything and creationism still doesn't have a leg to stand on. You should really quit trolling with such foolishness or people will stop talking to you.


"with changes, produces new species" is only conjecture,and not part of the definition. Sorry. Obviously this is due to no proof of speciation. At least they are being honest now.

It's demonstrated in the existence of ring species, among other things. I don't get why you choose to ignore facts in favor of a children's tale.
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 1:42:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 12:17:42 PM, janesix wrote:
Now that "evolution" is only defined as "a change in gene frequencies in populations", and has nothing to do with one species changing into another, or descent from a common anscestor, it looks to me that even scientists are admitting there isn't enough evidence for these things to include them in the definition of evolution.

At least they are admitting it, if only indirectly.

please provide me a link and a science based source that says evolution is only what you say and not the cause and development of mankind. and everything else. you took a small slice out of context of the definition of evolution and claimed it was the whole ball of wax. troll post trying to get the hackles up on the science people i would guess. im not going to waste my time even discussing it with you. Evolution has been proved in every single test that has been thrown at it. every singe. every single. every single.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 1:49:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 1:42:57 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/24/2015 12:17:42 PM, janesix wrote:
Now that "evolution" is only defined as "a change in gene frequencies in populations", and has nothing to do with one species changing into another, or descent from a common anscestor, it looks to me that even scientists are admitting there isn't enough evidence for these things to include them in the definition of evolution.

At least they are admitting it, if only indirectly.

please provide me a link and a science based source that says evolution is only what you say and not the cause and development of mankind. and everything else. you took a small slice out of context of the definition of evolution and claimed it was the whole ball of wax. troll post trying to get the hackles up on the science people i would guess. im not going to waste my time even discussing it with you. Evolution has been proved in every single test that has been thrown at it. every singe. every single. every single.

I didn't give the definition, an evolutionist did.

Please give absolute scientific proof of speciation, or stop being a gullible fool.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 1:50:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 1:07:11 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 7/24/2015 1:01:18 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/24/2015 12:57:10 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 7/24/2015 12:17:42 PM, janesix wrote:
Now that "evolution" is only defined as "a change in gene frequencies in populations", and has nothing to do with one species changing into another, or descent from a common anscestor, it looks to me that even scientists are admitting there isn't enough evidence for these things to include them in the definition of evolution.

At least they are admitting it, if only indirectly.

Oh, please. It's defined as a change in allele frequency which, over time and with enough changes, produces new species. No one it giving up on anything and creationism still doesn't have a leg to stand on. You should really quit trolling with such foolishness or people will stop talking to you.


"with changes, produces new species" is only conjecture,and not part of the definition. Sorry. Obviously this is due to no proof of speciation. At least they are being honest now.

It's demonstrated in the existence of ring species, among other things. I don't get why you choose to ignore facts in favor of a children's tale.

That's pretty vague. Please give a link or source proving speciation.
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 1:58:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
By the same token, you probably believe it impossible for $1 to grow to $1,000,000 with a measly 1% interest rate. I, for one, have never witnessed this.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 1:59:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 12:17:42 PM, janesix wrote:
Now that "evolution" is only defined as "a change in gene frequencies in populations", and has nothing to do with one species changing into another, or descent from a common anscestor, it looks to me that even scientists are admitting there isn't enough evidence for these things to include them in the definition of evolution.

At least they are admitting it, if only indirectly.

Now that you understand what the term evolution means, in order to make that statement, you need to complete the steps required in order to logically derive "there is not enough evidence for speciation" from the premise "I now realize that evolution actually just means the change in genetic information in populations across generations". You're missing a few steps there.
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 2:00:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 1:49:19 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/24/2015 1:42:57 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/24/2015 12:17:42 PM, janesix wrote:
Now that "evolution" is only defined as "a change in gene frequencies in populations", and has nothing to do with one species changing into another, or descent from a common anscestor, it looks to me that even scientists are admitting there isn't enough evidence for these things to include them in the definition of evolution.

At least they are admitting it, if only indirectly.

please provide me a link and a science based source that says evolution is only what you say and not the cause and development of mankind. and everything else. you took a small slice out of context of the definition of evolution and claimed it was the whole ball of wax. troll post trying to get the hackles up on the science people i would guess. im not going to waste my time even discussing it with you. Evolution has been proved in every single test that has been thrown at it. every singe. every single. every single.

I didn't give the definition, an evolutionist did.

Please give absolute scientific proof of speciation, or stop being a gullible fool.

burden or proof on yo since you deny something that is accepted by 98% of all biologists and chemists and geneticists. your claim of no evolution os equal to claim of no electrons in atoms. burden or proof on you. dont switch tables. everybody who reads this knows who is right and that your trolling with no backup. Ha! Im new here. you win prize! first dick brain I met on DDO. thanks!
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 2:00:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 1:01:18 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/24/2015 12:57:10 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 7/24/2015 12:17:42 PM, janesix wrote:
Now that "evolution" is only defined as "a change in gene frequencies in populations", and has nothing to do with one species changing into another, or descent from a common anscestor, it looks to me that even scientists are admitting there isn't enough evidence for these things to include them in the definition of evolution.

At least they are admitting it, if only indirectly.

Oh, please. It's defined as a change in allele frequency which, over time and with enough changes, produces new species. No one it giving up on anything and creationism still doesn't have a leg to stand on. You should really quit trolling with such foolishness or people will stop talking to you.


"with changes, produces new species" is only conjecture,and not part of the definition. Sorry. Obviously this is due to no proof of speciation. At least they are being honest now.

By this logic, one cannot derive properties from definitions, which invalidates all of formal logic, doesn't it?
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 2:02:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I just want to express my opinion that Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive, and an even be complimentary.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 2:02:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 1:49:19 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/24/2015 1:42:57 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/24/2015 12:17:42 PM, janesix wrote:
Now that "evolution" is only defined as "a change in gene frequencies in populations", and has nothing to do with one species changing into another, or descent from a common anscestor, it looks to me that even scientists are admitting there isn't enough evidence for these things to include them in the definition of evolution.

At least they are admitting it, if only indirectly.

please provide me a link and a science based source that says evolution is only what you say and not the cause and development of mankind. and everything else. you took a small slice out of context of the definition of evolution and claimed it was the whole ball of wax. troll post trying to get the hackles up on the science people i would guess. im not going to waste my time even discussing it with you. Evolution has been proved in every single test that has been thrown at it. every singe. every single. every single.

I didn't give the definition, an evolutionist did.

Please give absolute scientific proof of speciation, or stop being a gullible fool.

Is this "absolute scientific proof" necessarily directly observable? Or does deductive reasoning qualify?
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 3:54:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 2:00:27 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/24/2015 1:49:19 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/24/2015 1:42:57 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/24/2015 12:17:42 PM, janesix wrote:
Now that "evolution" is only defined as "a change in gene frequencies in populations", and has nothing to do with one species changing into another, or descent from a common anscestor, it looks to me that even scientists are admitting there isn't enough evidence for these things to include them in the definition of evolution.

At least they are admitting it, if only indirectly.

please provide me a link and a science based source that says evolution is only what you say and not the cause and development of mankind. and everything else. you took a small slice out of context of the definition of evolution and claimed it was the whole ball of wax. troll post trying to get the hackles up on the science people i would guess. im not going to waste my time even discussing it with you. Evolution has been proved in every single test that has been thrown at it. every singe. every single. every single.

I didn't give the definition, an evolutionist did.

Please give absolute scientific proof of speciation, or stop being a gullible fool.

burden or proof on yo since you deny something that is accepted by 98% of all biologists and chemists and geneticists. your claim of no evolution os equal to claim of no electrons in atoms. burden or proof on you. dont switch tables. everybody who reads this knows who is right and that your trolling with no backup. Ha! Im new here. you win prize! first dick brain I met on DDO. thanks!

I don't recall claiming there is no evolution.

I recall claiming there is no substantial proof for it.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 3:55:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 2:02:48 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 7/24/2015 1:49:19 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/24/2015 1:42:57 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/24/2015 12:17:42 PM, janesix wrote:
Now that "evolution" is only defined as "a change in gene frequencies in populations", and has nothing to do with one species changing into another, or descent from a common anscestor, it looks to me that even scientists are admitting there isn't enough evidence for these things to include them in the definition of evolution.

At least they are admitting it, if only indirectly.

please provide me a link and a science based source that says evolution is only what you say and not the cause and development of mankind. and everything else. you took a small slice out of context of the definition of evolution and claimed it was the whole ball of wax. troll post trying to get the hackles up on the science people i would guess. im not going to waste my time even discussing it with you. Evolution has been proved in every single test that has been thrown at it. every singe. every single. every single.

I didn't give the definition, an evolutionist did.

Please give absolute scientific proof of speciation, or stop being a gullible fool.

Is this "absolute scientific proof" necessarily directly observable? Or does deductive reasoning qualify?

Yes, directly observable.
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 4:02:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 1:58:48 PM, Fly wrote:
By the same token, you probably believe it impossible for $1 to grow to $1,000,000 with a measly 1% interest rate. I, for one, have never witnessed this.

you never witnessed it, sir, because our lives are too short for it to be observed. But in enough time it could happen. Would happen. same with Evolution. Time is the key. three billion years of it! thats like, if you put that three billion years in a single 24-hour day and began it at last night midnight, mankind evolved at about two seconds before midnight tonight!! Wow. this--the time--is the one thing that most anti-evolution people dont get.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 4:06:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 1:59:05 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/24/2015 12:17:42 PM, janesix wrote:
Now that "evolution" is only defined as "a change in gene frequencies in populations", and has nothing to do with one species changing into another, or descent from a common anscestor, it looks to me that even scientists are admitting there isn't enough evidence for these things to include them in the definition of evolution.

At least they are admitting it, if only indirectly.

Now that you understand what the term evolution means, in order to make that statement, you need to complete the steps required in order to logically derive "there is not enough evidence for speciation" from the premise "I now realize that evolution actually just means the change in genetic information in populations across generations". You're missing a few steps there.

I didn't logically derive that there isn't enough evidence to prove speciation. I came to a conclusion based on lack of evidence of seeing speciation in the lab. You may draw a different conclusion based on what evidence there is.

I want to add I do think speciation occurs, that evolution is real, that we probably came from a common ancestor,and organisms evolve from one to another. But I don't think there is enough empirical evidence to prove it satisfactorily. I have my doubts when we've been doing experiments over thousands of generations of bacteria or flies etc, and have never had solid evidence of speciation in the lab. My guess is we just don't know how speciation works,and thus can't reproduce it.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 4:06:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 1:42:57 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/24/2015 12:17:42 PM, janesix wrote:
Now that "evolution" is only defined as "a change in gene frequencies in populations", and has nothing to do with one species changing into another, or descent from a common anscestor, it looks to me that even scientists are admitting there isn't enough evidence for these things to include them in the definition of evolution.

At least they are admitting it, if only indirectly.

please provide me a link and a science based source that says evolution is only what you say and not the cause and development of mankind. and everything else. you took a small slice out of context of the definition of evolution and claimed it was the whole ball of wax. troll post trying to get the hackles up on the science people i would guess. im not going to waste my time even discussing it with you. Evolution has been proved in every single test that has been thrown at it. every singe. every single. every single.

other than we only see neutral or negative mutations... oh and that we never actually see one species become another species...
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 4:07:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 2:02:45 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
I just want to express my opinion that Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive, and an even be complimentary.

Exactly my opinion. I believe God just chose Evolution as his mechanics. like if evolution, the process, with the genetics and the inheriting, is the hardware, that God is the software. He guides that very first genetic change and then leaves the process by. the atheists think that first gene development is a random mutation. I think that its what God puts in to begin the ball rolling, then he stands back and admires His handiwork!
I guess that is Intelligent Designe? so be it! this for me is easier to believe--that God guides it, than just it being random chance.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 4:08:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 4:06:36 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 7/24/2015 1:42:57 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/24/2015 12:17:42 PM, janesix wrote:
Now that "evolution" is only defined as "a change in gene frequencies in populations", and has nothing to do with one species changing into another, or descent from a common anscestor, it looks to me that even scientists are admitting there isn't enough evidence for these things to include them in the definition of evolution.

At least they are admitting it, if only indirectly.

please provide me a link and a science based source that says evolution is only what you say and not the cause and development of mankind. and everything else. you took a small slice out of context of the definition of evolution and claimed it was the whole ball of wax. troll post trying to get the hackles up on the science people i would guess. im not going to waste my time even discussing it with you. Evolution has been proved in every single test that has been thrown at it. every singe. every single. every single.

other than we only see neutral or negative mutations... oh and that we never actually see one species become another species...

we have transitional fossils that show how species evolved from one to another. Google it. "list of transitional fossils."
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
graceofgod
Posts: 5,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 4:09:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 4:02:45 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/24/2015 1:58:48 PM, Fly wrote:
By the same token, you probably believe it impossible for $1 to grow to $1,000,000 with a measly 1% interest rate. I, for one, have never witnessed this.

you never witnessed it, sir, because our lives are too short for it to be observed. But in enough time it could happen. Would happen. same with Evolution. Time is the key. three billion years of it! thats like, if you put that three billion years in a single 24-hour day and began it at last night midnight, mankind evolved at about two seconds before midnight tonight!! Wow. this--the time--is the one thing that most anti-evolution people dont get.

how long do we give evolution to prove itself.....
graceofgod
Posts: 5,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 4:10:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 4:08:24 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/24/2015 4:06:36 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 7/24/2015 1:42:57 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/24/2015 12:17:42 PM, janesix wrote:
Now that "evolution" is only defined as "a change in gene frequencies in populations", and has nothing to do with one species changing into another, or descent from a common anscestor, it looks to me that even scientists are admitting there isn't enough evidence for these things to include them in the definition of evolution.

At least they are admitting it, if only indirectly.

please provide me a link and a science based source that says evolution is only what you say and not the cause and development of mankind. and everything else. you took a small slice out of context of the definition of evolution and claimed it was the whole ball of wax. troll post trying to get the hackles up on the science people i would guess. im not going to waste my time even discussing it with you. Evolution has been proved in every single test that has been thrown at it. every singe. every single. every single.

other than we only see neutral or negative mutations... oh and that we never actually see one species become another species...

we have transitional fossils that show how species evolved from one to another. Google it. "list of transitional fossils."

lol why don't we ever see it, now.... the transitional fossils are so few and far between and arguably not even that...
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 4:19:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 4:02:45 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/24/2015 1:58:48 PM, Fly wrote:
By the same token, you probably believe it impossible for $1 to grow to $1,000,000 with a measly 1% interest rate. I, for one, have never witnessed this.

you never witnessed it, sir, because our lives are too short for it to be observed. But in enough time it could happen. Would happen. same with Evolution. Time is the key. three billion years of it! thats like, if you put that three billion years in a single 24-hour day and began it at last night midnight, mankind evolved at about two seconds before midnight tonight!! Wow. this--the time--is the one thing that most anti-evolution people dont get.

You don't seem to realize that my post was intended for janesix. You are "preaching to the choir" here, but thanks for spelling out my analogy for janesix's benefit!
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 4:23:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 1:58:48 PM, Fly wrote:
By the same token, you probably believe it impossible for $1 to grow to $1,000,000 with a measly 1% interest rate. I, for one, have never witnessed this.

A mathematical computation is completely different from deducing a theory based on evidence. Which, of course, I see nothing wrong with. My whole beef is the "new" definition of evolution some are insisting on. Evolution is evolution,and we all know what that entails.
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 4:25:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 4:19:50 PM, Fly wrote:
At 7/24/2015 4:02:45 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/24/2015 1:58:48 PM, Fly wrote:
By the same token, you probably believe it impossible for $1 to grow to $1,000,000 with a measly 1% interest rate. I, for one, have never witnessed this.

you never witnessed it, sir, because our lives are too short for it to be observed. But in enough time it could happen. Would happen. same with Evolution. Time is the key. three billion years of it! thats like, if you put that three billion years in a single 24-hour day and began it at last night midnight, mankind evolved at about two seconds before midnight tonight!! Wow. this--the time--is the one thing that most anti-evolution people dont get.

You don't seem to realize that my post was intended for janesix. You are "preaching to the choir" here, but thanks for spelling out my analogy for janesix's benefit!

whoops..sorry! we agree then.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 4:28:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 4:10:33 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 7/24/2015 4:08:24 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/24/2015 4:06:36 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 7/24/2015 1:42:57 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/24/2015 12:17:42 PM, janesix wrote:
Now that "evolution" is only defined as "a change in gene frequencies in populations", and has nothing to do with one species changing into another, or descent from a common anscestor, it looks to me that even scientists are admitting there isn't enough evidence for these things to include them in the definition of evolution.

At least they are admitting it, if only indirectly.

please provide me a link and a science based source that says evolution is only what you say and not the cause and development of mankind. and everything else. you took a small slice out of context of the definition of evolution and claimed it was the whole ball of wax. troll post trying to get the hackles up on the science people i would guess. im not going to waste my time even discussing it with you. Evolution has been proved in every single test that has been thrown at it. every singe. every single. every single.

other than we only see neutral or negative mutations... oh and that we never actually see one species become another species...

we have transitional fossils that show how species evolved from one to another. Google it. "list of transitional fossils."

lol why don't we ever see it, now.... the transitional fossils are so few and far between and arguably not even that...

you obviously didnt even google the list for trans fossils if you say that. so if you are one of those anti-evolutionists who sticks his head in the sand on facts and evidence Im going to respectfully decline discussing it any more with you. you people are too frustrating!

https://en.wikipedia.org...
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 4:28:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 1:59:05 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/24/2015 12:17:42 PM, janesix wrote:
Now that "evolution" is only defined as "a change in gene frequencies in populations", and has nothing to do with one species changing into another, or descent from a common ancestor
You're missing a few steps there.

Like any grandiose paranoid claim. :)
graceofgod
Posts: 5,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 4:32:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 4:28:17 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/24/2015 4:10:33 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 7/24/2015 4:08:24 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/24/2015 4:06:36 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 7/24/2015 1:42:57 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/24/2015 12:17:42 PM, janesix wrote:
Now that "evolution" is only defined as "a change in gene frequencies in populations", and has nothing to do with one species changing into another, or descent from a common anscestor, it looks to me that even scientists are admitting there isn't enough evidence for these things to include them in the definition of evolution.

At least they are admitting it, if only indirectly.

please provide me a link and a science based source that says evolution is only what you say and not the cause and development of mankind. and everything else. you took a small slice out of context of the definition of evolution and claimed it was the whole ball of wax. troll post trying to get the hackles up on the science people i would guess. im not going to waste my time even discussing it with you. Evolution has been proved in every single test that has been thrown at it. every singe. every single. every single.

other than we only see neutral or negative mutations... oh and that we never actually see one species become another species...

we have transitional fossils that show how species evolved from one to another. Google it. "list of transitional fossils."

lol why don't we ever see it, now.... the transitional fossils are so few and far between and arguably not even that...

you obviously didnt even google the list for trans fossils if you say that. so if you are one of those anti-evolutionists who sticks his head in the sand on facts and evidence Im going to respectfully decline discussing it any more with you. you people are too frustrating!

https://en.wikipedia.org...

I know all about the transitional fossils, they are few and far between and prove nothing...

why don't we see species now having changed or in a state of change....

why do we only see change within a species as if the parameters of a species are set...?

even the fossil record is so woefully inadequate the idea of punctuated equilibrium was added to make it more acceptable...
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 4:33:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 4:23:06 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/24/2015 1:58:48 PM, Fly wrote:
By the same token, you probably believe it impossible for $1 to grow to $1,000,000 with a measly 1% interest rate. I, for one, have never witnessed this.

A mathematical computation is completely different from deducing a theory based on evidence. Which, of course, I see nothing wrong with. My whole beef is the "new" definition of evolution some are insisting on. Evolution is evolution,and we all know what that entails.

It was merely an analogy I made to illustrate the fallacy of an appeal to incredulity on this topic.

I'm not sure who is "insisting upon a new definition of evolution," but it seems merely to be a more easily digestible (for the incredulous) version of the "old definition." Just like it is easier to digest that $1 becomes $1.01 after a year than it is to digest that it becomes $1 million after x many years...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
AliAdnan
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 4:37:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hi guys, I found one funny youtube video about evolution linked with atheism. (https://www.youtube.com...)
Materialism is an identity crisis.

Palestine will be free.