Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Best Evolution Debates on DDO

Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 12:41:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Do you like evolution? What do find interesting about it? What kind of evolution do you believe? Or which way do you believe it? I ask because I would like to debate it but want to find a interested opponent and get some understand of our interpretations of it.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 10:56:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 12:41:46 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
Do you like evolution? What do find interesting about it? What kind of evolution do you believe? Or which way do you believe it? I ask because I would like to debate it but want to find a interested opponent and get some understand of our interpretations of it.

The fact that it's fact.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Brain_crazy
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 12:33:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 8:00:44 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What are some of the best evolution debates on this site?

Best? There are good ones..?
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 4:59:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 12:33:44 PM, Brain_crazy wrote:
At 10/2/2012 8:00:44 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What are some of the best evolution debates on this site?

Best? There are good ones..?

Yeah, WriterDave had a good one:
http://www.debate.org...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 5:25:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 10:56:43 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/5/2012 12:41:46 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
Do you like evolution? What do find interesting about it? What kind of evolution do you believe? Or which way do you believe it? I ask because I would like to debate it but want to find a interested opponent and get some understand of our interpretations of it.

The fact that it's fact.
Is it really? Please elaborate.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 5:27:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 5:25:13 PM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
At 10/5/2012 10:56:43 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/5/2012 12:41:46 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
Do you like evolution? What do find interesting about it? What kind of evolution do you believe? Or which way do you believe it? I ask because I would like to debate it but want to find a interested opponent and get some understand of our interpretations of it.

The fact that it's fact.
Is it really? Please elaborate.

Just the thousands of examples of it happening all over the world, the extensive fossil record, the fact that the evidence is so overwhelming that 99.98% of scientists accept it, and that it is completely logical. No biggie.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 5:35:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 5:27:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/5/2012 5:25:13 PM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
At 10/5/2012 10:56:43 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/5/2012 12:41:46 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
Do you like evolution? What do find interesting about it? What kind of evolution do you believe? Or which way do you believe it? I ask because I would like to debate it but want to find a interested opponent and get some understand of our interpretations of it.

The fact that it's fact.
Is it really? Please elaborate.

Just the thousands of examples of it happening all over the world, the extensive fossil record, the fact that the evidence is so overwhelming that 99.98% of scientists accept it, and that it is completely logical. No biggie.:

Thousands of examples! Which are you refering? Shouldn't there be millions? The extensive fossil record? Where are all those transitional fossils? Heck, where is the transitions today? Completely logical? Who's logic? If it is so logical then explain how spontaneous generation occured? Meaning how did dead chemicals bring forth life? If this is not a assmuption show where and when this has happened other than the beginning of life explained by evolutionary processes. If this happened once then it can again and why has it not? In the tree of life designed by evolutionary scientist, were are the missing transitional forms in those tree's? How to do connect the viruses, bacteria, planets and animals are all realted without the missing links? If fish gave rise to amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles and reptiles to birds and then mammals, well where are the mixed boned and cold & hot blooded intermediated species at? This brings the question why haven't humans added more chromesomes or matter fact any species? I guess our future, if evolution be true, is the human becoming a fern who has over 400 chromosomes. Why is it that amphibians, who evolved before mammals, have 5 times more DNA than mammals and some amoebae have 1000 times more DNA? The significant finding is that it is impossible to arrange amino acid sequences for any evolutionary series. There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available a century ago that the idea of organic evolution would have never been accepted. All living things make proteins from the same 20 kinds of amino acids. Explain how this fact supports the idea that all life shares a common ancestor? Explain why educational book's still hold descriptions that long outdated and proven false?

Must be easy to answer since it is so logical and a fact.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 5:53:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 5:35:40 PM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
At 10/5/2012 5:27:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/5/2012 5:25:13 PM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
At 10/5/2012 10:56:43 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/5/2012 12:41:46 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
Do you like evolution? What do find interesting about it? What kind of evolution do you believe? Or which way do you believe it? I ask because I would like to debate it but want to find a interested opponent and get some understand of our interpretations of it.

The fact that it's fact.
Is it really? Please elaborate.

Just the thousands of examples of it happening all over the world, the extensive fossil record, the fact that the evidence is so overwhelming that 99.98% of scientists accept it, and that it is completely logical. No biggie.:

Thousands of examples! Which are you refering? Shouldn't there be millions?

Arbitrary quantity is arbitrary. Humans have found many examples of evolution, but there are billions that are there and will never be able to be found because they are so old. Just for a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The extensive fossil record? Where are all those transitional fossils?

Transitional fossils doesn't really exist in the way that you are talking about because there is no single point that an individual changes into a new species. Evolution is a gradient, and asking for transitional fossils is fallacious.

Nevertheless, here is one of the biggest Wikipedia entries, which is incidentally on transitional fossils:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Heck, where is the transitions today? Completely logical? Who's logic?

Logic is constant.

If it is so logical then explain how spontaneous generation occured? Meaning how did dead chemicals bring forth life?

Nothing to do with evolution; that is abiogenisis, which a different topic. Rookie creationist mistake.

If this is not a assmuption show where and when this has happened other than the beginning of life explained by evolutionary processes. If this happened once then it can again and why has it not?

Refer to the video.

Scientists have recreated basic abiogenisis.

http://videosift.com...

In the tree of life designed by evolutionary scientist, were are the missing transitional forms in those tree's?

By that logic, every new mutation should have a new species. Species is defined as a group of organisms that can reproduce with each other. Although it is a gradient, there comes a time when the newly evolved organisms cannot reproduce with the old ones- this is when a new species is "formed" ("species" is a man-made distinction).Anything in between is still part of the previous species.

How to do connect the viruses, bacteria, planets and animals are all realted without the missing links?

Lol wut?

If fish gave rise to amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles and reptiles to birds and then mammals, well where are the mixed boned and cold & hot blooded intermediated species at?

Dumb dumb.... how would an animal be both cold and hot blooded?

This brings the question why haven't humans added more chromesomes or matter fact any species?

Any species? Humans have 46. Adders-tonge has 1440 chromosomes. Carp have 104. The list goes on and on...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I guess our future, if evolution be true, is the human becoming a fern who has over 400 chromosomes.

Lol wut? This is totally non sequitur.

Why is it that amphibians, who evolved before mammals, have 5 times more DNA than mammals and some amoebae have 1000 times more DNA?

Amount of DNA is not reflective of evolutionary success.... lol

The significant finding is that it is impossible to arrange amino acid sequences for any evolutionary series.

Have you heard of the Miller-Urey experiment?

There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available a century ago that the idea of organic evolution would have never been accepted.

Ironic thing is that evolution is more accepted now, with this supposed "evidence," then it was without it.

All living things make proteins from the same 20 kinds of amino acids. Explain how this fact supports the idea that all life shares a common ancestor?

That doesn't. But the remarkable genetic similarity between all organisms does. For example, the human shares 50% of its genes with yeast.

Explain why educational book's still hold descriptions that long outdated and proven false?

Loaded question.

Must be easy to answer since it is so logical and a fact.

Very easy.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 3:07:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 10:56:43 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

Arbitrary quantity is arbitrary. Humans have found many examples of evolution, but there are billions that are there and will never be able to be found because they are so old. Just for a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org......:
Do you mean that scientist have exercised according to their own will and therefore are conveying a notion of a tendency to abuse the possession of their power and rank? So biome and formation of a ecosystem are conclusive examples of evoltuion? Also, doesn't saying they are there and not able to be found, one big assumption? You still did not provide those examples.

Transitional fossils doesn't really exist in the way that you are talking about because there is no single point that an individual changes into a new species. Evolution is a gradient, and asking for transitional fossils is fallacious.:

Nevertheless, here is one of the biggest Wikipedia entries, which is incidentally on transitional fossils:

http://en.wikipedia.org......:
Really? There is no point that one species did not change into a whole new species? Just how is asking to know of and see the fossil's of species supposive between each species fallacious? That sounds like just take it and shut up! I understand that this is a gradual process. That is even more the reason and likeliness that there would be many to choose from but there isn't.

Logic is constant.:
Logic only concerns itself only with features that possess their logical structures or forms. The logical form is determined by its syntactic or semantic structure.:

Nothing to do with evolution; that is abiogenisis, which a different topic. Rookie creationist mistake.:
Ok, how did life form and begin if not bio-genesis to cause evolution?

If this is not a assmuption show where and when this has happened other than the beginning of life explained by evolutionary processes. If this happened once then it can again and why has it not?:

Refer to the video.:

Scientists have recreated basic abiogenisis.:

http://videosift.com......:
Basic's are not the same as accomplished. How can abiogenesis be a recreated if no one knows how it happened?

By that logic, every new mutation should have a new species. Species is defined as a group of organisms that can reproduce with each other. Although it is a gradient, there comes a time when the newly evolved organisms cannot reproduce with the old ones- this is when a new species is "formed" ("species" is a man-made distinction).Anything in between is still part of the previous species.:

Most mustations destroy instead of improve. This definition maybe adequate for you, but there is a major difficulty of defining species and that is known as the species problem.

How to do connect the viruses, bacteria, planets and animals are all realted without the missing links?:

Lol wut?:
I meant, how can you even begin to connect the relation of lifeforms, without assuming, if you do not have the missing links between each?

Dumb dumb.... how would an animal be both cold and hot blooded?:
Please refrain from personnel attacks and focus on the topic at hand. You know very well that their are hot-blooded and cold-blooded animals that are supposed to be linked in the evolutionary process. How did they change from hot to cold? The vast majority of mammals and birds are warm-blooded, and almost all reptiles, fish, insects, amphibians and arachnids are cold-blooded. There are some exceptions, however, and some animals that have characteristics of both types. For example, bats and mole rats are mammals, but their body temperatures can vary according to their environments, especially when they are not active. Certain insects, such as hawk moths and some bees, can raise their body temperatures by beating their wings. Some fish have internal mechanisms that help keep their brains and eyes from becoming too cold, which might impair their function. How can this be?
Any species? Humans have 46. Adders-tonge has 1440 chromosomes. Carp have 104. The list goes on and on...:

http://en.wikipedia.org......:
Exzactly my point. How are we improving and evolving for the fittest if we are dropping Dna and chromosomes? How are species adding and deducting Dna?

Lol wut? This is totally non sequitur.:
Say over time, a certain mutation is formed, and maintained in the gene pool. Over time, more and more mutations are formed, and some of these might prove to give the organism a better fit. All the while adding Dna. So, again how do higher forms of evolution as ourselves have far less than lesser forms?

Amount of DNA is not reflective of evolutionary success.... lol:
Well, we haven't got into the formation of Dna and that explanation yet.
The significant finding is that it is impossible to arrange amino acid sequences for any evolutionary series.:

Have you heard of the Miller-Urey experiment?:
Who hasn't? This experiment is the only evidence that evolutionists have with which to allegedly prove the "chemical evolution thesis", they advance it as the first stage of the supposed evolutionary process leading to life. Although nearly half a century has passed, and great technological advances have been made, nobody has made any further progress. In spite of this, Miller's experiment is still taught in textbooks as the evolutionary explanation of the earliest generation of living things. That is because, aware of the fact that such studies do not support, but rather actually refute, their thesis.

Ironic thing is that evolution is more accepted now, with this supposed "evidence," then it was without it.:
Yes, it has been taught for a century with lacking evidence and outdated fiction. It is still to this very day and you holding that defense along with 98% of scientist show the damage that has been done.

That doesn't. But the remarkable genetic similarity between all organisms does. For example, the human shares 50% of its genes with yeast.:
So, similarities can be explained just as well by intelligent design, pointing to a single designer. If similarity is evidence for evolution, then dissimilarity should be an argument against, and there are many dissimilarities between organisms.

Loaded question.:
Ok, how can evolution claim any kind of validation when most of the examples of missing links have been shown false? These false showings were taught for decades even though they were shown false. Do you not concede that this show's the ability to be fraudulent?

Very easy.:
Hold your horses! You ARE far from answering yet!
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 7:03:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 6:57:18 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
LK, you need to do more evolution debates.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Brain_crazy
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 12:37:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 4:59:55 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 10/5/2012 12:33:44 PM, Brain_crazy wrote:
At 10/2/2012 8:00:44 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What are some of the best evolution debates on this site?

Best? There are good ones..?

Yeah, WriterDave had a good one:
http://www.debate.org...

I guess it depends on what you mean by good lol
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 11:49:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is one of the best I have seen. Pro's case was good; the same can't be said for the debate as a whole, due to Con's lack of substance and logos. http://www.debate.org...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 2:22:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well...let"s see. http://www.debate.org... (Win by Con)
http://www.debate.org... (Pro did not put in an appearance)
http://www.debate.org... (A very good debate)
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 2:30:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 2:22:36 AM, Muted wrote:
Well...let"s see. http://www.debate.org... (Win by Con)
http://www.debate.org... (Pro did not put in an appearance)
http://www.debate.org... (A very good debate)

You think of the best evolution debates included a forfeit?
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 2:49:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 2:30:59 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/23/2012 2:22:36 AM, Muted wrote:
Well...let"s see. http://www.debate.org... (Win by Con)
http://www.debate.org... (Pro did not put in an appearance)
http://www.debate.org... (A very good debate)

You think of the best evolution debates included a forfeit?

1. WSA did not provide a criteria.
2. Would you rather have AA"s glue argument?
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 3:03:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 2:22:36 AM, Muted wrote:
http://www.debate.org... (A very good debate)
;)

These 2 were good
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 5:51:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Kleptin used to debate it all the time. He even devil's advocated and argued for intelligent design on one.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 10:08:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/5/2012 10:56:43 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/5/2012 12:41:46 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
Do you like evolution? What do find interesting about it? What kind of evolution do you believe? Or which way do you believe it? I ask because I would like to debate it but want to find a interested opponent and get some understand of our interpretations of it.

The fact that it's fact.

The Fool: Our Cream of the Crop..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 10:13:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/5/2012 5:35:40 PM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
At 10/5/2012 5:27:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/5/2012 5:25:13 PM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
At 10/5/2012 10:56:43 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/5/2012 12:41:46 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
Do you like evolution? What do find interesting about it? What kind of evolution do you believe? Or which way do you believe it? I ask because I would like to debate it but want to find a interested opponent and get some understand of our interpretations of it.

The fact that it's fact.
Is it really? Please elaborate.

Just the thousands of examples of it happening all over the world, the extensive fossil record, the fact that the evidence is so overwhelming that 99.98% of scientists accept it, and that it is completely logical. No biggie.:

Thousands of examples! Which are you refering?

The Fool: This is not a university.

Shouldn't there be millions? The extensive fossil record? Where are all those transitional fossils? Heck, where is the transitions today? Completely logical? Who's logic? If it is so logical then explain how spontaneous generation occured? Meaning how did dead chemicals bring forth life? If this is not a assmuption show where and when this has happened other than the beginning of life explained by evolutionary processes. If this happened once then it can again and why has it not? In the tree of life designed by evolutionary scientist, were are the missing transitional forms in those tree's? How to do connect the viruses, bacteria, planets and animals are all realted without the missing links? If fish gave rise to amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles and reptiles to birds and then mammals, well where are the mixed boned and cold & hot blooded intermediated species at? This brings the question why haven't humans added more chromesomes or matter fact any species? I guess our future, if evolution be true, is the human becoming a fern who has over 400 chromosomes. Why is it that amphibians, who evolved before mammals, have 5 times more DNA than mammals and some amoebae have 1000 times more DNA? The significant finding is that it is impossible to arrange amino acid sequences for any evolutionary series. There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available a century ago that the idea of organic evolution would have never been accepted. All living things make proteins from the same 20 kinds of amino acids. Explain how this fact supports the idea that all life shares a common ancestor? Explain why educational book's still hold descriptions that long outdated and proven false?

Must be easy to answer since it is so logical and a fact.

The Fool: Knowledge comes with time. Why are you do in a rush? there are many things we will not know and our children will continue to progress, forward, into backwards spinning.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 12:50:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/5/2012 5:53:03 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/5/2012 5:35:40 PM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
At 10/5/2012 5:27:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/5/2012 5:25:13 PM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
At 10/5/2012 10:56:43 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/5/2012 12:41:46 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
Do you like evolution? What do find interesting about it? What kind of evolution do you believe? Or which way do you believe it? I ask because I would like to debate it but want to find a interested opponent and get some understand of our interpretations of it.

The fact that it's fact.
Is it really? Please elaborate.

Just the thousands of examples of it happening all over the world, the extensive fossil record, the fact that the evidence is so overwhelming that 99.98% of scientists accept it, and that it is completely logical. No biggie.:

Thousands of examples! Which are you refering? Shouldn't there be millions?

Arbitrary quantity is arbitrary. Humans have found many examples of evolution, but there are billions that are there and will never be able to be found because they are so old. Just for a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The extensive fossil record? Where are all those transitional fossils?

Transitional fossils doesn't really exist in the way that you are talking about because there is no single point that an individual changes into a new species. Evolution is a gradient, and asking for transitional fossils is fallacious.

A member of a new species must be born, right?? So that means that he has to born as a member of the new species, from parents who were the old species. How else do you propose that the process plays out if there is no individual who is the first?? This makes no sense and you cannot have a change in species if you deny the process.

Nevertheless, here is one of the biggest Wikipedia entries, which is incidentally on transitional fossils:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Heck, where is the transitions today? Completely logical? Who's logic?

Logic is constant.

If it is so logical then explain how spontaneous generation occured? Meaning how did dead chemicals bring forth life?

Nothing to do with evolution; that is abiogenisis, which a different topic. Rookie creationist mistake.


If this is not a assmuption show where and when this has happened other than the beginning of life explained by evolutionary processes. If this happened once then it can again and why has it not?

Refer to the video.

Scientists have recreated basic abiogenisis.

http://videosift.com...

In the tree of life designed by evolutionary scientist, were are the missing transitional forms in those tree's?

By that logic, every new mutation should have a new species. Species is defined as a group of organisms that can reproduce with each other. Although it is a gradient, there comes a time when the newly evolved organisms cannot reproduce with the old ones- this is when a new species is "formed" ("species" is a man-made distinction).Anything in between is still part of the previous species.

How to do connect the viruses, bacteria, planets and animals are all realted without the missing links?

Lol wut?

If fish gave rise to amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles and reptiles to birds and then mammals, well where are the mixed boned and cold & hot blooded intermediated species at?

Dumb dumb.... how would an animal be both cold and hot blooded?

This brings the question why haven't humans added more chromesomes or matter fact any species?

Any species? Humans have 46. Adders-tonge has 1440 chromosomes. Carp have 104. The list goes on and on...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I guess our future, if evolution be true, is the human becoming a fern who has over 400 chromosomes.

Lol wut? This is totally non sequitur.

Why is it that amphibians, who evolved before mammals, have 5 times more DNA than mammals and some amoebae have 1000 times more DNA?

Amount of DNA is not reflective of evolutionary success.... lol

The significant finding is that it is impossible to arrange amino acid sequences for any evolutionary series.

Have you heard of the Miller-Urey experiment?

There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available a century ago that the idea of organic evolution would have never been accepted.

Ironic thing is that evolution is more accepted now, with this supposed "evidence," then it was without it.

All living things make proteins from the same 20 kinds of amino acids. Explain how this fact supports the idea that all life shares a common ancestor?

That doesn't. But the remarkable genetic similarity between all organisms does. For example, the human shares 50% of its genes with yeast.

Explain why educational book's still hold descriptions that long outdated and proven false?

Loaded question.

Must be easy to answer since it is so logical and a fact.

Very easy.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 1:55:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/5/2012 5:53:03 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

Nothing to do with evolution; that is abiogenisis, which a different topic. Rookie creationist mistake.

This is a deceptive evolutionist tactic to get around having to support part of his theory. You cannot posit Darwinist common descent as taught in the schools and textbooks without accounting for the beginning organism. Pretending that the two have nothing to do with each other is a lie.

If this is not a assmuption show where and when this has happened other than the beginning of life explained by evolutionary processes. If this happened once then it can again and why has it not?

Refer to the video.

Scientists have recreated basic abiogenisis.

http://videosift.com...

Assuming we were all gullible enough to be persuaded by Tedsalon's powerpoint science, you've just shown that intelligence is required to produce life from non-living materials. Debate's over, we win...lol

In the tree of life designed by evolutionary scientist, were are the missing transitional forms in those tree's?

By that logic, every new mutation should have a new species. Species is defined as a group of organisms that can reproduce with each other. Although it is a gradient, there comes a time when the newly evolved organisms cannot reproduce with the old ones- this is when a new species is "formed" ("species" is a man-made distinction).Anything in between is still part of the previous species.

How to do connect the viruses, bacteria, planets and animals are all realted without the missing links?

Lol wut?

If fish gave rise to amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles and reptiles to birds and then mammals, well where are the mixed boned and cold & hot blooded intermediated species at?

Dumb dumb.... how would an animal be both cold and hot blooded?

This brings the question why haven't humans added more chromesomes or matter fact any species?

Any species? Humans have 46. Adders-tonge has 1440 chromosomes. Carp have 104. The list goes on and on...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I guess our future, if evolution be true, is the human becoming a fern who has over 400 chromosomes.

Lol wut? This is totally non sequitur.

Why is it that amphibians, who evolved before mammals, have 5 times more DNA than mammals and some amoebae have 1000 times more DNA?

Amount of DNA is not reflective of evolutionary success.... lol

The significant finding is that it is impossible to arrange amino acid sequences for any evolutionary series.

Have you heard of the Miller-Urey experiment?

The one that avoided the use of oxygen even though there had to be oxygen to form water molecules?? The one that protected the 2 amino acids that it was able to form, even though they wouldn't have been protected in the actual environment they would had to have formed in?? The one that resulted in 98% of what they ended up with being tar and carboxylic acid, both toxic to the other 2%, had they not isolated and protected that 2%?? That Miller-Urey experiment??

There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available a century ago that the idea of organic evolution would have never been accepted.

Ironic thing is that evolution is more accepted now, with this supposed "evidence," then it was without it.

Because to most people it is irrelevant, so they don't bother to look into it. Those who do question it are treated like retards and that has a cooling effect, just as bullying and intimidation always does. There are alot more people out there who question it than you think, but not many are willing to come out and argue against it.

All living things make proteins from the same 20 kinds of amino acids. Explain how this fact supports the idea that all life shares a common ancestor?

That doesn't. But the remarkable genetic similarity between all organisms does. For example, the human shares 50% of its genes with yeast.

Common sense tells you that an intelligent and efficient designer would re-use what works over and over again instead of re-inventing the wheel each time it's needed. So again how does that prove that life created itself from a rock, and designed a way to evolve into all the variety that we now see??

Explain why educational book's still hold descriptions that long outdated and proven false?

Loaded question.

Meaning you don't have an answer.

Must be easy to answer since it is so logical and a fact.

Very easy.

Can't tell that by your answers.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 2:05:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/9/2012 7:03:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/9/2012 6:57:18 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
LK, you need to do more evolution debates.



This clown is typical of evolutionary scientists, they already have their mind made up and will co-opt the evidence to fit their theory no matter what that evidence is. Heck of a scientist and a role model ya got there.

I thought scientists were suppose to remain impartial and follow the facts??
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 3:18:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 2:05:10 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/9/2012 7:03:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/9/2012 6:57:18 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
LK, you need to do more evolution debates.



This clown is typical of evolutionary scientists, they already have their mind made up and will co-opt the evidence to fit their theory no matter what that evidence is. Heck of a scientist and a role model ya got there.

I thought scientists were suppose to remain impartial and follow the facts??

Yeah, they've also been real hard on those flat earthers too. Prejudice, I tell you!
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 10:59:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 1:55:59 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/5/2012 5:53:03 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

Nothing to do with evolution; that is abiogenisis, which a different topic. Rookie creationist mistake.

This is a deceptive evolutionist tactic to get around having to support part of his theory. You cannot posit Darwinist common descent as taught in the schools and textbooks without accounting for the beginning organism. Pretending that the two have nothing to do with each other is a lie.

Actually, yes, we can. If God created the first single celled organism, that evolved and diversified into the current range of species we know today, evolutionary biology and common descent would still be true despite the fact that natural Abiogenesis was false.

It is a blatant lie to claim that Evolution must necessarily be tied with Abiogenesis in order to work. Clearly, as i have stated above, it is possible.

I mean, seriously, what do you think a theistic evolutionist is, like Francis Collins?

The one that avoided the use of oxygen even though there had to be oxygen to form water molecules?? The one that protected the 2 amino acids that it was able to form, even though they wouldn't have been protected in the actual environment they would had to have formed in?? The one that resulted in 98% of what they ended up with being tar and carboxylic acid, both toxic to the other 2%, had they not isolated and protected that 2%?? That Miller-Urey experiment??

First off, what do you mean by "There had to be oxygen to form water molecules"? Are you aware that the experiment used water and Sulfur dioxide as well as carbon dioxide, which all have oxygen molecules? Furthermore, one of the steps in the chemical reaction actually produce oxygen as a product, and when you apply electricity to water, that also produces oxygen?

Secondly, i dont understand. Amino acids contain carboxyl groups. Carboxylic acids arent toxic to amino acids.

Common sense tells you that an intelligent and efficient designer would re-use what works over and over again instead of re-inventing the wheel each time it's needed. So again how does that prove that life created itself from a rock, and designed a way to evolve into all the variety that we now see??

Common sense would also tell you that an intelligent and efficient designer would use a mechanism that would naturally and left under its own devices, produce the diversity of species we see today.

Explain why educational book's still hold descriptions that long outdated and proven false?
Loaded question.
Meaning you don't have an answer.

Depends on what educational books and in what context. But give me an example.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 11:00:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 2:05:10 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/9/2012 7:03:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/9/2012 6:57:18 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
LK, you need to do more evolution debates.



This clown is typical of evolutionary scientists, they already have their mind made up and will co-opt the evidence to fit their theory no matter what that evidence is. Heck of a scientist and a role model ya got there.

I thought scientists were suppose to remain impartial and follow the facts??

Really. Ive never seen a scientist co-opt the creation of fully formed organisms by God, to fit their theory.

If your assertion is correct, then why do evolutionists dismiss and disprove the evidence against Evolution? Why dont they just co-opt it to fit their theory?

Also, just so you know, the facts are on our side. Bad news for you, i know.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 5:38:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 1:55:59 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/5/2012 5:53:03 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

Nothing to do with evolution; that is abiogenisis, which a different topic. Rookie creationist mistake.

This is a deceptive evolutionist tactic to get around having to support part of his theory. You cannot posit Darwinist common descent as taught in the schools and textbooks without accounting for the beginning organism. Pretending that the two have nothing to do with each other is a lie.

No, this is false. Absolutely false. Evolution is about change in life, not how it starts. Life could have been crapped out of the weird mutated armpit of a future human, but this would not invalidate evolution.

If this is not a assmuption show where and when this has happened other than the beginning of life explained by evolutionary processes. If this happened once then it can again and why has it not?

Refer to the video.

Scientists have recreated basic abiogenisis.

http://videosift.com...

Assuming we were all gullible enough to be persuaded by Tedsalon's powerpoint science, you've just shown that intelligence is required to produce life from non-living materials. Debate's over, we win...lol

Ad-nominee. At no point have you actually demonstrated the flaws.


In the tree of life designed by evolutionary scientist, were are the missing transitional forms in those tree's?

By that logic, every new mutation should have a new species. Species is defined as a group of organisms that can reproduce with each other. Although it is a gradient, there comes a time when the newly evolved organisms cannot reproduce with the old ones- this is when a new species is "formed" ("species" is a man-made distinction).Anything in between is still part of the previous species.

How to do connect the viruses, bacteria, planets and animals are all realted without the missing links?

We find missing species fairly regularly. However when we find a bridge species between two others, the creationists throw their hands up and say 'you now have twice as many holes to fill'.

There are quite a significant number of intermediate species, but we'll never have all of them because of the nature of fossilisation.


Lol wut?

If fish gave rise to amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles and reptiles to birds and then mammals, well where are the mixed boned and cold & hot blooded intermediated species at?

Dumb dumb.... how would an animal be both cold and hot blooded?

This brings the question why haven't humans added more chromesomes or matter fact any species?

Any species? Humans have 46. Adders-tonge has 1440 chromosomes. Carp have 104. The list goes on and on...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I guess our future, if evolution be true, is the human becoming a fern who has over 400 chromosomes.

Lol wut? This is totally non sequitur.

Why is it that amphibians, who evolved before mammals, have 5 times more DNA than mammals and some amoebae have 1000 times more DNA?

Amount of DNA is not reflective of evolutionary success.... lol

The significant finding is that it is impossible to arrange amino acid sequences for any evolutionary series.

Have you heard of the Miller-Urey experiment?

The one that avoided the use of oxygen even though there had to be oxygen to form water molecules?? The one that protected the 2 amino acids that it was able to form, even though they wouldn't have been protected in the actual environment they would had to have formed in?? The one that resulted in 98% of what they ended up with being tar and carboxylic acid, both toxic to the other 2%, had they not isolated and protected that 2%?? That Miller-Urey experiment??

The miller Urey expriment had plenty of oxygen, but it was in water, and carbon dioxide. There was no molecular oxygen.

The biggest thing you could have pointed out is that scientists now beleive that the atmosphere was different from that proposed in this experiment. The important point of this experiment, is to demonstrate whether it was possible to create amino acids, this has since been shown in follow up experiments using different atmospheres. This is how science works.




There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available a century ago that the idea of organic evolution would have never been accepted.

Ironic thing is that evolution is more accepted now, with this supposed "evidence," then it was without it.

Because to most people it is irrelevant, so they don't bother to look into it. Those who do question it are treated like retards and that has a cooling effect, just as bullying and intimidation always does. There are alot more people out there who question it than you think, but not many are willing to come out and argue against it.

This doesn't really clarify the point at all. Importantly, with the molecular evidence we have now, evolution is absolutely inevitable.

The problem is, that people like you do a lot of saying, but not much publishing or experimentation. If there were significant numbers of accepted and peer reviewed papers and legitimate research going on, I'd be more willing to accept it.

The issue is, creationists are not willing to engage in a logical discussion of the facts, people such as Kent hovind regularly use straw men, falsehoods and a complete misunderstanding of evolution and even when confronted with someone demonstrating the evidence, will continue to repeat 'there is no evidence'.


All living things make proteins from the same 20 kinds of amino acids. Explain how this fact supports the idea that all life shares a common ancestor?

That doesn't. But the remarkable genetic similarity between all organisms does. For example, the human shares 50% of its genes with yeast.

Common sense tells you that an intelligent and efficient designer would re-use what works over and over again instead of re-inventing the wheel each time it's needed. So again how does that prove that life created itself from a rock, and designed a way to evolve into all the variety that we now see??

Intelligent design causes a million more problems than it solves. Secondly, life from a rock is a typical emotional straw man argument. No scientists say that it was happens, and to invoke it is to be disengenious.

I am an intelligent designer by trade, and I am very good at it. To me, evolution, a beautiful and elegantly simple solution to is orders and orders of magnitude more intelligent then 'cut and paste' brute force that your talking about.


Explain why educational book's still hold descriptions that long outdated and proven false?

Loaded question.

Meaning you don't have an answer.

No, it means it's a loaded question. Newtons laws of motion and gravity are outdated and proven false but they are still taught.


Must be easy to answer since it is so logical and a fact.

Very easy.

Can't tell that by your answers.

There is plenty of information out there, you have to be listening though.