Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Who"s really pushing "bad science"?

Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 7:31:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I believe this article does a great job of describing both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate. What do you think?

http://creation.com...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 7:47:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 7:31:15 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
I believe this article does a great job of describing both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate. What do you think?

http://creation.com...

Anything from this website can be simply thrown away. They have absolutely no interest in science, only religious propaganda.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 7:55:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 7:47:01 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:31:15 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
I believe this article does a great job of describing both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate. What do you think?

http://creation.com...

Anything from this website can be simply thrown away. They have absolutely no interest in science, only religious propaganda.

Then you didn't read the article. You might be surprised. Hell, you might actually learn something. Go on. Read it. Or are you afraid? If you do read it, try refuting anything he says. According to you, it should be a piece of cake.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 8:26:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 7:55:32 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:47:01 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:31:15 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
I believe this article does a great job of describing both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate. What do you think?

http://creation.com...

Anything from this website can be simply thrown away. They have absolutely no interest in science, only religious propaganda.

Then you didn't read the article. You might be surprised. Hell, you might actually learn something. Go on. Read it. Or are you afraid? If you do read it, try refuting anything he says. According to you, it should be a piece of cake.

tut tut, one musn't assume. I did read the article.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 9:24:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 7:55:32 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:47:01 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:31:15 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
I believe this article does a great job of describing both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate. What do you think?

http://creation.com...

Anything from this website can be simply thrown away. They have absolutely no interest in science, only religious propaganda.

Then you didn't read the article. You might be surprised. Hell, you might actually learn something. Go on. Read it. Or are you afraid? If you do read it, try refuting anything he says. According to you, it should be a piece of cake.

At least some organizations call themselves research institutions. This claims to be a ministry. Which isn't scientific, but biblical.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 9:56:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 7:31:15 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
I believe this article does a great job of describing both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate. What do you think?

http://creation.com...

We could have school trips to the Jurassic period and you'd still be denying Evolution. Just STFU already.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 10:10:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 8:26:34 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:55:32 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:47:01 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:31:15 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
I believe this article does a great job of describing both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate. What do you think?

http://creation.com...

Anything from this website can be simply thrown away. They have absolutely no interest in science, only religious propaganda.

Then you didn't read the article. You might be surprised. Hell, you might actually learn something. Go on. Read it. Or are you afraid? If you do read it, try refuting anything he says. According to you, it should be a piece of cake.

tut tut, one musn't assume. I did read the article.

Well then. Are you going to try to refute any of it? If not, I'll ASSUME you're admitting defeat.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 10:14:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 9:24:41 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:55:32 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:47:01 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:31:15 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
I believe this article does a great job of describing both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate. What do you think?

http://creation.com...

Anything from this website can be simply thrown away. They have absolutely no interest in science, only religious propaganda.

Then you didn't read the article. You might be surprised. Hell, you might actually learn something. Go on. Read it. Or are you afraid? If you do read it, try refuting anything he says. According to you, it should be a piece of cake.

At least some organizations call themselves research institutions. This claims to be a ministry. Which isn't scientific, but biblical.

The article is scientific. Doesn't matter what website I found it on. Why don't you see if you can poke some holes in it? No one has, so far. Guess they're admitting defeat. Why else would they use nothing but ridicule, or try to discredit the source? I want someone to try to refute what this article says. Can anyone do that?
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 10:22:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 9:56:38 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:31:15 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
I believe this article does a great job of describing both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate. What do you think?

http://creation.com...

We could have school trips to the Jurassic period and you'd still be denying Evolution. Just STFU already.

That will never happen. I noticed that you didn't try to refute anything from this article, assuming you read it. Could it be that you can't? Instead you resort to a fictional event that could never happen, in an attempt to make me look ignorant, then rudely tell me to STFU. I will NOT shut up.! I will present the truth as I see it. The fact that you refuse to debate me tells everyone that you can't, because what I say is the truth.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 11:16:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 10:14:06 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/22/2014 9:24:41 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:55:32 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:47:01 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:31:15 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
I believe this article does a great job of describing both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate. What do you think?

http://creation.com...

Anything from this website can be simply thrown away. They have absolutely no interest in science, only religious propaganda.

Then you didn't read the article. You might be surprised. Hell, you might actually learn something. Go on. Read it. Or are you afraid? If you do read it, try refuting anything he says. According to you, it should be a piece of cake.

At least some organizations call themselves research institutions. This claims to be a ministry. Which isn't scientific, but biblical.

The article is scientific. Doesn't matter what website I found it on. Why don't you see if you can poke some holes in it? No one has, so far. Guess they're admitting defeat. Why else would they use nothing but ridicule, or try to discredit the source? I want someone to try to refute what this article says. Can anyone do that?

Read it. Heard it all. There are "kinds". What do you mean by kinds? They have several meanings. Creationism tries to mingle evolutions components but makes no sense. It says speciation occurred on the ark, yet they are against long term speciation that leads from creatures evolving to adaptations for the survival of the fittest. The point that creationism must offer is physical evidence of the designer himself and evidence of the events that happened in the past that led to the designer. Creationism has failed to meet the scientific method on this, but evolution points out that things mutate, adapt and evolve over periods of time.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 11:23:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 11:16:12 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/23/2014 10:14:06 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/22/2014 9:24:41 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:55:32 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:47:01 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:31:15 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
I believe this article does a great job of describing both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate. What do you think?

http://creation.com...

Anything from this website can be simply thrown away. They have absolutely no interest in science, only religious propaganda.

Then you didn't read the article. You might be surprised. Hell, you might actually learn something. Go on. Read it. Or are you afraid? If you do read it, try refuting anything he says. According to you, it should be a piece of cake.

At least some organizations call themselves research institutions. This claims to be a ministry. Which isn't scientific, but biblical.

The article is scientific. Doesn't matter what website I found it on. Why don't you see if you can poke some holes in it? No one has, so far. Guess they're admitting defeat. Why else would they use nothing but ridicule, or try to discredit the source? I want someone to try to refute what this article says. Can anyone do that?

Read it. Heard it all. There are "kinds". What do you mean by kinds? They have several meanings. Creationism tries to mingle evolutions components but makes no sense. It says speciation occurred on the ark, yet they are against long term speciation that leads from creatures evolving to adaptations for the survival of the fittest. The point that creationism must offer is physical evidence of the designer himself and evidence of the events that happened in the past that led to the designer. Creationism has failed to meet the scientific method on this, but evolution points out that things mutate, adapt and evolve over periods of time.

You still refuse to address anything said in the article. I want you to try to refute something he said. Each one has a sub heading. Pick one and try to refute it. This is how debate works. Your claim that small changes lead to bigger changes, and new species, has no evidence to support it. Life can adapt to different environments. No one disputes that. But that is not evidence for Darwinian evolution. Many times, species have been seen adapting to an environment, then they revert when the environment return to normal. That is not evolution. That is life expressing genetic traits that already exist in their DNA. Nothing more.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 7:44:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 10:22:18 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/22/2014 9:56:38 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:31:15 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
I believe this article does a great job of describing both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate. What do you think?

http://creation.com...

We could have school trips to the Jurassic period and you'd still be denying Evolution. Just STFU already.

That will never happen. I noticed that you didn't try to refute anything from this article, assuming you read it. Could it be that you can't? Instead you resort to a fictional event that could never happen, in an attempt to make me look ignorant, then rudely tell me to STFU. I will NOT shut up.! I will present the truth as I see it. The fact that you refuse to debate me tells everyone that you can't, because what I say is the truth.

I don't need to do anything to make you look ignorant. You do that perfectly by yourself.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:29:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 7:44:50 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/23/2014 10:22:18 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/22/2014 9:56:38 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:31:15 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
I believe this article does a great job of describing both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate. What do you think?

http://creation.com...

We could have school trips to the Jurassic period and you'd still be denying Evolution. Just STFU already.

That will never happen. I noticed that you didn't try to refute anything from this article, assuming you read it. Could it be that you can't? Instead you resort to a fictional event that could never happen, in an attempt to make me look ignorant, then rudely tell me to STFU. I will NOT shut up.! I will present the truth as I see it. The fact that you refuse to debate me tells everyone that you can't, because what I say is the truth.

I don't need to do anything to make you look ignorant. You do that perfectly by yourself.

Insults? Seriously? That's all you have? I guess that means you can't refute me. I win.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 8:57:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 9:29:08 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/23/2014 7:44:50 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/23/2014 10:22:18 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/22/2014 9:56:38 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:31:15 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
I believe this article does a great job of describing both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate. What do you think?

http://creation.com...

We could have school trips to the Jurassic period and you'd still be denying Evolution. Just STFU already.

That will never happen. I noticed that you didn't try to refute anything from this article, assuming you read it. Could it be that you can't? Instead you resort to a fictional event that could never happen, in an attempt to make me look ignorant, then rudely tell me to STFU. I will NOT shut up.! I will present the truth as I see it. The fact that you refuse to debate me tells everyone that you can't, because what I say is the truth.

I don't need to do anything to make you look ignorant. You do that perfectly by yourself.

Insults? Seriously? That's all you have? I guess that means you can't refute me. I win.

No, child. I won by default before you even posted this thread.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:52:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 8:59:39 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:29:08 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:


Also, being refuted is a privilege reserved for rational people.

Oh. I get it. You've read the article, and discovered that you can't refute any of it. Got it. You know you look like a coward, for not even trying. All you have are insults. You're pathetic.
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 10:59:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 7:31:15 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
I believe this article does a great job of describing both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate. What do you think?

http://creation.com...

Once you know about changes over time thats enough. There are no limitations to evolution to prevent speciation. Some limitations can be due to natural selection if an adaption doesn't allow a line to continue as far. Every species alive today is here because their lineage survived since the beginning of life.
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 11:12:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There is so much wrong with the article and the website that published it that I will address it in independent posts.

First off, the author, Dr. Sakarti accuses Professor Lerner of equivocation. However, he has to reference a definition given by another person to do this. To be valid, the accusation of equivocation has to begin and end with the person being accused.

Dr. Sakarti claims to agree with the concept Lerner advocates, which is that incremental changes occur over time-- which is EXACTLY what evolution IS!

What he disputes is the increase of genetic information-- but he fails to acknowledge that this isn't biological terminology, and he fails to define his nonstandard term. That makes the author of the article guilty of... wait for it... equivocation! Fight alleged equivocation with real equivocation-- that is Dr. Sakarti's motto.

Here is a good article on the issue that no creationist will deem valid:

http://tinyurl.com...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 11:45:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 9:52:56 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/24/2014 8:59:39 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:29:08 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:


Also, being refuted is a privilege reserved for rational people.

Oh. I get it. You've read the article, and discovered that you can't refute any of it. Got it. You know you look like a coward, for not even trying. All you have are insults. You're pathetic.

Considering that you're an obnoxious little boy who doesn't understand the first thing about Biology, I'm not really intimidated by your scathing remarks.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 9:19:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 10:59:32 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:31:15 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
I believe this article does a great job of describing both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate. What do you think?

http://creation.com...

Once you know about changes over time thats enough. There are no limitations to evolution to prevent speciation. Some limitations can be due to natural selection if an adaption doesn't allow a line to continue as far. Every species alive today is here because their lineage survived since the beginning of life.

That's your opinion. There is no evidence to support it. Look at that fruit fly experiment. Tens of thousands of generations, and they're still fruit flies. They noticed that many of them became sickly, or malformed. This is evidence that you can only push selective breeding so far before you run into problems. There is absolutely no evidence that supports small changes leading to bigger changes, and thus a completely new species.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 9:27:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 11:45:41 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:52:56 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/24/2014 8:59:39 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:29:08 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:


Also, being refuted is a privilege reserved for rational people.

Oh. I get it. You've read the article, and discovered that you can't refute any of it. Got it. You know you look like a coward, for not even trying. All you have are insults. You're pathetic.

Considering that you're an obnoxious little boy who doesn't understand the first thing about Biology, I'm not really intimidated by your scathing remarks.

Obnoxious? YOU are the one who insulted me first. Instead of engaging in a rational debate, you hurled insults at me. I think you're a coward. Otherwise, you would try to refute me. Come on. Grow a pair, and show everyone you're not scared of an honest debate. Either engage in debate, or STFU! Your insults grow tiresome.
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 10:36:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 9:19:02 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/24/2014 10:59:32 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:31:15 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
I believe this article does a great job of describing both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate. What do you think?

http://creation.com...

Once you know about changes over time thats enough. There are no limitations to evolution to prevent speciation. Some limitations can be due to natural selection if an adaption doesn't allow a line to continue as far. Every species alive today is here because their lineage survived since the beginning of life.

That's your opinion. There is no evidence to support it. Look at that fruit fly experiment. Tens of thousands of generations, and they're still fruit flies. They noticed that many of them became sickly, or malformed. This is evidence that you can only push selective breeding so far before you run into problems. There is absolutely no evidence that supports small changes leading to bigger changes, and thus a completely new species.

Since the 90's humans have been looking at the human and chimp genome and we are more than certain that we share a common ancestor. In fact humans are the closest relative to chimps out of all the other great apes. So your insistance that there is no evidence is equivalent to you covering your ears and saying "la la I cant hear you".

I am willing to state something is opinion or based on faith, evolution isn't one of them. Evolution does belong in the science forum and deserves serious discussion. Any holes that theists have come up with have been filled but creationists will forever hide in gaps of knowledge, as long as they hold to their opinion that the bible somehow figured it out several thousand years ago in a time when such superstition was the norm.

Creation is the same as spontaneous generation which has been debunked by the sciences for hundreds of years. Wiki calls spontaneous generation an obsolete body of thought which IMO goes the same for believing organisms normally just come out of the ground fully formed via some magic sky daddy powers. Once darwin published origen of the species, people were more quickly abandoning belief in spontaneous generation and creation for that matter. Creation is superstition.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 10:49:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 9:19:02 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/24/2014 10:59:32 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:31:15 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
I believe this article does a great job of describing both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate. What do you think?

http://creation.com...

Once you know about changes over time thats enough. There are no limitations to evolution to prevent speciation. Some limitations can be due to natural selection if an adaption doesn't allow a line to continue as far. Every species alive today is here because their lineage survived since the beginning of life.

That's your opinion. There is no evidence to support it. Look at that fruit fly experiment. Tens of thousands of generations, and they're still fruit flies. They noticed that many of them became sickly, or malformed. This is evidence that you can only push selective breeding so far before you run into problems. There is absolutely no evidence that supports small changes leading to bigger changes, and thus a completely new species.

You're forgetting the impetus.

Animals change into other animals over millions of years. Moreover, those animals that change into other animals usually do so through a combination of synthesis (two different types of animals breeding), evolutionary changes over time, adaptation to external influences, and natural selection.

This is why evolution is not exclusively Darwinian, and why you need to at least read up on evolution if you want to have a meaningful discussion about it.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 1:12:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 10:36:37 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/25/2014 9:19:02 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/24/2014 10:59:32 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:31:15 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
I believe this article does a great job of describing both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate. What do you think?

http://creation.com...

Once you know about changes over time thats enough. There are no limitations to evolution to prevent speciation. Some limitations can be due to natural selection if an adaption doesn't allow a line to continue as far. Every species alive today is here because their lineage survived since the beginning of life.

That's your opinion. There is no evidence to support it. Look at that fruit fly experiment. Tens of thousands of generations, and they're still fruit flies. They noticed that many of them became sickly, or malformed. This is evidence that you can only push selective breeding so far before you run into problems. There is absolutely no evidence that supports small changes leading to bigger changes, and thus a completely new species.

Since the 90's humans have been looking at the human and chimp genome and we are more than certain that we share a common ancestor. In fact humans are the closest relative to chimps out of all the other great apes. So your insistance that there is no evidence is equivalent to you covering your ears and saying "la la I cant hear you".

I am willing to state something is opinion or based on faith, evolution isn't one of them. Evolution does belong in the science forum and deserves serious discussion. Any holes that theists have come up with have been filled but creationists will forever hide in gaps of knowledge, as long as they hold to their opinion that the bible somehow figured it out several thousand years ago in a time when such superstition was the norm.

Creation is the same as spontaneous generation which has been debunked by the sciences for hundreds of years. Wiki calls spontaneous generation an obsolete body of thought which IMO goes the same for believing organisms normally just come out of the ground fully formed via some magic sky daddy powers. Once darwin published origen of the species, people were more quickly abandoning belief in spontaneous generation and creation for that matter. Creation is superstition.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Why hasn't anyone tried to refute anything from the article? Everyone has either insulted my intelligence, or gave a canned response, with no scientific fact to back it up. Someone comment on the damn article already!
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 1:22:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 10:49:12 AM, Such wrote:
At 10/25/2014 9:19:02 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/24/2014 10:59:32 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:31:15 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
I believe this article does a great job of describing both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate. What do you think?

http://creation.com...

Once you know about changes over time thats enough. There are no limitations to evolution to prevent speciation. Some limitations can be due to natural selection if an adaption doesn't allow a line to continue as far. Every species alive today is here because their lineage survived since the beginning of life.

That's your opinion. There is no evidence to support it. Look at that fruit fly experiment. Tens of thousands of generations, and they're still fruit flies. They noticed that many of them became sickly, or malformed. This is evidence that you can only push selective breeding so far before you run into problems. There is absolutely no evidence that supports small changes leading to bigger changes, and thus a completely new species.

You're forgetting the impetus.

Animals change into other animals over millions of years. Moreover, those animals that change into other animals usually do so through a combination of synthesis (two different types of animals breeding), evolutionary changes over time, adaptation to external influences, and natural selection.

This is why evolution is not exclusively Darwinian, and why you need to at least read up on evolution if you want to have a meaningful discussion about it.

That makes no sense at all. Different species can't reproduce with each other. Where did you get that from? And the changes over time you are referring to are adaptation. This is a species expressing genetic traits that already exist in their DNA. As for your last comment, I have read up on evolution. That's why I don't believe it. It uses stories that scientists make up from whole cloth, and circular reasoning. Nothing more. They claim that there is lots of evidence. This may be true. But think about this. Almost every scientists is an atheists. That biases their interpretation of the evidence. Take genetic similarity, for instance. It could also be argued that a Creator would use similar DNA to create everything, rather than similar DNA being evidence for descent with modification. Both interpretations are possible. And neither one has any proof that it is the correct interpretation. Both Creation and evolution require faith to believe in. Anyone who says differently is lying or deluded.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 1:30:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 1:22:25 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/25/2014 10:49:12 AM, Such wrote:
At 10/25/2014 9:19:02 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/24/2014 10:59:32 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:31:15 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
I believe this article does a great job of describing both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate. What do you think?

http://creation.com...

Once you know about changes over time thats enough. There are no limitations to evolution to prevent speciation. Some limitations can be due to natural selection if an adaption doesn't allow a line to continue as far. Every species alive today is here because their lineage survived since the beginning of life.

That's your opinion. There is no evidence to support it. Look at that fruit fly experiment. Tens of thousands of generations, and they're still fruit flies. They noticed that many of them became sickly, or malformed. This is evidence that you can only push selective breeding so far before you run into problems. There is absolutely no evidence that supports small changes leading to bigger changes, and thus a completely new species.

You're forgetting the impetus.

Animals change into other animals over millions of years. Moreover, those animals that change into other animals usually do so through a combination of synthesis (two different types of animals breeding), evolutionary changes over time, adaptation to external influences, and natural selection.

This is why evolution is not exclusively Darwinian, and why you need to at least read up on evolution if you want to have a meaningful discussion about it.

That makes no sense at all. Different species can't reproduce with each other.

You're only partially right. Closely related species often do, and result in a species that may or may not be able to reproduce, sometimes resulting in a new species. See: Liger, Coywolf, and Mule.

Where did you get that from? And the changes over time you are referring to are adaptation. This is a species expressing genetic traits that already exist in their DNA.

Nope! That isn't necessarily the case. Take those fruit flies you referred to. New species emerged that has ants painted on its wings for adaptive purposes, because ants are the badasses of the animal kingdom. That isn't something that was previously inscribed in their DNA, lest it would have emerged as a phenotype at least occasionally.

As for your last comment, I have read up on evolution. That's why I don't believe it. It uses stories that scientists make up from whole cloth, and circular reasoning. Nothing more. They claim that there is lots of evidence. This may be true. But think about this. Almost every scientists is an atheists.

Almost every scientist is an atheist? I'm pretty sure that's completely false. This country contains a lot of scientists and is almost 80% Christian.

That biases their interpretation of the evidence. Take genetic similarity, for instance. It could also be argued that a Creator would use similar DNA to create everything, rather than similar DNA being evidence for descent with modification. Both interpretations are possible.

That doesn't necessarily sound like two different interpretations. Who cares if you think it's a deity or it just "is?"

And neither one has any proof that it is the correct interpretation. Both Creation and evolution require faith to believe in. Anyone who says differently is lying or deluded.
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 1:51:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 1:22:25 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/25/2014 10:49:12 AM, Such wrote:
At 10/25/2014 9:19:02 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/24/2014 10:59:32 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:31:15 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
I believe this article does a great job of describing both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate. What do you think?

http://creation.com...

Once you know about changes over time thats enough. There are no limitations to evolution to prevent speciation. Some limitations can be due to natural selection if an adaption doesn't allow a line to continue as far. Every species alive today is here because their lineage survived since the beginning of life.

That's your opinion. There is no evidence to support it. Look at that fruit fly experiment. Tens of thousands of generations, and they're still fruit flies. They noticed that many of them became sickly, or malformed. This is evidence that you can only push selective breeding so far before you run into problems. There is absolutely no evidence that supports small changes leading to bigger changes, and thus a completely new species.

You're forgetting the impetus.

Animals change into other animals over millions of years. Moreover, those animals that change into other animals usually do so through a combination of synthesis (two different types of animals breeding), evolutionary changes over time, adaptation to external influences, and natural selection.

This is why evolution is not exclusively Darwinian, and why you need to at least read up on evolution if you want to have a meaningful discussion about it.

That makes no sense at all. Different species can't reproduce with each other. Where did you get that from?

Um... it's in the article that YOU submitted to this thread. Did you not read the article that you want everyone else to read? It is actually one of the few things the article gets mostly right.

You should read the article you posted. It is really... something!

"And the changes over time you are referring to are adaptation. This is a species expressing genetic traits that already exist in their DNA. As for your last comment, I have read up on evolution. That's why I don't believe it. It uses stories that scientists make up from whole cloth, and circular reasoning. Nothing more. They claim that there is lots of evidence. This may be true. But think about this. Almost every scientists is an atheists. That biases their interpretation of the evidence. Take genetic similarity, for instance. It could also be argued that a Creator would use similar DNA to create everything, rather than similar DNA being evidence for descent with modification. Both interpretations are possible. And neither one has any proof that it is the correct interpretation. Both Creation and evolution require faith to believe in. Anyone who says differently is lying or deluded."

If you "read up" on evolution with the same level of understanding as this creationist propaganda article, that explains a lot...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 2:00:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You are. You're pushing bad science.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 3:29:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 1:12:58 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/25/2014 10:36:37 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/25/2014 9:19:02 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/24/2014 10:59:32 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:31:15 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
I believe this article does a great job of describing both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate. What do you think?

http://creation.com...

Once you know about changes over time thats enough. There are no limitations to evolution to prevent speciation. Some limitations can be due to natural selection if an adaption doesn't allow a line to continue as far. Every species alive today is here because their lineage survived since the beginning of life.

That's your opinion. There is no evidence to support it. Look at that fruit fly experiment. Tens of thousands of generations, and they're still fruit flies. They noticed that many of them became sickly, or malformed. This is evidence that you can only push selective breeding so far before you run into problems. There is absolutely no evidence that supports small changes leading to bigger changes, and thus a completely new species.

Since the 90's humans have been looking at the human and chimp genome and we are more than certain that we share a common ancestor. In fact humans are the closest relative to chimps out of all the other great apes. So your insistance that there is no evidence is equivalent to you covering your ears and saying "la la I cant hear you".

I am willing to state something is opinion or based on faith, evolution isn't one of them. Evolution does belong in the science forum and deserves serious discussion. Any holes that theists have come up with have been filled but creationists will forever hide in gaps of knowledge, as long as they hold to their opinion that the bible somehow figured it out several thousand years ago in a time when such superstition was the norm.

Creation is the same as spontaneous generation which has been debunked by the sciences for hundreds of years. Wiki calls spontaneous generation an obsolete body of thought which IMO goes the same for believing organisms normally just come out of the ground fully formed via some magic sky daddy powers. Once darwin published origen of the species, people were more quickly abandoning belief in spontaneous generation and creation for that matter. Creation is superstition.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Why hasn't anyone tried to refute anything from the article? Everyone has either insulted my intelligence, or gave a canned response, with no scientific fact to back it up. Someone comment on the damn article already!

My commented about the article regarding the claim that evolution would hit some sort of road block and not ever be able to become a different species. If you already believe in change and mutation there is nothing to prevent it. My example in the next post is regarding evidence that we speciated from a common ancestor also related to chimps. That is evidence so to say there is none is false. You dont like the evidence?
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 7:49:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 9:27:59 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:

Obnoxious? YOU are the one who insulted me first. Instead of engaging in a rational debate, you hurled insults at me. I think you're a coward. Otherwise, you would try to refute me. Come on.

I see I was right about the "child" part.

Grow a pair, and show everyone you're not scared of an honest debate.

That would require you to be honest, which is beyond your limited abilities.

Either engage in debate, or STFU! Your insults grow tiresome.

And there's the obnoxious part.

Why should I debate with you? You have taken no steps to educate yourself on basic science, and are too stubborn to change your views. I would be wasting my time.