Creation v Evolution argument can end

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I will make this clear from the outset
I understand why people accept evolution. It is a common sense, simple to believe theory for those who dont accept God.
I once believed it myself
O know many christians who believe in evolution, I consider them christians. That means my faith doesnt hinge on me believing in creation, I can be a christian and believe in evolution.

So, end the argument, offer some empirical evidence, evidence that cant be refuted, scientifically.
If you dont want to, please dont, if you think its a waste of time posting evidence, please dont

If we have empirical evidence there can be no assumptions.

A bird with longer wings, a fly with a special adaptation, its not proof as far as I am concerned, it may well be to you and I accept that.
Micro evolution just doesnt hold enough weight in my opinion.

A cricket with gills, that would be something, a baby human with gills, yeah, that would be something as well

The fact that you would class someone a christian that still believes in evolution just shows how fickle religion is as a whole. Make fit what you wish and reject the things that do not fit.

You want evidence, look all around you unless you are blind. Everything you see is an evolution of something before it, every bird has similarities of another bird and lower down species before it. That, in itself is enough proof but you could go on with micro-organisms and how they behave like animals and insects on land. You could show how plants of all deviations yet are different in slight variations, to ignore what is in front of you is sheer ignorance and stupidity to put it bluntly!

Science is correct because the computer your using works because of science, the car you drive works because of science, the planes that fly, is due to science being correct and its proof on evolution is no different. Our very DNA can be read like a book to show all of our connections to other lifeforms and slight changes over thousands and millions of years.

Your understanding of evolution seems to be that it all occurred in a few hundred years or thousand but you are religious and most religious nuts think everything began 5,000 years ago. I know forests older then that.

a reply to: Raggedyman

no you can't have any other belief except what you are told to have by those who demand you accept

Did you really think there was choice and freedom, that there was science at work here,,ever

I think this is my first dip into this sub forum. I've only recently felt like looking into it.

Scientists work within their own fields. I don't think they particularly have to stick to any specific agenda unless they are working on something directly related to proving the dogma. (I've got no idea what percentage that applies to).

The overall theory of one ancestor seems restricted to purposes of teaching. (Just guessing, I don't really know what goes on in classrooms and labs)

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Barcs

So you won't answer my question te humans from space dirt and water

Cool

Micro macro thing, remember

I don't address strawmans, sorry. Feel free to explain that paper any day now.

originally posted by: logicsoda
Wow, people are actually still debating with Raggedyman...

Nope, they are schooling him. There was never a debate. Debates requires 2 sides that understand a topic. This guy doesn't even know what evolution is, let alone being able to debate any aspect of it. Denial is not debate. Strawmans like "man from dirt" or "something from nothing" is not debate. He seems to think he can define evolution however he wants and then gets upset when folks can't give him evidence of his magical version of evolution that isn't based on anything scientific.

originally posted by: pthena
The definition is that all life comes from a single ancestor. Evidence suggests otherwise. The "Universal genetic code, with the exceptions proving the rule" specifically.

Interesting. Apologies if I missed it earlier, but specifically which aspect of the genetic code suggests otherwise? I'm a little confused by your statement at the end there.

Funny that you have provided more content than Raggedy in a single sentence than he has for the entire topic put together. Now maybe we can get somewhere

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TzarChasm

Rookie to you, I decide what I want to classify as evolution
Life from nothing is evolution, you make the mistake of being told by those who decide how you must think
I am not subservient to their decissions, yours is a child's mistake. Do as we dictate to you and then, you do

And this right here is exactly why this entire thread is nothing but trolling for your own amusement as you play some kind of "gotcha" game with yourself. Not that anyone who's read any of your posts on ATS expected anything different. The game never changes with you.

You demand people provide you with "empirical evidence" based on the scientific method by then refuse to accept definitions of scientific studies and stamp your feet when called out on it proclaiming that you get to make up whatever definitions for evolution you want. You demand others play by a specific, narrow set of rules and nominate yourself the enforcer of those rules and then discard them whenever convenient. You really are special.

I'll give you credit though because 18 pages later, you've got people trying to acquiesce to your demands because they're under the impression that you haven't rigged the game from the onset so well done on your stealth trolling. Seriously, I applaud it.

originally posted by: peter vlar

I'll give you credit though because 18 pages later, you've got people trying to acquiesce to your demands because they're under the impression that you haven't rigged the game from the onset so well done on your stealth trolling. Seriously, I applaud it.

Hence why I stopped directly responding to him a few pages back.

a reply to: Raggedyman

A cricket with gills, that would be something, a baby human with gills, yeah, that would be something as well

We have the Power we have the Technology Too do this ..

Bio Engineering.. a Cricket with a Aquatic Insect!

Wouldn't be so hard... Man has done worse...

Man are the Gods Now .. to Lower Life Forms ! too a Certain Extent that is


So just Maybe ..

that Evolution and Creation can go together !

Evolution with a Boost of creation !

from the Hologram /Matrix/ Grid.. Gods!

with their planet Habitat Simulator

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: logicsoda
Wow, people are actually still debating with Raggedyman...

Nope, they are schooling him. There was never a debate. Debates requires 2 sides that understand a topic.

Yep, I understand. I simply chose the wrong word to use.

This guy doesn't even know what evolution is, let alone being able to debate any aspect of it.

We're not really sure about that. His posts seem to indicate that he doesn't really understand evolution but at the same time I wonder if he is just not trolling as I have mentioned in several different posts...

Denial is not debate.

I agree.

Strawmans like "man from dirt" or "something from nothing" is not debate. He seems to think he can define evolution however he wants and then gets upset when folks can't give him evidence of his magical version of evolution that isn't based on anything scientific.

Yep, and this is also why I have simply stopped responding to him... we won't be able to give him what he wants (assuming he really wants evidence for his fantastical version of evolution and is not just trolling) because it's simply not possible.

originally posted by: logicsoda
We're not really sure about that. His posts seem to indicate that he doesn't really understand evolution but at the same time I wonder if he is just not trolling as I have mentioned in several different posts...

I don't think it's trolling. I think it's nothing more than the self righteous hubris of someone blinded by their religious fundamentalism. He will dismiss any science outright that contradicts his literal interpretation of scripture without so much as a moment's thought. Bible = right, contradictions = wrong. Simple. I really don't think the thought process goes any deeper than that. It can't, after all, as that would open up a rabbit hole of self doubt. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: logicsoda
We're not really sure about that. His posts seem to indicate that he doesn't really understand evolution but at the same time I wonder if he is just not trolling as I have mentioned in several different posts...

I don't think it's trolling. I think it's nothing more than the self righteous hubris of someone blinded by their religious fundamentalism. He will dismiss any science outright that contradicts his literal interpretation of scripture without so much as a moment's thought. Bible = right, contradictions = wrong. Simple. I really don't think the thought process goes any deeper than that. It can't, after all, as that would open up a rabbit hole of self doubt. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

That's also possible. I guess we'll never know for a certainty.

a reply to: Barcs

specifically which aspect of the genetic code suggests otherwise?

What Is Meant by the Statement "the Genetic Code Is Universal"?
Where DNA and RNA are built from more-or-less the same components, RNA and proteins are quite different. Proteins are built from sequences of amino acids, each of a much different structure than the nucleotides in the RNA. There is not a one-for-one correspondence between a G, for example, and a specific amino acid. There's not even a correspondence between an amino acid and two nucleotides, a UC, for example. There is, however, a match between three-letter sequences of RNA and amino acids. For example, CGU in an RNA molecule will direct the assembly of an arginine amino acid onto a protein. Other three-letter sequences, called codons, encode for the other 19 common amino acids.

The Universal Code

There's no reason that the genetic code needed to be the way it is. It could just as easily have happened that CCU would encode for arginine instead of proline. But it turns out that the genetic code -- the three-letter codons -- direct the assembly of exactly the same amino acids in nearly every organism on Earth. Bacteria, plants and you all use exactly the same genetic code. Although there are a few minor differences in a very small percentage of organisms, those are exceptions that prove the rule. That's why biologists say the genetic code is universal.

Personally, I have no problem with the idea that species can branch through evolutionary process. The idea that there is one common ancestor for all life forms is rather unfounded. And that is the accepted definition of Evolution. The version that has one tree of life.

So no empirical evidence in the offing

Nothing, a few examples of micro evolution to claim your victory, nothing else

Even Phants with all his promise turns away

Nothing at all

But we knew that, we all knew there would never be a response, that Phants would be told yes a dozen times and still ask if I agreed, strawman would be built, that personal attacks, deflections about religion would be raised, and the atheist rants continued

Why
Well it's simple
Evolution right or wrong, outside of small changes within kind doesn't exist
It just doesn't have any evidence
Baby's in the womb with gills, that was actually raised as a proof, as an evidence, Haeckels lie, 100s of years latter they are still using Haeckels lie

Yeah sure we see different varietys of fish, of dogs of cattle and whales, but do we see animals changing into any new kind, new species



No, we don't, never have, don't see any fossil evidence, yes we see people claim a whale from a hippo of all things, don't see any fossil evidence. We hear people claim that the whales hip bone is useless and it's proof of evolution, it's not, it's important to the whales existence

So the champions of evolution, those who promise everything actually offer nothing
From a single cell to a human, no evidence that can be called scientific provided
Believe, but don't tell me it's science

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Believe, but don't tell me it's science

I guess you have a personal definition for science as well.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TzarChasm

Rookie to you, I decide what I want to classify as evolution
Life from nothing is evolution, you make the mistake of being told by those who decide how you must think
I am not subservient to their decissions, yours is a child's mistake. Do as we dictate to you and then, you do

And this right here is exactly why this entire thread is nothing but trolling for your own amusement as you play some kind of "gotcha" game with yourself. Not that anyone who's read any of your posts on ATS expected anything different. The game never changes with you.

You demand people provide you with "empirical evidence" based on the scientific method by then refuse to accept definitions of scientific studies and stamp your feet when called out on it proclaiming that you get to make up whatever definitions for evolution you want. You demand others play by a specific, narrow set of rules and nominate yourself the enforcer of those rules and then discard them whenever convenient. You really are special.

I'll give you credit though because 18 pages later, you've got people trying to acquiesce to your demands because they're under the impression that you haven't rigged the game from the onset so well done on your stealth trolling. Seriously, I applaud it.

I think you are confused, totally and utterly confused
Trolls come into others threads and spoil them

Number 2
I don't accept the opinion that abiogenesis is not evolution
I agree my opinion is different, not the social norm
So if you notice, I made concessions for my opinion
I changed my question based on my opinion to a question based on the socialy normal opinion
Did you not notice that

It seems not only do you lack the capacity to understand the change, you imply I rig the game to my specification when in fact I allow your specifications to remain
Sadly I have to simplify it to give you a chance to contest it, even when I have done this I am still left with no answer and people like you still saying its to hard by your own rules

I am at a loss

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Believe, but don't tell me it's science

I guess you have a personal definition for science as well.

Yeah, repeatable observable and testable

Whats yours Dask
I would like to know, love to know

a reply to: logicsoda

I am asking for evidence of science, repeatable observable and testable outcomes

The problem is not with me, it's with the foolish people who should know that evolution, outside of micro evolution is not and has never been repeatable observable and eatable, will probably never be

Yet, pride, arrogance and foolishness propelled them into an argument they could never win an argument they have no answers for
A baby with gills, to breathe in the womb? Really?
Whales hips
A fish that can walk on land, develops bigger better bones and muscle
That's the evidence, the best offered
Simple changes within and these are used to argue a whale from a hippo, a man from a single cell

It makes me wonder why these people hate science, why they fear science, why they have to manipulate science to provide a foundation for their religion.
It's not unlike what Mao, Stalin , Pol Pot did, manipulated science to cause genocide, used science as an excuse to destroy
Here they manipulate science for a lie

Repeatable observable and testable, that's empiric evidence, isn't it Phantom, do you deny that
I am still here, my answer as always is yes

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Yeah, repeatable observable and testable

I see the problem. That's only part of it.

Whats yours Dask
I would like to know, love to know

The whole process. From spitballing to laws. Even the mistakes.

ETA: And it's the ongoing effort so science today may not have the evidence you are asking for but later on, who knows.

This charade will continue exactly as long as people keep paying attention to it. Which leads me to conclude that raggedyman isnt the only one enjoying himself. Who else here is having fun with this fake debate?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
This charade will continue exactly as long as people keep paying attention to it. Which leads me to conclude that raggedyman isnt the only one enjoying himself. Who else here is having fun with this fake debate?

I'm having fun reading his responses to other people/some of my posts, but that's about it.