Creation v Evolution argument can end

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.

It is ignorant and deliberate trolling by someone who has succumbed to religious fundamentalist nonsense....and who feels deeply, profoundly insecure about it, and also feels insecure about things they try to discuss. It is obstinate nonsense. In my experience....

Load of crap it is. The entire spiel....crapload of crap.

Thought process might not go deeper than crap, but trolling it is.
Ignorance is not bliss - it is highly irritating, actually.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Yet my question was about empirical evidence for evolution, nothing about religion

If there be trolls, it's the kind who want to steer this argument by using religion as the issue

Mine was a science based question, you troll asserting a religious counterpoint

Religion is irrelevant, this is based on science

It's the nature of the science that causes you fear, you dare not contest it.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Why not answer the question

Humanity from single cell, how

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Yet my question was about empirical evidence for evolution, nothing about religion

If there be trolls, it's the kind who want to steer this argument by using religion as the issue

Mine was a science based question, you troll asserting a religious counterpoint

Religion is irrelevant, this is based on science

It's the nature of the science that causes you fear, you dare not contest it.

So. It's a "science based" question. "My question was about empirical evidence for evolution". Are you ready for the answer, with the understanding of course that you understand what empirical evidence is (remember the definition).

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Yet my question was about empirical evidence for evolution, nothing about religion

If there be trolls, it's the kind who want to steer this argument by using religion as the issue

Mine was a science based question, you troll asserting a religious counterpoint

Religion is irrelevant, this is based on science

It's the nature of the science that causes you fear, you dare not contest it.

So. It's a "science based" question. "My question was about empirical evidence for evolution". Are you ready for the answer, with the understanding of course that you understand what empirical evidence is (remember the definition).

Answer my question
Simple yes or no

Can you prove with science, will you, humanity arose from a singled celled organism, (edited)

Answer the question
Yes or no

Simple
Yes or No

I have turned the table with your question
It's on you and your science
Answer the question, or just go hide phantom

I like your line of questioning, simple to the point
Yes or no, then proof


As for empirical evidence, you can have theground, you clearly need it, define it any way you want to Phantom
Anyway you want to, stop running and covering, I will accept anything at this point, make your own rules, stop cowering behind semantics

Dont be a coward, post it

a reply to: Raggedyman

I just love the way that

A, you want "emperical evidence" of evolution
B, change it to abiogenesis
C, change the definition of evolution because "reasons"
D, can't answer a simple question about what "emperical evidence" is

You make me laugh.
I don't take you seriously. Who would? You just too funny!

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Yet my question was about empirical evidence for evolution, nothing about religion

If there be trolls, it's the kind who want to steer this argument by using religion as the issue

Mine was a science based question, you troll asserting a religious counterpoint

Religion is irrelevant, this is based on science

It's the nature of the science that causes you fear, you dare not contest it.

So. It's a "science based" question. "My question was about empirical evidence for evolution". Are you ready for the answer, with the understanding of course that you understand what empirical evidence is (remember the definition).

Answer my question
Simple yes or no

Can you prove with science, will you, humanity arose from space dirt and space water

Answer the question
Yes or no

Simple
Yes or No

I have turned the table with your question
It's on you and your science
Answer the question, or just go hide phantom

I like your line of questioning, simple to the point
Yes or no, then proof


As for empirical evidence, you can have theground, you clearly need it, define it any way you want to Phantom
Anyway you want to, stop running and covering, I will accept anything at this point, make your own rules, stop cowering behind semantics

Dont be a coward, post it

If you want to start a new thread on another topic, please do so. Your initial post asked for empirical evidence. Either you want it or you don't.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Raggedyman

I just love the way that

A, you want "emperical evidence" of evolution
B, change it to abiogenesis
C, change the definition of evolution because "reasons"
D, can't answer a simple question about what "emperical evidence" is

You make me laugh.
I don't take you seriously. Who would? You just too funny!

I just love the way that, you lack comprehension skills

Not a page ago I posted this

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 socially 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

So TD, do you see why I am at a loss

I play by your own rules and you cry foul.
I forego my own opinion to play your game and you are still crying its unfair, still demanding I play unfair.
I accept your rules and you say, its not fair


A, you want "emperical evidence" of evolution YES, I do
B, change it to abiogenesis NO, NO NEED, I DONT NEED THAT, for your sake
C, change the definition of evolution because "reasons" NO, just not MICRO evolution, I accept that
D, can't answer a simple question about what "emperical evidence" is Repeatable Observable and TESTABLE


Can you show me evidence a single celled turned into a human with Repeatable Observable and TESTABLE evidence

Its not hard to comprehend surely

Wow, look you are in a corner, fighting, kicking and scratching and you have nothing


Its not about religion, its about science

Hate on me all you like, I want scientific evidence, nothing more or less

Please continue with your army of strawmen

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Yet my question was about empirical evidence for evolution, nothing about religion

If there be trolls, it's the kind who want to steer this argument by using religion as the issue

Mine was a science based question, you troll asserting a religious counterpoint

Religion is irrelevant, this is based on science

It's the nature of the science that causes you fear, you dare not contest it.

So. It's a "science based" question. "My question was about empirical evidence for evolution". Are you ready for the answer, with the understanding of course that you understand what empirical evidence is (remember the definition).

Answer my question
Simple yes or no

Can you prove with science, will you, humanity arose from a single celled organism

Answer the question
Yes or no

Simple
Yes or No

I have turned the table with your question
It's on you and your science
Answer the question, or just go hide phantom

I like your line of questioning, simple to the point
Yes or no, then proof


As for empirical evidence, you can have theground, you clearly need it, define it any way you want to Phantom
Anyway you want to, stop running and covering, I will accept anything at this point, make your own rules, stop cowering behind semantics

Dont be a coward, post it

If you want to start a new thread on another topic, please do so. Your initial post asked for empirical evidence. Either you want it or you don't.

Answer my question
Simple yes or no

Can you prove with science, will you, humanity arose from space dirt and space water

Answer the question
Yes or no

Simple
Yes or No

I have turned the table with your question
It's on you and your science
Answer the question, or just go hide phantom

I like your line of questioning, simple to the point
Yes or no, then proof


As for empirical evidence, you can have theground, you clearly need it, define it any way you want to Phantom
Anyway you want to, stop running and covering, I will accept anything at this point, make your own rules, stop cowering behind semantics

Dont be a coward, post it

a reply to: Raggedyman

No raggedy, you old fundementalist. I will not show you a bat changing into a Christian or a Muslim changing into a lamb. I also won't show you a fish changing into a chimp, a cat changing into a dog or any other thing you want as you twisted version of evolution lol.

Kudos for still making me laugh though!

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Yet my question was about empirical evidence for evolution, nothing about religion

If there be trolls, it's the kind who want to steer this argument by using religion as the issue

Mine was a science based question, you troll asserting a religious counterpoint

Religion is irrelevant, this is based on science

It's the nature of the science that causes you fear, you dare not contest it.

So. It's a "science based" question. "My question was about empirical evidence for evolution". Are you ready for the answer, with the understanding of course that you understand what empirical evidence is (remember the definition).

Answer my question
Simple yes or no

Can you prove with science, will you, humanity arose from a single celled organism

Answer the question
Yes or no

Simple
Yes or No

I have turned the table with your question
It's on you and your science
Answer the question, or just go hide phantom

I like your line of questioning, simple to the point
Yes or no, then proof


As for empirical evidence, you can have theground, you clearly need it, define it any way you want to Phantom
Anyway you want to, stop running and covering, I will accept anything at this point, make your own rules, stop cowering behind semantics

Dont be a coward, post it

If you want to start a new thread on another topic, please do so. Your initial post asked for empirical evidence. Either you want it or you don't.

Answer my question
Simple yes or no

Can you prove with science, will you, humanity arose from space dirt and space water

Answer the question
Yes or no

Simple
Yes or No

I have turned the table with your question
It's on you and your science
Answer the question, or just go hide phantom

I like your line of questioning, simple to the point
Yes or no, then proof


As for empirical evidence, you can have theground, you clearly need it, define it any way you want to Phantom
Anyway you want to, stop running and covering, I will accept anything at this point, make your own rules, stop cowering behind semantics

Dont be a coward, post it

You turned the table on your own question.

If you want an answer to your second question about space dirt and space water, please provide evidence that evolutionary science says that humanity arose from space dirt and space water. To the best of my knowledge, I have never read any research paper or textbook which says that humans arose from space dirt and space water. So please provide your reference material.
And remember - it must be empirical evidence.

originally posted by: Phantom423

You turned the table on your own question.

If you want an answer to your second question about space dirt and space water, please provide evidence that evolutionary science says that humanity arose from space dirt and space water. To the best of my knowledge, I have never read any research paper or textbook which says that humans arose from space dirt and space water. So please provide your reference material.
And remember - it must be empirical evidence.

I am sorry you didnt notice, I edited abiogenesis out, dropped abiogenesis, dismissed it and asked for no evidence of abiogenesis.

I want evidence of single cell to multi celled life forms.
No interest in abiogenesis at all.
I dismissed that because I dont want to scare you away

Me, I dont believe in unguided abiogenesis so its pointless me to provide any scientific evidence, i have seen none

Thats not what I requested

You are running away, changing the argument, deflecting

Lets leave abiogenesis out, I made a mistake in bringing it up, its irrelevant

I want evidence of single cell to multi celled life forms.


Proof of single celled to humans

Yes or no

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Raggedyman

No raggedy, you old fundementalist. I will not show you a bat changing into a Christian or a Muslim changing into a lamb. I also won't show you a fish changing into a chimp, a cat changing into a dog or any other thing you want as you twisted version of evolution lol.

Kudos for still making me laugh though!

No TD, you old fundementalist.
You have nothing to show me, just your faith, religion to grasp on to with no evidence

Why do you hate science, it has brought you the computer you type on, your car, yor comfort, why turn it into religion, why abuse science with your religion, why the hate on religion

This is totally unfair, its like punching people who have no arms, stuck in a room with blind folds on.

I wont reply to any taunts or strawmen unless you can show me empirical evidence, I feel like I am being cruel to children.

a reply to: Raggedyman

The only one who is saying it is a religion and saying we are religious, is you.

But don't stop! Please don't stop!

We all need the laugh

a reply to: Raggedyman

You're whole thread is based on a strawman lol.

IRONY!

originally posted by: Raggedyman


I wont reply to any taunts or strawmen unless you can show me empirical evidence, I feel like I am being cruel to children.

Perhaps that's because being cruel to children is stupid.

a reply to: pthena

originally posted by: pthena
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.

Ok, I understand what you are saying about DNA, but how does that really conflict with common ancestry? Do you feel that rather than 1 common ancestor, there were several, as in multiple abiogenesis events? Wouldn't you expect to see varying DNA structures in modern organisms if that was the case? It's just a shame that we can't get DNA samples from the really old fossil remains to learn more about the history.

I personally agree with the RNA world hypothesis, but what you are suggesting is an interesting idea. I suppose if the conditions on earth were just right, there could potentially be more than one "abiogenesis". This is especially true when thinking about a comet hitting earth, creating amino acids and jump starting the process.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
This is totally unfair, its like punching people who have no arms, stuck in a room with blind folds on.

Agreed. You must be doing it for the lols, I can't see any other reason why you'd want yourself and your religious beliefs to look this bad.

Religious extremists: Converting more people to atheism than any other group since 1940

a reply to: Barcs

how does that really conflict with common ancestry?
I suppose if the conditions on earth were just right, there could potentially be more than one "abiogenesis".

There may be many trees. Some things assumed to be related may not be at all.
If I'm correct can't dogs, wolves, and coyotes all breed together? All domestic dogs descended from Malaysian wolves. But what about dingoes? Can they breed with other canines? What if they came from a whole different tree? Strike the dingoes, they do interbreed. Sailors brought dogs to Australia 4,000 years ago. They became dingoes.

That's pretty much what I'm saying. They did see differences in the quoted paper, then blew it off. But the OP says the thread isn't about abiogenesis so I'll probably have to start my own thread in Skunkworks at some time.