Creation v Evolution argument can end

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Raggedyman

Not by your standard but, we have danced to this tune enough times to know that this is where it was going.

We'll show me the scientific evidence, empirical evidence

Whale hips and baby gills don't, arnt

a reply to: Raggedyman

"Organics"

Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells
That's the official news release from a lab. The story is written by one of the team. She should have a clear understanding because of her expertise in the field and she was there.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Is your definition of empirical evidence going to change?

Quit wasting your own time.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Empirical evidence for evolution, that would be a great thread

It won't get a single serious reply

Whale bone hips, cricket gills and baby gills

Arnt you sick of this

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TerryDon79

Empirical evidence for evolution, that would be a great thread

It won't get a single serious reply

Whale bone hips, cricket gills and baby gills

Arnt you sick of this

Nope. I'm having a "whale" of a time!

*crickets*

a reply to: Raggedyman

You are having trouble grasping that nobody is going to be able to provide what you are asking for?

Even when you tell them to use their definition you come back saying that it isn't empirical evidence.

ETA: Why are you even asking me? I told you pages ago I have nothing to offer.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Raggedyman

Is your definition of empirical evidence going to change?

Quit wasting your own time.

My definition of empirical evidence was agreed on with Phantom
It was based on the live science and the Wikipedia definition

If you would like to find another well reputed scientific site that defines empirical evidence I will agree, no problems at all

Dask, go find a scientific definition to empirical evidence, then post it up

My definition doesn't have to change, you just have to learn what empirical evidence is
Go, I am here

a reply to: daskakik

That's because he wants to see a baby fishy turn into a mammoth or an eagle or some other wierd version of his views of evolution. And he wants to see it happening right now. You know? The thing that would disprove evolution lol.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Raggedyman

You are having trouble grasping that nobody is going to be able to provide what you are asking for?

Even when you tell them to use their definition you come back saying that it isn't empirical evidence.

ETA: Why are you even asking me? I told you pages ago I have nothing to offer.

No dask, I am not
Others are not grasping they don't have any empirical evidence
No
You are not grasping I am playing by your rules, allowing you to decide the grounds

There is no empirical evidence, that's why phantom disappeared

originally posted by: Raggedyman
My definition of empirical evidence was agreed on with Phantom
It was based on the live science and the Wikipedia definition

No you reneged on that as well.

If you would like to find another well reputed scientific site that defines empirical evidence I will agree, no problems at all

Dask, go find a scientific definition to empirical evidence, then post it up

My definition doesn't have to change, you just have to learn what empirical evidence is
Go, I am here

No, I already said that I have nothing to offer.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
No dask, I am not
Others are not grasping they don't have any empirical evidence
No
You are not grasping I am playing by your rules, allowing you to decide the grounds

There is no empirical evidence, that's why phantom disappeared

By your definition, which is really just your opinion.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: daskakik

That's because he wants to see a baby fishy turn into a mammoth or an eagle or some other wierd version of his views of evolution. And he wants to see it happening right now. You know? The thing that would disprove evolution lol.

That's a miracle, that's just what you want people to believe of me

That's your strawman because I threaten you intelectualy and emotionally

Calm down their TD

You are turning into a pumpkin, relax, breathe deep, think calm thoughts, walk away from the computer, have a cool drink

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: daskakik

That's because he wants to see a baby fishy turn into a mammoth or an eagle or some other wierd version of his views of evolution. And he wants to see it happening right now. You know? The thing that would disprove evolution lol.

That's a miracle, that's just what you want people to believe of me

That's your strawman because I threaten you intelectualy and emotionally

Calm down their TD

You are turning into a pumpkin, relax, breathe deep, think calm thoughts, walk away from the computer, have a cool drink

You're just too funny. Wanting something, get shown it, say it's not it, want it again, but change the terms, get shown it, say it's not it, want it again ad infinitum.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I think if you understood my argument of the 10000000000 plus million deaths was more about atheists saying religion (social religion?) is bad, compared to Darwinism, not so bad is it

I understood what you were trying to say. You are not hard to understand. You may be the 10000000000 millionth plus, 100% predictable creationist I've come across. You know that old saying, there is nothing new under the sun?

Taking theories about the natural world and applying them to social constructs to justify this or that atrocity, is most certainly not any better than religion being used to justify the same.

However, that is not Darwinism. That is not a reflection of the Theory of Evolution.

Religion has holy texts that command and condone bloodshed. That equals bad.

The Theory of Evolution, or "Darwinism", says nothing of the kind. That is what equals good.

Bottom line is evil people will do evil things, and for reasons and justifications of their own. It just happens to be the case that religion leaves the door open for it. That and the fervent, zealous faith that can arise when one believes, is a dangerous combination.

That's why only a handful of names are thrown out when trying to correlate atheism with atrocities.

Nothing about being an atheist or agnostic leaves the door open for nasty religious garbage.

a reply to: pthena

I recall that! I think I also mentioned my enjoyment of these antics.

Plus I have learned some cool things from some of the posters here.

I appreciate their desire to share information as passionately as the creationists desire to willfully ignore it (as the case usually goes, but not always!).

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

It's looking like the OP is going to ignore the empirical evidence I posted. I'd like to move on to another sub forum. Maybe check back in a couple of hours to see if the article was even read or not.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

It's looking like the OP is going to ignore the empirical evidence I posted. I'd like to move on to another sub forum. Maybe check back in a couple of hours to see if the article was even read or not.

It's looking like it isn't it

Maybe it's been lost amongst the stupid comments
Pleas post it up again, pm it to me, whatever floats your boat

Not ignoring it, maybe I just thought it was a joke, reply directly

I am asking, let's see what you have

Not whale hip bones I hope

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: daskakik

That's because he wants to see a baby fishy turn into a mammoth or an eagle or some other wierd version of his views of evolution. And he wants to see it happening right now. You know? The thing that would disprove evolution lol.

That's a miracle, that's just what you want people to believe of me

That's your strawman because I threaten you intelectualy and emotionally

Calm down their TD

You are turning into a pumpkin, relax, breathe deep, think calm thoughts, walk away from the computer, have a cool drink

You're just too funny. Wanting something, get shown it, say it's not it, want it again, but change the terms, get shown it, say it's not it, want it again ad infinitum.

Whale hips as vestigial so, baby's gills that don't exist, crickets with gills but no proof, pictures of dinosaur bones
Really?

Overwhelming

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Barcs

It's a fantastic theory, except nobody can find any proof of a lineage in the fossil record, they can't even find a fossil record for that matter

Right... and water isn't wet nor is the sky blue by your splendid logic! Well done!


I'd normally be all too happy to explain this to you, again, but as you have stated repeatedly that you refuse to read any of my replies that consist of complete sentences and words with more than one syllable, there ian't much point in putting in the effort when as you so eloquently stated... "you've heard it all before from me and there's never anything new" then the answers clearly exist in my post history so feel free to use the search feature. I'm sure all of the answers you seek are there,and in triplicate if you're even slightly conservative in your estimates of how many times I've explained all of the evidence to you.

Of all the species, not one single lineage exists,

coelacanth, horseshoe crabs all sorts of living fossils out there and still nothing that would suggest a lineage, no chain of evolution

And here we have another glimmering example of how shiny and glowing the depths of your ignorance truly is. You wouldn't know what a living fossil was if it sat on your lap. Let's just use your first example to show that you're utterly clueless, woefully undereducated on the topic you claim intimate knowledge of and so willfully ignorant that I'd be insane to think this post will make any difference in your views on actual science. I'm doing this just in case there are people who are genuinely curious about the subject and allowing your unfettered ignorance to stand unchallenged would be socially irresponsible. Lest I digress further...


The beginning of your silly little statement says,

Of all the species, not one single lineage exists,

before bringing up the Coelacanth as if it supports your statements. But it doesn't and all you're doing is repeating someone else's B.S. without engaging in any due diligence to ascertain the truthfulness of the statement. If you had done so, you would know that Coelacanth is not a species, it's an entire Order. For those who want to learn, at the bottom of the ladder is Species, above Species is the level of Genus, above that is Family and above Family we finally have Order. The full list of the taxonomic hierarchy from top down is Life, Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and finally Species for those who are interested. The remaining members of the Coelacanth Order are 2 species of the Genus, Latimeria. There is the West Indian Ocean Coelacanth, Latimeria Chalumnae. This is the one found off the coast of S. Africa (and subsequently all up and down the East coast of Africa) and is the first Coelacanth discovered in modern times back in 1938. The other and slightly more recent discovery( only found in 1998 or '99) is L. Menadoensis and is found in the shallow waters off of Indonesia. When I say these were recent discoveries, I only mean in the sense to western biologists and paleontologists as both species were well known to locals. While certainly of great interest as the entire order was thought to have gone extinct 66 MA, they are in no way a "living fossil", unchanged for millions of years. There are numerous morphological differences between the 2 modern species and the rest of their extinct order and the ability to engage in genetic ttesting of the surviving taxon has allowed Evolutionary Biologists to establish a molecular clock and determine that the dibergence of Coelacanth, Tetrapods and Lungfish occurred around 390 MA. The main point I'm trying to get at is that if you can't be bothered to establish a baseline of knowledge regarding the veracity of statements you yourself are making, then your entire position is founded on far higher levels of ignorance and assumption than you attempt to accuse those of an opposing point of view of having.

It's interesting how so many talk as if evolution is a settled outcome, talk like the evidence is all around, like when a thread like this is penned it should be decried instantly

Yet it's not

This is all based on assumption. do you have any empirical evidence of this statement being true?

In fact over 20 pages and the nonsense, human foetus have gills in the womb, people still believe that, crickets with gills, breathe underwater, seriously
Whale hip bones, seriously, how can they still teach, believe that stuff

You can mock it all you like but I have yet to see you explain why all of the genetic evidence proving evolution as a factual biological process is flawed. You make a lot of assumptions based on refusing to understand the material you decry. Do you have any counter hyptothesis based on empirical data?

Do you not sit there at times and think, ever just think

All the time. Give it a shot sometime, you just might not be allergic to the notion.

a reply to: Raggedyman

C'mon it's on this very same page.

Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells