Creation v Evolution argument can end, page 8

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 03:24 AM

link

a reply to: Raggedyman

You seem to be using a different definition of science than everyone else. You also seem to have made up your own theory of evolution which is fairly different from the commonly accepted one.

I believe you are correct in your theory not being scientific (I use scientific in the standard since here). However, Darwin's theory holds up pretty well. The things you say you want to see are not indicated by Darwinism. The 'science' you're using isn't the science a rational educated person would use.

We would not have developed the level of sophistication we have in engineering, medicine, or anything else if scientists couldn't comprehend more intelligent means of analysis than yours.

Raggedyman

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 03:25 AM

link

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: Raggedyman

The people with ancestry in colder climates do have adaptations to retain heat.

The people with ancestry in colder climates do have adaptations adaptations adaptations to retain heat.

Adaptations is not proof of evolution to a new species

edit on 10-8-2016 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)

humanityrising

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 03:35 AM

link

Here is a clear-cut, proven case of lizards evolving after being moved to a different environment. Their heads and jaws changed shape to accommodate the new diet, their skin color changed, as well as their digestive tracts among other things. These mutations happened in a span of only a few decades.

Another practical, straightforward, and clearly short-term example of adaptive evolution would be how bacteria mutates resistance to antibiotics, at almost a faster pace than modern medicine can keep up with.

Interested to hear this explained away.

Raggedyman

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 03:35 AM

link

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: Raggedyman

You seem to be using a different definition of science than everyone else. You also seem to have made up your own theory of evolution which is fairly different from the commonly accepted one.

I believe you are correct in your theory not being scientific (I use scientific in the standard since here). However, Darwin's theory holds up pretty well. The things you say you want to see are not indicated by Darwinism. The 'science' you're using isn't the science a rational educated person would use.

We would not have developed the level of sophistication we have in engineering, medicine, or anything else if scientists couldn't comprehend more intelligent means of analysis than yours.

Well explain how science is determined according to your understanding.

Mine is repeatable observable and testable as defined by scientists

Darwins was not science, not even nearly, Darwin had no idea what was involved in DNA, never mind he assumed many fossils that never emerged

Darwin was ignorant to the reality of sience

www.wired.com...

The science I am using is pure science, not your religion inspired science with no empirical evidence, just faith

Raggedyman

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 03:37 AM

link

originally posted by: humanityrising
Here is a clear-cut, proven case of lizards evolving after being moved to a different environment. Their heads and jaws changed shape to accommodate the new diet, their skin color changed, as well as their digestive tracts among other things. These mutations happened in a span of only a few decades.

Another practical, straightforward, and clearly short-term example of adaptive evolution would be how bacteria mutates resistance to antibiotics, at almost a faster pace than modern medicine can keep up with.

Interested to hear this explained away.

So those lizards are now alligators, crocodiles, platypus???

Dont be silly

humanityrising

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 03:58 AM

link

a reply to: Raggedyman

If the above mentioned mutations are possible in a span of a few decades, doesn't it stand to reason that over a large span of time, throughout environmental changes, tails could be phased out or gained, scales could be grown or shed, different forms of mobility could be used, etc? Theoretically it's not preposterous, so I might understand if you, thinking objectively, having not seen it happen before your very eyes in your lifetime(?!), might choose to believe it's not %100 fact. However to say it's not even a possibility defies logic, pins yourself down as not being objective, and makes you appear to have your own agenda. We can say no one knows for sure. But that's about all you've got in reality.

VP740

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 04:42 AM

link

a reply to: Raggedyman

Well explain how science is determined according to your understanding.

Probability Theory: The Logic of Science

Mine is repeatable observable and testable as defined by scientists

Can you list a few examples of people you think are scientists?

In the link you attached great respect was given in acknowledging Darwin as a scientist. This further indicates to me that you're a troll trying to mock Christianity. Darwin himself was a Christian during the development of his theory. He never identified himself as an atheist. He stated that his transition to agnosticism was not due to science. I hope people don't fall for your act.

Raggedyman

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 05:01 AM

link

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: Raggedyman

Well explain how science is determined according to your understanding.

Probability Theory: The Logic of Science

Mine is repeatable observable and testable as defined by scientists

Can you list a few examples of people you think are scientists?

In the link you attached great respect was given in acknowledging Darwin as a scientist. This further indicates to me that you're a troll trying to mock Christianity. Darwin himself was a Christian during the development of his theory. He never identified himself as an atheist. He stated that his transition to agnosticism was not due to science. I hope people don't fall for your act.

Santa, the Easter bunny and tom cruise

Well compared to probability when I asked for empirical
They would be a great addition to your collective

I am of the opinion you are a troll mocking science

TheKnightofDoom

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 05:15 AM

link

a reply to: Raggedyman

Can you answer his question?.

Akragon

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 05:48 AM

link

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Akragon

Yeah its cool and all but its just a fish wriggling isnt it
Not exactly empirical

Well you should really watch the video...

It explains how the skeletal structure of said fish changed when it was introduced to land... as opposed to the same species in water...

Wow, so the fish has got bigger muscles and bone structure, amazing
Kinda like how a weightlifter body builder develops bigger muscles and bones when he works harder
I guess body builders are proof of evolution

Except a body builder isn't doing anything we can't already do....

Fish don't walk... and i'd bet that IF this "experiment" continues with multiple generations, said fish would learn to ambulate...

Though I'm pretty sure IF we continuously drop men out of planes sans Parachute...

We won't learn to fly

edit on 10-8-2016 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

Blue_Jay33

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 07:28 AM

link

We can all agree that micro evolution does happen and can be interchanged with adaptation.

evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period.

But fish to human over millions of eons I have to say no.

logicsoda

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 09:10 AM

link

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: Raggedyman

Well explain how science is determined according to your understanding.

Probability Theory: The Logic of Science

Mine is repeatable observable and testable as defined by scientists

Can you list a few examples of people you think are scientists?

In the link you attached great respect was given in acknowledging Darwin as a scientist. This further indicates to me that you're a troll trying to mock Christianity. Darwin himself was a Christian during the development of his theory. He never identified himself as an atheist. He stated that his transition to agnosticism was not due to science. I hope people don't fall for your act.

My responses to him are not for him, but rather for the people who may be lurking these forums and have the tendency to fall for the nonsense that he touts. I am not sure if he is a troll or just willfully ignorant.

logicsoda

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 09:13 AM

link

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

But fish to human over millions of eons I have to say no.

Well, we did evolve from an aquatic species... whether you want to accept it or not. The evidence for this is not only found in fossils, but it is also found in our own physiology.

logicsoda

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 09:32 AM

link

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: HoloShadow
Creation is an idea, Evolution is scientific fact, plain and simple.

Well come up with the empirical evidence, simple

We have. Why do you keep asking for empirical evidence when it has been shown to you on multiple occasions?

GetHyped

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 09:38 AM

link

originally posted by: logicsoda

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: HoloShadow
Creation is an idea, Evolution is scientific fact, plain and simple.

Well come up with the empirical evidence, simple

We have. Why do you keep asking for empirical evidence when it has been shown to you on multiple occasions?

Because unless Raggedyman observes something preposterous and impossible like a rock spontaneously morphing into a parrot, he's going to crow on about how there's no evidence for evolution.

GetHyped

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 09:40 AM

link

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
We can all agree that micro evolution does happen and can be interchanged with adaptation.

Erm... no?

But fish to human over millions of eons I have to say no.

Thankfully, the amazingness and complexity of life and its lineage is not pegged to your intellectual curiosity.

Raggedyman

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 10:37 AM

link

a reply to: GetHyped

No that's not true
I want evidence better than assumption

is that your best evidence, really

Raggedyman

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 10:38 AM

link

a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

I asked for empirical evidence, I asked the question, how about dealing with one issue at a time
Thanks

Raggedyman

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 10:40 AM

link

originally posted by: logicsoda

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: HoloShadow
Creation is an idea, Evolution is scientific fact, plain and simple.

Well come up with the empirical evidence, simple

We have. Why do you keep asking for empirical evidence when it has been shown to you on multiple occasions?

I must have missed it, please show me

TheKnightofDoom

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 10:41 AM

link

a reply to: Raggedyman

I suggest to go to the many evolution threads you and others have made.
Guys stop feeding it....how many more times do you have to go over the same thing with this ignorant person? No evidence is suitable so why waste our time?.