Why will people argue Creation vs. Evolution when it is possible to have both?

reply to post by stereologist

According to allopatric speciation, as an example, people seperated by large regions, would speciate. NO HUMANS are speciating, its a crock.

You simply write no and how do you think people respond to that? They burst out with laughter.

I stated, "The human species evolves."

Here is an example of a human population that is evolving.
Darwin Lives! Modern Humans Are Still Evolving

With words like suggests, and perhaps I can see why you buy it as proof, it seems to be a consistant find with those that believe in evolution.

team of scientists led by Yale University evolutionary biologist Stephen Stearns suggests that if the natural selection of fitter traits is no longer driven by survival, perhaps it owes to differences in women's fertility. "Variations in reproductive success still exist among humans, and therefore some traits related to fertility continue to be shaped by natural selection," Stearns says. That is, women who have more children are more likely to pass on certain traits to their progeny.

Read more: www.time.com...

yale link

As you can see from reading this, its total speculation, but I wouldn't expect anything solid coming from you.

Who cares if I thought that Tooth's Folly was so stupid that I was willing to give you a pass on it.

At least I do not think that male and female mosquitoes are different species because only females consume blood.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Cabbits and mosquitoes.

Of course there are always exceptions.

reply to post by itsthetooth

With words like suggests, and perhaps I can see why you buy it as proof, it seems to be a consistant find with those that believe in evolution.

Take a basic course and learn about science. That will certainly help you. Just because you do not understand why it is written as it is simply shows you continue to argue from personal ignorance.

As you can see from reading this, its total speculation, but I wouldn't expect anything solid coming from you.

That is a clear misrepresentation. I would expect that from someone still clinging to Tooth Folly.

Of course there are always exceptions.

No. It just shows you do not understand the basics of biology.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Not when its a hypothesis like evolution.

That’s not an answer to the question. Are you still under the impression that there is such a thing as a “proven theory” in science?

Your assumption that evolution was lurking around that time is nothing more than a guess.

Are you still under the impression that abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing?

Its just more hypothesis, and totally ignores the historical data that we have.

In other words, you have no valid argument to present for why the original Miller-Urey experiment and all of the subsequent research based upon should be called “a turd”. Or do you have something more to say other than some vague reply regarding “the historical data that we have”?

because its just another hypothesis in the ever growing pot of evolution. As far as I'm concearned it may as well be part of it.

The fact that you still think that abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing “as far as you’re concerned” is further evidence that you do not "understand evolution perfectly fine".

It once again shows no regard for the historical data that we currently have.

What “historical data that we currently have” does the hypothesis of abiogenesis disregard?

Do you have some proof that I made up the blue laminate? Of course I made up target food.

You have never been able to present any evidence from any source other than your own memory for the concept of “blue laminate”.

reply to post by stereologist

With words like suggests, and perhaps I can see why you buy it as proof, it seems to be a consistant find with those that believe in evolution.

Take a basic course and learn about science. That will certainly help you. Just because you do not understand why it is written as it is simply shows you continue to argue from personal ignorance.

I understand perfectly well why its written the way that it is, because evoluton is pure speculation which is what I have always said.

As you can see from reading this, its total speculation, but I wouldn't expect anything solid coming from you.

That is a clear misrepresentation. I would expect that from someone still clinging to Tooth Folly.

There is no such thing as a tooth folly, thats just your evolution imagination mind at work.

Of course there are always exceptions.

No. It just shows you do not understand the basics of biology.

I see, so just because you realized that female mosquitoes consume blood and the male counter parts dont, means you have biology down good.

reply to post by iterationzero

Not when its a hypothesis like evolution.

That’s not an answer to the question. Are you still under the impression that there is such a thing as a “proven theory” in science?

Theories can't be proven, they can only be disproven.

our assumption that evolution was lurking around that time is nothing more than a guess.

Are you still under the impression that abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing?

When did I ever make such a claim?

In other words, you have no valid argument to present for why the original Miller-Urey experiment and all of the subsequent research based upon should be called “a turd”. Or do you have something more to say other than some vague reply regarding “the historical data that we have”?

NO... Its just more hypothesis, and totally ignores the historical data that we have.

The fact that you still think that abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing “as far as you’re concerned” is further evidence that you do not "understand evolution perfectly fine".

I didn't say its part of evolution, I said its just one more hypothesis to add to he pot.

It once again shows no regard for the historical data that we currently have.

What “historical data that we currently have” does the hypothesis of abiogenesis disregard?

Why, the bible of course.

Do you have some proof that I made up the blue laminate? Of course I made up target food.

You have never been able to present any evidence from any source other than your own memory for the concept of “blue laminate”.

And so you think thats proof that I made it up?

reply to post by itsthetooth

I understand perfectly well why its written the way that it is, because evoluton is pure speculation which is what I have always said.

A clear statement revealing your ignorance of the subject.

There is no such thing as a tooth folly, thats just your evolution imagination mind at work.

You have responded many times to the issue of Tooth Folly. You have accepted that name.

I see, so just because you realized that female mosquitoes consume blood and the male counter parts dont, means you have biology down good.

The issue is not me or how much more I understand than you will ever understand.

The issue is what you stated. You stated that due to the different diets these 2 were separate species.

That is just another odd issue that goes hand in hand with Tooth's Folly.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Theories can't be proven, they can only be disproven.

This may be the single most accurate thing you've ever said about anything relating to science. I'm glad you understand now that the phrase "proven theory" is meaningless when it comes to discussing science. Now a follow up question: are you under the impression that a hypothesis and a theory are the same thing?

When did I ever make such a claim?

I'm not saying you made a claim. The fact that we're taking about abiogenesis and you immediately brought up evolution by saying "our assumption that evolution was lurking around that time is nothing more than a guess" suggests that you're under the impression that evolution and abiogenesis are the same thing. Are you still under the impression that abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing?

NO... Its just more hypothesis, and totally ignores the historical data that we have.

Experiments, like the Miller-Urey experiment and the subsequent experiments that built upon it are not hypotheses. Experiments are how a hypothesis is tested. Are you under the impression that an experiment and a hypothesis are the same thing?

I didn't say its part of evolution, I said its just one more hypothesis to add to he pot.

No, you stated quite clearly in this post that abiogenesis is part of evolution:

because its just another hypothesis in the ever growing pot of evolution. As far as I'm concearned it may as well be part of it.

Are you still under the impression that abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing?

Why, the bible of course.

The Bible describes the primordial atmosphere and conditions on Earth around 4 billion years ago? I was unaware of this. Can you show me where in the Bible that is explicitly described?

And so you think thats proof that I made it up?

No, the fact that you are unable to provide any evidence that the concept of DNA having a "blue laminate" exists anywhere outside of your own head is evidence that you made it up.

reply to post by stereologist

There is no such thing as a tooth folly, thats just your evolution imagination mind at work.

You have responded many times to the issue of Tooth Folly. You have accepted that name.

This is a perfectly good example of how jacked up your mind is. I never said that I accept Tooth Folly, you assumed I did just because I acknowledged it.

see, so just because you realized that female mosquitoes consume blood and the male counter parts dont, means you have biology down good.

The issue is not me or how much more I understand than you will ever understand.

The issue is what you stated. You stated that due to the different diets these 2 were separate species.

That is just another odd issue that goes hand in hand with Tooth's Folly.

Thats only because you once again assumed that I was looking at describing a species based on what it eats, and your wrong. The female mosquito species all eats the same thing, the male mosquito's species all eat the same thing.

reply to post by iterationzero

Theories can't be proven, they can only be disproven.

This may be the single most accurate thing you've ever said about anything relating to science. I'm glad you understand now that the phrase "proven theory" is meaningless when it comes to discussing science. Now a follow up question: are you under the impression that a hypothesis and a theory are the same thing?

A hypothesis is just a thought with no proof to back it up. A theory could have some facts.

When did I ever make such a claim?

I'm not saying you made a claim. The fact that we're taking about abiogenesis and you immediately brought up evolution by saying "our assumption that evolution was lurking around that time is nothing more than a guess" suggests that you're under the impression that evolution and abiogenesis are the same thing. Are you still under the impression that abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing?

Depends on what you mean by the same thing. In my example they are both hypothesis, so in that sense they are the same.

NO... Its just more hypothesis, and totally ignores the historical data that we have.

Experiments, like the Miller-Urey experiment and the subsequent experiments that built upon it are not hypotheses. Experiments are how a hypothesis is tested. Are you under the impression that an experiment and a hypothesis are the same thing?

Nope.

I didn't say its part of evolution, I said its just one more hypothesis to add to he pot.

No, you stated quite clearly in this post that abiogenesis is part of evolution:

I'm sorry but the link doesn't take me to the exact point of interest, so I'm unsure what your talking about.

because its just another hypothesis in the ever growing pot of evolution. As far as I'm concearned it may as well be part of it.

Are you still under the impression that abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing?

What is it exactly that leads you to believe they aren't related by any means. I'm seeing a pattern of theorys and hypothesis that are telling a different story.

Why, the bible of course.

The Bible describes the primordial atmosphere and conditions on Earth around 4 billion years ago? I was unaware of this. Can you show me where in the Bible that is explicitly described?

. The Bible is a collection of writings, and the earliest ones were set down nearly 3500 years ago.

Bible link

As you can see, your wrong, the bible was written about 3,500 years ago.

No, the fact that you are unable to provide any evidence that the concept of DNA having a "blue laminate" exists anywhere outside of your own head is evidence that you made it up.

Your deductive reasoning is flawed. As I explained, the blue laminate, was sourced from a video that I watched, later confirmed by a video I watched in a church. Your wrong, I did not make it up. Notice how you indicate that because I'm unable to produce any proof of blue laminate, that it must mean I made it up. If this is the same reasoning you use for seeing evolution, I can understand now why you think its real. Your logic is bassackwards.

reply to post by itsthetooth

This is a perfectly good example of how jacked up your mind is. I never said that I accept Tooth Folly, you assumed I did just because I acknowledged it.

Try learning some basic English. Your acknowledgement is acceptance of the term Tooth's Folly.

Thats only because you once again assumed that I was looking at describing a species based on what it eats, and your wrong. The female mosquito species all eats the same thing, the male mosquito's species all eat the same thing.

Please provide proof of this?

You clearly have no idea what science means by specie. You clearly separated male and female mosquitoes into separate species.

That was based on this absurdity of yours known as Tooth's Folly.

Do you have anything on topic to post?

reply to post by itsthetooth

A hypothesis is just a thought with no proof to back it up. A theory could have some facts.

Still clueless after all this time. Of course, that was evident from all of your posts.

Depends on what you mean by the same thing. In my example they are both hypothesis, so in that sense they are the same.

Clearly revealing that you do not know what hypothesis means.

As you can see, your wrong, the bible was written about 3,500 years ago.

So the new testament was written 3500 years ago?

The link you give confirms that IterationZero is right and you are wrong. Not often posters get 99.999% of their posts wrong. Seems anything is possible.

The Bible is a collection of writings, and the earliest ones were set down nearly 3500 years ago.

Your deductive reasoning is flawed. As I explained, the blue laminate, was sourced from a video that I watched, later confirmed by a video I watched in a church. Your wrong, I did not make it up. Notice how you indicate that because I'm unable to produce any proof of blue laminate, that it must mean I made it up. If this is the same reasoning you use for seeing evolution, I can understand now why you think its real. Your logic is bassackwards.

Another unsubstantiated fairy tale from Tooth just like Tooth's Folly.

reply to post by itsthetooth

A hypothesis is just a thought with no proof to back it up. A theory could have some facts.

Your personal definition of a hypothesis shows a retreat to the colloquial, not the scientific, definition of the word:

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation.

Now you’ve acknowledged that there’s no such thing as a “proven theory” in the scientific sense and that a hypothesis and a theory are two different things. The next question is, are you still under the impression that abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing? I ask again because we were clearly discussing abiogenesis, which is hypothesized to have taken place around four billion years ago, based on objective evidence in the form of the fossil record. However, you replied with the following when we were talking about abiogenesis:

our assumption that evolution was lurking around that time is nothing more than a guess

We were discussing abiogenesis and your rebuttal for it was in regards to evolution. Were you simply mistaken in your choice of words or are you under the impression that abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing?

I'm sorry but the link doesn't take me to the exact point of interest, so I'm unsure what your talking about.

The fact that you can’t understand what you wrote in your own post isn’t my problem. Here’s the exact quote of yours that I’m referring to:

because its just another hypothesis in the ever growing pot of evolution. As far as I'm concearned it may as well be part of it.

Are you still under the impression that abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing?

As you can see, your wrong, the bible was written about 3,500 years ago.

I’m uncertain what I’m wrong about. You claimed that the Miller-Urey experiment and all of the subsequent work built upon it disregarded the “historical record” -- your term indicating your belief as to its veracity, not mine -- of the Bible. The Miller-Urey experiment was an attempt to see whether the precursors to life could be formed by simulating the conditions that existed on Earth around four billion years ago. I asked if the Bible describes the primordial atmosphere and conditions on Earth around four billion years ago. Are you under the impression that it does? If you are, can you show me where in the Bible that is explicitly described? If you are not, then can you explain to me how the Miller-Urey experiment could have disregarded something that never appears in your “historical record”?

Your deductive reasoning is flawed. As I explained, the blue laminate, was sourced from a video that I watched, later confirmed by a video I watched in a church.

So you can provide a copy of the video, or a link to the video, or some kind of record that the video exists, or a source for where the rest of us can view a copy of the video, or the name of who produced the video, or the name of someone involved in the video… you can provide some kind of evidence that the video exists outside of your imagination?

reply to post by stereologist

This is a perfectly good example of how jacked up your mind is. I never said that I accept Tooth Folly, you assumed I did just because I acknowledged it.

Try learning some basic English. Your acknowledgement is acceptance of the term Tooth's Folly.

Then I don't acknowledge it.

Please provide proof of this?

You clearly have no idea what science means by specie. You clearly separated male and female mosquitoes into separate species.

That was based on this absurdity of yours known as Tooth's Folly.

Do you have anything on topic to post?

Target Food is a winning theory, thanks in part to your help, or the lack of anyhow. Untill someone is able to produce a listed diet that shows species experiment with food, and it would have to be like ALL species, then you are wrong.

reply to post by stereologist

A hypothesis is just a thought with no proof to back it up. A theory could have some facts.

Still clueless after all this time. Of course, that was evident from all of your posts.


Depends on what you mean by the same thing. In my example they are both hypothesis, so in that sense they are the same.

Clearly revealing that you do not know what hypothesis means.

Of course I do, its the glue that holds evolution together.

As you can see, your wrong, the bible was written about 3,500 years ago.

So the new testament was written 3500 years ago?

The link you give confirms that IterationZero is right and you are wrong. Not often posters get 99.999% of their posts wrong. Seems anything is possible.

I posted a link to back up the claim, you havent, so your opinion doesn't help here.

Another unsubstantiated fairy tale from Tooth just like Tooth's Folly.

Assuming I made up a theory because there is no proof, is not proof of me doing so.

I do not see Religion and Science as mutually exclusive. I don't have a lot of faith in most of the religions that I've seen.

My argument for God and creation goes like this.

If God exists and evolution exists then evolution is Gods tool.

Think about that one for a bit. Even God may have followed a bit of a structured path in his creation scheme.

reply to post by iterationzero

Now you’ve acknowledged that there’s no such thing as a “proven theory” in the scientific sense and that a hypothesis and a theory are two different things. The next question is, are you still under the impression that abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing? I ask again because we were clearly discussing abiogenesis, which is hypothesized to have taken place around four billion years ago, based on objective evidence in the form of the fossil record. However, you replied with the following when we were talking about abiogenesis:

Seeing how they are both stemming from fantasy throught, as far as I'm concearned they are.

We were discussing abiogenesis and your rebuttal for it was in regards to evolution. Were you simply mistaken in your choice of words or are you under the impression that abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing?

Depends on what you mean by same thing. They are both from fantasy so in that sense, to me, they are.

Are you still under the impression that abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing?

I never said they are the same thing. They are however both from fantasy.

I’m uncertain what I’m wrong about. You claimed that the Miller-Urey experiment and all of the subsequent work built upon it disregarded the “historical record” -- your term indicating your belief as to its veracity, not mine -- of the Bible. The Miller-Urey experiment was an attempt to see whether the precursors to life could be formed by simulating the conditions that existed on Earth around four billion years ago. I asked if the Bible describes the primordial atmosphere and conditions on Earth around four billion years ago. Are you under the impression that it does? If you are, can you show me where in the Bible that is explicitly described? If you are not, then can you explain to me how the Miller-Urey experiment could have disregarded something that never appears in your “historical record”?

Exactly, that theory does nothing but try to overwrite the historical document that we have, which claims that each species was created by a creator.

So you can provide a copy of the video, or a link to the video, or some kind of record that the video exists, or a source for where the rest of us can view a copy of the video, or the name of who produced the video, or the name of someone involved in the video… you can provide some kind of evidence that the video exists outside of your imagination?

It wasn't a video on the internet, it was a private video through the church.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Then I don't acknowledge it.

You did. Too late. It's Tooth's Folly forever.

Target Food is a winning theory, thanks in part to your help, or the lack of anyhow. Untill someone is able to produce a listed diet that shows species experiment with food, and it would have to be like ALL species, then you are wrong.

Tooth's Folly is a delusion, not a theory. Your sentence continues to be nonsensical English as already explained. Animals experiment with food regardless of abundance.

reply to post by stereologist

Tooth's Folly is a delusion, not a theory. Your sentence continues to be nonsensical English as already explained. Animals experiment with food regardless of abundance.

Yes it is a delusion, thanks for owning up to that. Unlike Target Food which is still a winning theory.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Of course I do, its the glue that holds evolution together.

More evidence you have no idea what the terms mean.

I posted a link to back up the claim, you havent, so your opinion doesn't help here.

You lied about the link as I pointed out.

Assuming I made up a theory because there is no proof, is not proof of me doing so.

Tooth's Folly is still a delusional idea with no merit and proved wrong countless times.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Yes it is a delusion, thanks for owning up to that. Unlike Target Food which is still a winning theory.

Thanks for admitting that your Tooth's Folly is a delusion.