Creation v Evolution argument can end

come on Phants, I am as excited as ak about this

a reply to: Raggedyman

Do you agree or don't you? Yes or no.

a reply to: Phantom423

Y E S

I thought you were agreeing to do as I requested, showing me empirical evidence but either way, I agree, yes Phants, I definetly, totally 100 percent agree, I am waiting, dancing like a pink cat
Categorically, yes I agree
You can spend a few more posts asking the same question, that's fine

The answer is always my request
Show me evidence not based on assumptions

Was that clear enough?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Good. We'll start with a clear definition of empirical evidence. If you disagree with the definition, post your own definition. Just respond that you agree or disagree.

Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.

In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference presentation and journal publication. This requires rigorous communication of hypothesis (usually expressed in mathematics), experimental constraints and controls (expressed necessarily in terms of standard experimental apparatus), and a common understanding of measurement.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Do you agree to the definition of empirical evidence or don't you? I don't want to waste my time. Thanks.

a reply to: Akragon

personally i don't see that theory as correct in the least...

I don't either, but it is the one that seems to be taught. It came from this source:

evolution.berkeley.edu
This site was created by the University of California Museum of Paleontology with support provided by the National Science Foundation (grant no. 0096613) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (grant no. 51003439)

All life on earth didn't come from one common ancestor...

The first one of those 5 proofs I posted earlier "1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended."

I read a paper describing this. It said right in it that there are exceptions that don't fit. Then it says "The exceptions prove the theory" Actually, the exceptions would suggest that "Universal" is the wrong word to use.

One of the theories i've heard is that life started from meteors hitting the earth...

My personal bigoted bias leans toward planetary superiority. My born on this Earth life forms kicked the meteors life in the butt and ate them, the foreign DNA led to mutation of the natives. Oh Yeah! Earth rules! We win! That could be mere bigotry speaking, but hey, what can you expect?

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Raggedyman

Do you agree to the definition of empirical evidence or don't you? I don't want to waste my time. Thanks.

Let's find a written statement from a mutual source, wikipedia, oxford, live science has a very good definition
Do you agree

Please continue, define your terms

I don't want to waste my time any more either Phants, look at all the trolls in this thread and their empirical evidences
I don't think you will offer any better, in fact I don't think you will offer anything, looks like you are already looking for a way to back out

Berkley has a great definition on macro and microevolution

a reply to: Raggedyman

The definitions are from links:

www.livescience.com...

en.wikipedia.org...
(Meaning, paragraph 3)

a reply to: Phantom423

You are not limiting it to para 3 are you?

Silly question, proceed please

a reply to: Raggedyman

Paragraph 3 is what I quoted initially as a definition of empirical evidence.
Do you agree to the definition - yes or no?

a reply to: Raggedyman

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.

I would remind you that this was your original question - it was not about macro/micro evolution. Your request was for EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Raggedyman

Paragraph 3 is what I quoted initially as a definition of empirical evidence.
Do you agree to the definition - yes or no?

I am wondering if you have comprehension issues
I don't want to waste my time Phantom, act like an adult

a reply to: Phantom423

Now you are backpeddaling, you are terrified
Read my opening post and then run along

You have it or you don't, put it up, if you don't, please stop wasting my time

originally posted by: Raggedyman
You have it or you don't, put it up, if you don't, please stop wasting my time

All you do is waste time trying to get people to cry uncle.

Some people believe what you do some don't, get over it.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Phantom423

Now you are backpeddaling, you are terrified
Read my opening post and then run along

You have it or you don't, put it up, if you don't, please stop wasting my time

LOL! You are the one who is backpeddling. YOU accept HIS challenge! It's right there for all to see. All you've done is shown yourself to be an intellectually dishonest fool.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: logicsoda

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Barcs

i second that request Barcs....

Please do post something to end these silly threads once and for all

I hope Barcs posts something so Raggedyman can shred it! I think his response will be something to the tune of...

"SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE, SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!"

You hope Barcs can do it

What, cant you

I would hope you could, not leave it up to others.
Indicates you dont have any, is that right, you believe by faith?

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Here you go. Please shred this!



I already know you won't, and you'll just respond with denial or a strawman, but this should be comical watching how you deflect.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: logicsoda

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Barcs

i second that request Barcs....

Please do post something to end these silly threads once and for all

I hope Barcs posts something so Raggedyman can shred it! I think his response will be something to the tune of...

"SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE, SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!"

You hope Barcs can do it

What, cant you

I would hope you could, not leave it up to others.
Indicates you dont have any, is that right, you believe by faith?

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Here you go. Please shred this!

I already know you won't, and you'll just respond with denial or a strawman, but this should be comical watching how you deflect.

I don't think you understood my opening post

I really appreciate you trying, the effort you put in and at least you had a go, failed miserably but at least had a go, Kudos to you

Now
Please go back to my opening post, refine the words in it, sift those words. Look for key words, highlight the issues and please, have another go, don't give up

I won't waste my time on fish adapting to environments, we see people do that, adaptation to environment, micro evolution.

You can go to the Berkley website and define micro evolution, micro evolution is obvious, I don't deny micro evolution, thats not up for discussion.

Remember, the Berkley website I mentioned to Phants

Now I know you will respond like Phantom did, a personal attack, strawman, denial of macro and micro (hence the Berkley link)
I expect no less, no more either, just deflection

a reply to: Raggedyman

So you don't want empirical evidence, even though that's what you asked for? Just say yes or no -

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

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Raggedyman
You have it or you don't, put it up, if you don't, please stop wasting my time

All you do is waste time trying to get people to cry uncle.

Some people believe what you do some don't, get over it.

How in any way shape or form does your comment provide empirical evidence, why comment with nothing
I don't see the point

If what is being sold as the truth is the truth, then I would like to see the empirical evidence, it's very simple
Show the evidence or admit it doesn't exist, it's an easy end

Any one of these serious scholars, honest men should be able to admit there is no empirical evidence, it's circumstantial and assumed
But they can't admit the truth, if they do, they admit they are subject to a faith statement,,we believe based on assumption, not hard evidence

I accept they believe, I am just asking based on what

I accept why they believe in evolution, even admit it is the common sense choice.
I just asked for more than assumption as evidence

Sorry if I expect science to be more than a faith statement, sorry that I don't manipulate and abuse science, sorry that I hold science to a high standard and don't prostitute it out to my beliefs

Sorry that those here don't recognize that they are on a computer because of science, drive cars because of science, live in comfort because of science.
I am sorry these atheists hate science and want to corrupt it to its core for self grandioising

a reply to: Phantom423

Refer to the opening post phantom
It's not hard to understand

Just wasting my time arnt you, why not highlight the part about micro evolution, deflection, sleight of hand, scared?
Rhetorical question