Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creation...

[australopithecus]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

No, It says that it Came from a Single Cell. Or something Simpler. Go find a pebble, and make it bigger be Eroding it.

Firstly, lame analogy. Secondly, I smell the long refuted 'mutation doesn't add info' fallacy. It does. Game over.

You're asserting that the stone prices need and explanation; that's not the job of evolutionary theory. That's abiogenesis' job.

Stop trying to refute something you obviously know nothing about.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

No, It says that it Came from a Single Cell. Or something Simpler. Go find a pebble, and make it bigger be Eroding it.

Again I ask you:
Do you recognise that we have managed to "evolve" animals in the laboratory? And do you recognise the methods and the process by wich so was done, like the role of DNA and selection? (even if at this moment you do not reconise that it applys to everything else).

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

No, It says that it Came from a Single Cell. Or something Simpler. Go find a pebble, and make it bigger be Eroding it.

Firstly, lame analogy. Secondly, I smell the long refuted 'mutation doesn't add info' fallacy. It does. Game over.

You're asserting that the stone prices need and explanation; that's not the job of evolutionary theory. That's abiogenesis' job.

Stop trying to refute something you obviously know nothing about.

Mutations are Like Erosion, And I GAVE you a Pebble, (Single Cell) Please, you can have all the sandpaper you want, Make the rock bigger by Eroding it.

 

[Noth]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Mutations are Like Erosion,

No.

And I GAVE you a Pebble, (Single Cell) Please,

Not a good comparison as has been explained to you. Try harder/ change your game/ research before throwing out silly statements.

I'm sure you can see you are beginning to frustrate people who have presented evidence and explanations to you which you pointedly choose to ignore each and every single time.
Please answer this question as I believe it is vital for whether we should actually bother:

1) would you want to know if you're wrong?
2) are you open to arguments that seem to contradict what you believe?

 

[australopithecus]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Mutations are Like Erosion, And I GAVE you a Pebble, (Single Cell) Please, you can have all the sandpaper you want, Make the rock bigger by Eroding it.

Mutations are nothing like erosions. Your analogy is nonsensical, and it's not going to make sense regardless of how many times you repeat it.

Describe WHY evolution is like erosion. Define your terms in the context of the theory, and stop using metaphors that make no sense in that context.

It's painfully obvious you know NOTHING about the ToE, why are you still pretending?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

OK, I don't disagree with Evolution then,

Does it not feel good to have learned something new today? I would hope so. However, just like a common creationist, you are not humbled at all by the fact that your ignorance was put on display for all to see. Instead, you dive head on into more arguments that are fallacious.

My problem is with the Idea that Gene Drift etc Created all of the life that we see now. If the word for that is different, then please tell me. I have some videos to annotate. in the mean time. Let's no argue over Imaginary Disagreements.

First off, this was not an imaginary disagreement, you proudly proclaimed in your "debate" that:

Evolution Cannot Explain these facts, So Either a Supplementary theory must be Constructed, Of it Must be Thrown Out. I'd go further And posit that only intelligent Design can Explain these Facts.

I do not see how this could be taken as an imaginary disagreement when you claimed that evolution needed to be replaced with intelligent design. There must have been some real disagreement.

However, moving on from that, I feel the term you are in disagreement with is universal common descent. Universal common descent could be proven wrong tomorrow and it would do nothing to disprove evolution. However, as far as we know, on this planet all life shares a common ancestor. This is backed up by gobs of genetic data. Therefore, if you want to discredit universal common descent than you are going to have to find some evidence to over turn all the existing evidence we have. That would be a fun doctoral thesis.

Oh, and Please find one Peer reviewed paper in which a Biologist uses the word "Morphology" to mean "The totality of an Organisms traits, including Size Color Shape and Patern"

I do not understand the obsession NephilimFree and his followers have with the dictionary definition of morphology. If you truly wish to obfuscate this discussion onto this subject, please do this for me first; answer this question that micah1116 did not see fit (or was unable to) answer:

borrofburi[/url]"]Fine, maybe bulldogs and wolves are the same, but then you must define, specifically, what standard you are using that lets you determine that bulldogs and wolves are the same (and "my own" is NOT an acceptable answer); so specifically, in fact, that I can tell the difference (or lack thereof) between, say, an african wild dog and a side striped jackal, or a doberman and a dachshund, or even if there's no difference between a bear and a hemicyonidae or a hemicyonidae and a golden retriever, or if there's a difference between a racoon dog, a fox, a bush dog, and a blue heeler or not; or a wolverine and a fox, or a seal and an otter, or a seal and an otter and a walrus and a bear and a fox and a wolverine... all without ever consulting you, only by applying your definition to any 2 given fossils.

Have you even taken the time to read that thread yet?

Anyways, lets move on to some of your more amusing comments.

We don't need an Extra Mechanism to stop it. The Difference between the Evolution we see and that that we don't is not a matter of walking ten feet and walking a mile, it's a matter of walking ten feet and flying straight up a mile.

Seeing as how you just learned the biological definition of evolution, what allows you to make such a bold claim? Furthermore, are you ever going to qualify that statement with some supporting evidence?

Now we get to the soon to be infamous "pebble eroding into a stone statement". I must say, I read this comment on my way to work and everyone on the train I was riding on looked at me weird because I busted out laughing as loud as I could. I could not help it; it just came out. Australopithecus, this should definitely go into "The stupidest thing a creationist has ever said to you" thread.

Mutations are Like Erosion, And I GAVE you a Pebble, (Single Cell) Please, you can have all the sandpaper you want, Make the rock bigger by Eroding it.

Someone has been listening far too much to Ian Juby or NephilimFree if you think mutations act like erosion. First off, there are multiple types of mutations that can happen. Deletions are the only mutations that actually remove any information from the genome. Point mutations just change one part of the code, whereas insertions actually add completely new sections of DNA to the genome. This is basic biology and I would expect anyone who took an hour to read about evolution to know this information. Your willful ignorance of biology is not an argument against it.

Please, before you make another post, just take an hour to read some of the articles about evolution on wikipedia. Do not just jump back in to this discussion with more falsehoods. Or at the very least, you can start ending your posts with the tag NotMeantToBeAFactualStatement.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Mutations are Like Erosion,

No.

And I GAVE you a Pebble, (Single Cell) Please,

Not a good comparison as has been explained to you. Try harder/ change your game/ research before throwing out silly statements.

I'm sure you can see you are beginning to frustrate people who have presented evidence and explanations to you which you pointedly choose to ignore each and every single time.
Please answer this question as I believe it is vital for whether we should actually bother:

1) would you want to know if you're wrong?
2) are you open to arguments that seem to contradict what you believe?

1: Of course
2: Are you open to Santacorns

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

"Does it not feel good to have learned something new today? I would hope so. However, just like a common creationist, you are not humbled at all by the fact that your ignorance was put on display for all to see. Instead, you dive head on into more arguments that are fallacious"

Yeah, I knew that already, I use the wrong definition Around laymen, In my vids for Example, and in everyday Speech Because that's the common Understanding. I'm happy too know that this, and will Adjust my Language Accordingly.

"First off, this was not an imaginary disagreement, you proudly proclaimed in your "debate" that:

"Evolution Cannot Explain these facts, So Either a Supplementary theory must be Constructed, Of it Must be Thrown Out. I'd go further And posit that only intelligent Design can Explain these Facts.""

Speaking as I would at any informal occasion.



"Seeing as how you just learned the biological definition of evolution, what allows you to make such a bold claim? Furthermore, are you ever going to qualify that statement with some supporting evidence?

Now we get to the soon to be infamous "pebble eroding into a stone statement". I must say, I read this comment on my way to work and everyone on the train I was riding on looked at me weird because I busted out laughing as loud as I could. I could not help it; it just came out. Australopithecus, this should definitely go into "The stupidest thing a creationist has ever said to you" thread. "

Can I ask it be Quoted as "Evolutionists may as well be saying that over time, Enough Erosion Can turn a pebble into a massive boulder, then, Eventually, into a planet."

Someone has been listening far too much to Ian Juby or NephilimFree if you think mutations act like erosion. First off, there are multiple types of mutations that can happen. Deletions are the only mutations that actually remove any information from the genome. Point mutations just change one part of the code, whereas insertions actually add completely new sections of DNA to the genome. This is basic biology and I would expect anyone who took an hour to read about evolution to know this information. Your willful ignorance of biology is not an argument against it.

"Please, before you make another post, just take an hour to read some of the articles about evolution on wikipedia. Do not just jump back in to this discussion with more falsehoods. Or at the very least, you can start ending your posts with the tag NotMeantToBeAFactualStatement."

Ask an IT guy if he would like it if his computer would do what DNA Does.

AbsolutelyMeantToBeAFactualStatement

 

[Inferno]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

No, It says that it Came from a Single Cell. Or something Simpler. Go find a pebble, and make it bigger be Eroding it.

The consensus is indeed that the earliest life form was a very simple organism. However, ToE does NOT explain where said organism comes from.
As has been pointed out, Evolution is nothing like erosion. And no, I didn't say that it was like erosion, I said that in your (flawed) analogy it's the erosion. In any case, Evolution is nothing like erosion, because it "adds information" (whatever that may be) and it bestows us with useful traits. Do you deny this?

 

[lrkun]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

1: Of course
2: Are you open to Santacorns

1. No, you are a liar. You've been proven wrong and still cling to that which is proven wrong.

2. Prove what santacorns is then may be I'd consider it.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Ask an IT guy if he would like it if his computer would do what DNA Does.

Again with the bad analogies. When will you stop this. A computer does not function in the least bit like a living organism. Something with no chemistry is needed to keep a computer running and that it is in fact not a living organism.

 

[lrkun]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Ask an IT guy if he would like it if his computer would do what DNA Does.

Again with the bad analogies. When will you stop this. A computer does not function in the least bit like a living organism. Something with no chemistry is needed to keep a computer running and that it is in fact not a living organism.

@pup, Normally an IT guy wouldn't know what the DNA does. DNA is not the forte of an IT guy.

 

[Inferno]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Can I ask it be Quoted as "Evolutionists may as well be saying that over time, Enough Erosion Can turn a pebble into a massive boulder, then, Eventually, into a planet."

But they don't, that's the whole point. If you absolutely have to use the incredibly flawed analogy of "none-living things alteration", then it would actually be closer to planetary formation. So to fix your quote: "Evolutionists may as well be saying that over time, enough accretion of matter can turn a pebble into a massive boulder, then, eventually, into a planet. Other factors such as erosion also shape this planet. While some will never be larger than the original pebble and some never larger than a boulder, others will become huge planets."

Ask an IT guy if he would like it if his computer would do what DNA Does.

I don't see the relevance of this to anything that was said here. Care to elaborate?

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

No, It says that it Came from a Single Cell. Or something Simpler. Go find a pebble, and make it bigger be Eroding it.

The consensus is indeed that the earliest life form was a very simple organism. However, ToE does NOT explain where said organism comes from.
As has been pointed out, Evolution is nothing like erosion. And no, I didn't say that it was like erosion, I said that in your (flawed) analogy it's the erosion. In any case, Evolution is nothing like erosion, because it "adds information" (whatever that may be) and it bestows us with useful traits. Do you deny this?

No, Heeeeeeeeelllllllllllllllll NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, Mutations NEVER add new and Additional and Useful Structures.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

1: Of course
2: Are you open to Santacorns

1. No, you are a liar. You've been proven wrong and still cling to that which is proven wrong.

2. Prove what santacorns is then may be I'd consider it.

1: Your Projecting.

2: Santa Riding a Unicorn.

 

[Inferno]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

No, Heeeeeeeeelllllllllllllllll NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, Mutations NEVER add new and Additional and Useful Structures.

O Rly?

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

No, Heeeeeeeeelllllllllllllllll NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, Mutations NEVER add new and Additional and Useful Structures.

nylonase...

 

[lrkun]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

1: Your Projecting.

2: Santa Riding a Unicorn.

1. Pup, try to make sense. "You're projecting" is vague.

2. That's not proof. If this is your claim, you need to prove santa exists, a unicorn exists, and that santa is indeed riding a unicorn. Here, not only did you change the language of your claim, but added three difficult burdens in your part, and this is notwithstanding your first burden.

No, Heeeeeeeeelllllllllllllllll NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, Mutations NEVER add new and Additional and Useful Structures.

To prove beneficial mutations, the following article is enlightening.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

 

[Irokesengranate]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

No, Heeeeeeeeelllllllllllllllll NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, Mutations NEVER add new and Additional and Useful Structures.

...the hell?
Yes, I think he does deny it.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Can I ask it be Quoted as "Evolutionists may as well be saying that over time, Enough Erosion Can turn a pebble into a massive boulder, then, Eventually, into a planet."

But they don't, that's the whole point. If you absolutely have to use the incredibly flawed analogy of "none-living things alteration", then it would actually be closer to planetary formation. So to fix your quote: "Evolutionists may as well be saying that over time, enough accretion of matter can turn a pebble into a massive boulder, then, eventually, into a planet. Other factors such as erosion also shape this planet. While some will never be larger than the original pebble and some never larger than a boulder, others will become huge planets."

Ask an IT guy if he would like it if his computer would do what DNA Does.

I don't see the relevance of this to anything that was said here. Care to elaborate?

I Freaking decide how you make me look stupid. (I'm Going to Regret Typing that)
If computer Code had one Generation of mutation to IT'S code instead of Intelligent People Updating it with better code.