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

[lrkun]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

NephilimFree makes sense?

I'm talking about pup, not nep.

Whether nep makes sense.

I don't know because I never gave nep any attention.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

NephilimFree makes sense?

I'm talking about pup, not nep.

Whether nep makes sense.

I don't know because I never gave nep any attention.

Puppy was quoting NephilimFree word for word... I was always one step ahead of them because they were discussing my debate in the Chatroom, ignorant of my existence. >.>

 

[lrkun]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Puppy was quoting NephilimFree word for word... I was always one step ahead of them because they were discussing my debate in the Chatroom, ignorant of my existence. >.>

I see. If that is the case, then what do you mean to say? <.<

 

[kenandkids]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: &quot;Evidence supports creatio

Puppy was quoting NephilimFree word for word... I was always one step ahead of them because they were discussing my debate in the Chatroom, ignorant of my existence. >.>

I see. If that is the case, then what do you mean to say? <.<

Perhaps that he wasn't answering you and was instead just trying to score a drive-by shot in the same manner and wording that his idols have in the past?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: &quot;Evidence supports creatio

I see. If that is the case, then what do you mean to say? <.<

Perhaps that he wasn't answering you and was instead just trying to score a drive-by shot in the same manner and wording that his idols have in the past?

This.

 

[lrkun]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: &quot;Evidence supports creatio

Perhaps that he wasn't answering you and was instead just trying to score a drive-by shot in the same manner and wording that his idols have in the past?

I see. In short, he's spamming nonsense. :3

@ hy, I see. Ken worded it properly.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: &quot;Evidence supports creatio

I came in, read ThePuppyTurtles first two posts - which do, might I add, look FABTATHTIC! - and snorted. I shall be pressing on, anticipating many laughs.

EDIT 1: Hytegia should let that cough looked at.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: &quot;Evidence supports creatio

Since I seem to have your attention, would you please define evolution in a biological context? The reason I ask this is because I have notice that most creationist do not know the first thing about evolution. I hope you will show me to be wrong on this assumption as well.

Sorry It took me a while to get around to writing this.

Definition of EVOLUTION

1
: one of a set of prescribed movements
2
a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding
b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission
c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance
d : something evolved
3
: the process of working out or developing
4
a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny
b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
5
: the extraction of a mathematical root
6
: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

Sorry, I Cut-Pasted form a dictionary, I didn't want to risk denying you a Pseudo-scientific fog with which to cover the stupidity of the Idea that we came from Microbes.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: &quot;Evidence supports creatio

Puppy was quoting NephilimFree word for word... I was always one step ahead of them because they were discussing my debate in the Chatroom, ignorant of my existence. >.>

Where?

 

[australopithecus]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: &quot;Evidence supports creatio

Sorry, I Cut-Pasted form a dictionary, I didn't want to risk denying you a Pseudo-scientific fog with which to cover the stupidity of the Idea that we came from Microbes.

I have a better explanation; you don't know what biological evolution is. Simples. Though who am I to deny you your fog of ignorance?

 

[Memeticemetic]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: &quot;Evidence supports creatio

Sorry It took me a while to get around to writing this.

Definition of EVOLUTION

1
: one of a set of prescribed movements
2
a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding
b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission
c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance
d : something evolved
3
: the process of working out or developing
4
a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny
b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
5
: the extraction of a mathematical root
6
: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

Sorry, I Cut-Pasted form a dictionary, I didn't want to risk denying you a Pseudo-scientific fog with which to cover the stupidity of the Idea that we came from Microbes.

Pop quiz, puppy: Which, if any, of those definitions is actually a definition that relates to evolution in a biological context? In other words, please repost these definitions, omitting all those that you think do not apply to biological evolution.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: &quot;Evidence supports creatio

Sorry, I Cut-Pasted form a dictionary, I didn't want to risk denying you a Pseudo-scientific fog with which to cover the stupidity of the Idea that we came from Microbes.

Have you honestly even READ a Biology book? The definition is in the second chapter, usually, since it's the baseline of all of biology.

Here - let me try an actual dictionary. How about Oxford, the University where every writing standard in the known world hangs their hats to in regards to words and writing? Where, in your highschool years, you will hammer your head against the wall because they release silly new rules every year regarding English, Literature, and how to correctly write and cite sources?
Evolution : noun
1 the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
*The idea of organic evolution was proposed by some ancient Greek thinkers but was long rejected in Europe as contrary to the literal interpretation of the Bible. Lamarck proposed a theory that organisms became transformed by their efforts to respond to the demands of their environment, but he was unable to explain a mechanism for this. Lyell demonstrated that geological deposits were the cumulative product of slow processes over vast ages. This helped Darwin toward a theory of gradual evolution over a long period by the natural selection of those varieties of an organism slightly better adapted to the environment and hence more likely to produce descendants. Combined with the later discoveries of the cellular and molecular basis of genetics, Darwin's theory of evolution has , with some modification, become the dominant unifying concept of modern biology*
2 the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form:
*the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution*
3 Chemistry : the giving off of a gaseous product, or of heat.
4 a pattern of movements or maneuvers:
*silk ribbons waving in fanciful evolutions*
5 Mathematics, dated the extraction of a root from a given quantity.

I'm sorry. I just copy-pasta'd off an actual, globally-renowned dictionary. Didn't want to risk denying you a Pseudo-scientific fog with which to cover the stupidity of the Idea that we poofed out of nothing, man was made out of dirt, snakes can talk, the Red Sea can magically open from nowhere, the sun can stand in the sky longer than 24 hours, the entire Earth was covered with water that somehow made craters on the moon, and defies every law and standard in the universe.

Where?

"Where" as in the chatroom? Or "where" as in the fact that your insults were verbatim NephilimFree?

Also - you realize this is not a place for debate, correct? this is for civil discussion about the debate.

 

[Memeticemetic]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: &quot;Evidence supports creatio

Also - you realize this is not a place for debate, correct? this is for civil discussion about the debate.

Not really a whole hell of a lot to discuss about the actual *ahem* 'debate'. We may as well continue to encourage the proliferation of regurgitated nonsense that can be handily, gleefully and without the slightest bit of effort utterly demolished by even the rankest of scientific amateurs among us. (I fall squarely into the rank amateur category myself. Perhaps dilettante says it best.)

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: &quot;Evidence supports creatio

Since I seem to have your attention, would you please define evolution in a biological context? The reason I ask this is because I have notice that most creationist do not know the first thing about evolution. I hope you will show me to be wrong on this assumption as well.

Sorry It took me a while to get around to writing this.

Definition of EVOLUTION

[snipped for space]

Sorry, I Cut-Pasted form a dictionary, I didn't want to risk denying you a Pseudo-scientific fog with which to cover the stupidity of the Idea that we came from Microbes.

Well, what do we have here?, 

I made a prediction based on my past experiences with creationists and that prediction came true. That is what we call science; observable, testable, and repeatable., 

ThePuppyTurtle, you have demonstrated (in a public forum nonetheless) that you do not know the first thing about evolution. What I cannot understand is why you believe yourself to be qualified, to comment on something you know nothing about? Would you tell a doctor they are not doing their job correctly, while not knowing the first thing about human anatomy?, 

There is a reason evolution is taught in school and people (such as myself and many others on this forum) have degrees based off of it., 

You are in need of an education, not a debate., 

 

[Gnug215]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: &quot;Evidence supports creatio

Well, what do we have here?, 

I made a prediction based on my past experiences with creationists and that prediction came true. That is what we call science; observable, testable, and repeatable., 

ThePuppyTurtle, you have demonstrated (in a public forum nonetheless) that you do not know the first thing about evolution. What I cannot understand is why you believe yourself to be qualified, to comment on something you know nothing about? Would you tell a doctor they are not doing their job correctly, while not knowing the first thing about human anatomy?, 

There is a reason evolution is taught in school and people (such as myself and many others on this forum) have degrees based off of it., 

You are in need of an education, not a debate., 

Well, you know... in all fairness, one doesn't necessarily have to be qualified and educated within a field to talk about it.

You can still be taken seriously as a layman, provided you actually present the facts and not nonsense or false crap!

And no, PuppyTurtle, NephilimFree's "two years of studying on the Internet" do not count as qualification, because he's looked in all the wrong places for all the wrong reasons.

I remember when Neph first started out and talked about his two years of study. Do you know what he said? He admitted that straight away, he knew that evolution was false. To him and his fellow Christians, he probably meant to make that sound convincing for creationism, but to everyone else, skeptical and objectively thinking people, he had just made an admission of total bias.

So those two years of "study" were actually two years of looking up creationist crap trying to debunk evolution from the getgo.

And you know what, Puppy? In spite of having had two years, he managed to find nothing that would have any significance to evolution. He did, however, manage to find a lot of pseudoscientific babble that seems to have impressed a few of his fellow creationists.

So, a recommendation to you, Puppy: Do as the Bible says and seek wisdom. YOU try to study this thing for two years, but do yourself a favor and don't go into this with a preconceived bias. You already have bias, and you also have a lot of faith, and I'm sure that faith can stand reading about this objectively. Try to study actual biology from actual biology books and peer-reviewed papers. Do it with an open mind, because if you really believe that your faith is the right one, it should be able to withstand the truth.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: &quot;Evidence supports creatio

Well, you know... in all fairness, one doesn't necessarily have to be qualified and educated within a field to talk about it.

You can still be taken seriously as a layman, provided you actually present the facts and not nonsense or false crap!

And no, PuppyTurtle, NephilimFree's "two years of studying on the Internet" do not count as qualification, because he's looked in all the wrong places for all the wrong reasons.

I remember when Neph first started out and talked about his two years of study. Do you know what he said? He admitted that straight away, he knew that evolution was false. To him and his fellow Christians, he probably meant to make that sound convincing for creationism, but to everyone else, skeptical and objectively thinking people, he had just made an admission of total bias.

So those two years of "study" were actually two years of looking up creationist crap trying to debunk evolution from the getgo.

And you know what, Puppy? In spite of having had two years, he managed to find nothing that would have any significance to evolution. He did, however, manage to find a lot of pseudoscientific babble that seems to have impressed a few of his fellow creationists.

So, a recommendation to you, Puppy: Do as the Bible says and seek wisdom. YOU try to study this thing for two years, but do yourself a favor and don't go into this with a preconceived bias. You already have bias, and you also have a lot of faith, and I'm sure that faith can stand reading about this objectively. Try to study actual biology from actual biology books and peer-reviewed papers. Do it with an open mind, because if you really believe that your faith is the right one, it should be able to withstand the truth.

+1 Influence

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: &quot;Evidence supports creatio

Well, you know... in all fairness, one doesn't necessarily have to be qualified and educated within a field to talk about it.

You can still be taken seriously as a layman, provided you actually present the facts and not nonsense or false crap!

And no, PuppyTurtle, NephilimFree's "two years of studying on the Internet" do not count as qualification, because he's looked in all the wrong places for all the wrong reasons.

I remember when Neph first started out and talked about his two years of study. Do you know what he said? He admitted that straight away, he knew that evolution was false. To him and his fellow Christians, he probably meant to make that sound convincing for creationism, but to everyone else, skeptical and objectively thinking people, he had just made an admission of total bias.

So those two years of "study" were actually two years of looking up creationist crap trying to debunk evolution from the getgo.

And you know what, Puppy? In spite of having had two years, he managed to find nothing that would have any significance to evolution. He did, however, manage to find a lot of pseudoscientific babble that seems to have impressed a few of his fellow creationists.

So, a recommendation to you, Puppy: Do as the Bible says and seek wisdom. YOU try to study this thing for two years, but do yourself a favor and don't go into this with a preconceived bias. You already have bias, and you also have a lot of faith, and I'm sure that faith can stand reading about this objectively. Try to study actual biology from actual biology books and peer-reviewed papers. Do it with an open mind, because if you really believe that your faith is the right one, it should be able to withstand the truth.

I'd be mad impressed if he could get a 5 on the AP Biology exam.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: &quot;Evidence supports creatio

Well, you know... in all fairness, one doesn't necessarily have to be qualified and educated within a field to talk about it.

You can still be taken seriously as a layman, provided you actually present the facts and not nonsense or false crap!

This was the point I was trying to make, sorry if it did not come off the right way. I was trying to point out that ThePuppyTurtle has demonstrated that he does not know the first thing about evolution (along with just about every creationist I have encountered). Thus, ThePuppyTurtle is not only unqualified and uneducated within this field, but he is not even educated about the field. Now, he can obtain an education in school or by doing his own research on this subject via the Ethernet or library. Either way, he needs an education in this subject before he can ever make a case against the theory of evolution.

Posting on a public forum and exposing your ignorance of a subject is not a good start when you are trying to over turn an established scientific field.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: &quot;Evidence supports creatio

I'd be mad impressed if he could get a 5 on the AP Biology exam.

My exam to even GET AP Biology required an intimite knowledge of the relations of species, their interactions, and (mainly) how they got there. Without Evolutionary Theory, all that's left is "God dun it" and gives no explenation for any of these things adapting, interacting, and changing of life forms over different stances of time.
The Essay section was all about the underlying theory of Biology... I wonder what that could POSSIBLY BE?! :lol:
And the Fill-in-the-blank/Explenation questions would be wrong, because he's never even cracked open a biology book, and I doubt he would even know the difference between a population, an environment, an ecosystem, abiotic and biotic, and so on. Rudimentary things.
And, of course, basic DNA layout that carried over from rudimentary Highschool Biology - such as the names and combinations.
He would probably get a 50-60% on the questions from basic anatomy questions. These were both matching sections, so I'll give him a grand-whopping total of 4/10 (simplified for 2/5) for them all, combining a serious lack in knowledge of DNA laymanship and a partial knowledge of basic human anatomy, with a tinge of luck.

Statistically, he could play eeny-meenie-miney-mo and get a 20 (we had 5 in the multiple choice section) and an absolute zero in the essay section.

So, let us run the numbers here:
He could guess and, statistically, he could get a 1/5 on the Multiple choice, and was (if I recall correctly) 1/6 the total grade.
Essay would not only get him laughed out of the classroom, but 0 points. Essay is 1/3 the total grade.
Fill in the blank for 0 with 1/3 total.
Matching DNA and Anatomy is 2/5 for 1/6 of the total grade.

Math time!
Since Essay and Fill in the Blank = 0/3, they are exluded from the grand total score.
[(1/5)/6] * [(2/5)/6]
(1/30) * (1/15) = 1/450
1/450 = x/100
x=4.5
4.5 < 5
True Statement

Congradulations, borr. You nailed the numbers right on the head.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: &quot;Evidence supports creatio

Well, what do we have here?, 

I made a prediction based on my past experiences with creationists and that prediction came true. That is what we call science; observable, testable, and repeatable., 

ThePuppyTurtle, you have demonstrated (in a public forum nonetheless) that you do not know the first thing about evolution. What I cannot understand is why you believe yourself to be qualified, to comment on something you know nothing about? Would you tell a doctor they are not doing their job correctly, while not knowing the first thing about human anatomy?, 

There is a reason evolution is taught in school and people (such as myself and many others on this forum) have degrees based off of it., 

You are in need of an education, not a debate., 

OK, correct me, No, strike that, you'll be correcting Websters. Just like you do with http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morphology?show=0&t=1302721829 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism And any other time that the Goalposts aren't to your liking. Then again, I suppose That's jest a prediction based on my past experience with Atheists.