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

[Memeticemetic]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

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.

Yet again, young pup, you haven't addressed anything said. You've given no response to our criticisms, no answers to any questions, no indication that you even understand what we're talking about. It is overwhelmingly obvious that you don't have even the basic foundations required to have a reasonable discussion about the Theory of Evolution as evidenced by the fact that you copy paste definitions from sub-par online dictionaries then gleefully skip away as if you've scored some kind of points. You haven't. All you've done is given yet another piece of evidence that you are simply unprepared to participate in or contribute to the realm of educated adults. I remain unimpressed, son. Now go read a friggin' book and come back when you've acquired some sort of rudimentary education. We, or others like us, will still be around to discuss these topics when you're sufficiently educated to discuss them.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

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.

Yet again, young pup, you haven't addressed anything said. You've given no response to our criticisms, no answers to any questions, no indication that you even understand what we're talking about. It is overwhelmingly obvious that you don't have even the basic foundations required to have a reasonable discussion about the Theory of Evolution as evidenced by the fact that you copy paste definitions from sub-par online dictionaries then gleefully skip away as if you've scored some kind of points. You haven't. All you've done is given yet another piece of evidence that you are simply unprepared to participate in or contribute to the realm of educated adults. I remain unimpressed, son. Now go read a friggin' book and come back when you've acquired some sort of rudimentary education. We, or others like us, will still be around to discuss these topics when you're sufficiently educated to discuss them.

Webster's is Sub-Par :!: :?: Me thinks it's like a Denialist

 

[Memeticemetic]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Webster's is Sub-Par :!: :?: Me thinks it's like a Denialist

Yes. Mirriam-Webster's online dictionary is sub-par. It works just fine if you want to check your spelling (which I highly recommend you begin doing, all those irritating red squiggles in your writing may just disappear), but if you want a comprehensive definition, especially in the scientific or philosophical realm it is woefully inadequate.

 

[Inferno]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Webster's is Sub-Par :!: :?: Me thinks it's like a Denialist

Yes. Mirriam-Webster's online dictionary is sub-par. It works just fine if you want to check your spelling (which I highly recommend you begin doing, all those irritating red squiggles in your writing may just disappear), but if you want a comprehensive definition, especially in the scientific or philosophical realm it is woefully inadequate.

Agreed. If you want a proper definition of Evolution, you might start here at the Berkeley: Evolution 101
Online dictionaries and dictionaries in general are not good enough for scientific terms.

 

[scalyblue]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

obligatory:

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Webster's is Sub-Par Me thinks it's like a Denialist

For the record: Black's Law Dictionary is the one used in almost all formal debate. Start with that.

Now, for a specialized field of science like evolution, you would usually be justified in using definitions from reputable sources on that topic. If it were me, I'd start with the definition used in the introductory primer Evolution: 101 used by any major university (Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Yale, etc.)

Should you find a disagreement in definition between the two, go with whatever the specialists have to say.

Also, 'methinks' is one word.

 

[australopithecus]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Somebody needs to tell the little guy that dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. If either he, or Messrs Merriam or Webster can describe and present to us what atheist dogma is (in the context of what dogma is), then I would wet myself with surprise.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

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.

:facepalm:

I do not understand why you are trying to obfuscate this discussion with the definitions of atheist and morphology. I will link to an existing thread (you should be able to follow everything from that link), where I and a few other members here corrected micah1116 on his misunderstanding of morphology when it comes to biology. Happy reading. As for the definition of atheism, if you wish to cling to the idea that atheism has to be the disbelief in deities than I am not an atheist. I only call myself an atheist out of convenience. I have a lack of belief in deities, what ever you want to call that, that is what I am. My lack of belief in deities makes up such a small part of whom I am that it does not matter what you wish to call me when it comes to that.

As for having to correct Webster's, I did not ask for a general definition of evolution. Dictionaries, such as Webster's, deal with general definitions of words. I asked for a specific definition, and that specific definition was for the biological definition. In a discussion like this, it feels a little redundant to be so specific, but after dealing with creationists for so long, I know I must be specific because they love to play these foolish semantic games.

I will define evolution as I learned it back in my high school college prep biology class. It was defined as the change in allelic frequency in a population over time. Quoting the dictionary like you did, would have lost you five points on our midterm and final. I see Inferno has already linked to "Berkeley: Evolution 101", a great primer source and scalyblue has already posted the infamous "Mostly courtesy of FloydA and chimp_ninja" picture, so there is no point in repeating that.

That is why I think I will just quote some authoritative sources at you, since you seem to believe that an authoritative source is how to handle my question.

Wikipedia[/url]"] Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms.

That is from the first line of the article. Does it look familiar to what Inferno, scalyblue, and I posted?

Conservapedia[/url]"] The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next.

Wow, Conservapedia agrees that in biology evolution is defined the way I, and others, have already stated?

CreationWiki[/url]"] Biological evolution: the observable scientific fact that the genetic characteristics of species change over time, as a result of recombination, mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

Another creationist source that gives the same definition for biological evolution that is used by us silly evolutionists. It also goes as far as to call it an observed scientific fact. Imagine that.

This gets to the heart of my real problem with creationists, such as yourself. Just five seconds of research on their own sources would give them the correct answer, yet none of them can ever seem to be bothered to do so. Instead, creationists would rather proudly proclaim their ignorance of any given subject, as if that was some sort of an accomplishment in and of itself. Not only that, they think that somehow, that ignorance they have is an argument against the subject being discussed.

To make a long story short, you did not know the first thing about evolution (its biological definition) before you entered into a debate about evolution here at the League of Reason. It is as simple as that, and this thread proves it. Please take some time to conduct some real research into this field of science. You will see that it is no threat to your beliefs and has an enormous amount of physical evidence to back it.

Have a nice day.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

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.

:facepalm:

I do not understand why you are trying to obfuscate this discussion with the definitions of atheist and morphology. I will link to an existing thread (you should be able to follow everything from that link), where I and a few other members here corrected micah1116 on his misunderstanding of morphology when it comes to biology. Happy reading. As for the definition of atheism, if you wish to cling to the idea that atheism has to be the disbelief in deities than I am not an atheist. I only call myself an atheist out of convenience. I have a lack of belief in deities, what ever you want to call that, that is what I am. My lack of belief in deities makes up such a small part of whom I am that it does not matter what you wish to call me when it comes to that.

As for having to correct Webster's, I did not ask for a general definition of evolution. Dictionaries, such as Webster's, deal with general definitions of words. I asked for a specific definition, and that specific definition was for the biological definition. In a discussion like this, it feels a little redundant to be so specific, but after dealing with creationists for so long, I know I must be specific because they love to play these foolish semantic games.

I will define evolution as I learned it back in my high school college prep biology class. It was defined as the change in allelic frequency in a population over time. Quoting the dictionary like you did, would have lost you five points on our midterm and final. I see Inferno has already linked to "Berkeley: Evolution 101", a great primer source and scalyblue has already posted the infamous "Mostly courtesy of FloydA and chimp_ninja" picture, so there is no point in repeating that.

That is why I think I will just quote some authoritative sources at you, since you seem to believe that an authoritative source is how to handle my question.

Wikipedia[/url]"] Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms.

That is from the first line of the article. Does it look familiar to what Inferno, scalyblue, and I posted?

Conservapedia[/url]"] The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next.

Wow, Conservapedia agrees that in biology evolution is defined the way I, and others, have already stated?

CreationWiki[/url]"] Biological evolution: the observable scientific fact that the genetic characteristics of species change over time, as a result of recombination, mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

Another creationist source that gives the same definition for biological evolution that is used by us silly evolutionists. It also goes as far as to call it an observed scientific fact. Imagine that.

This gets to the heart of my real problem with creationists, such as yourself. Just five seconds of research on their own sources would give them the correct answer, yet none of them can ever seem to be bothered to do so. Instead, creationists would rather proudly proclaim their ignorance of any given subject, as if that was some sort of an accomplishment in and of itself. Not only that, they think that somehow, that ignorance they have is an argument against the subject being discussed.

To make a long story short, you did not know the first thing about evolution (its biological definition) before you entered into a debate about evolution here at the League of Reason. It is as simple as that, and this thread proves it. Please take some time to conduct some real research into this field of science. You will see that it is no threat to your beliefs and has an enormous amount of physical evidence to back it.

Have a nice day.

OK, I don't disagree with Evolution then, 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. 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"

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

OK, I don't disagree with Evolution then, 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.

(1) You seem to have missed the point. To remind you, the point is that you vehemently disagree with a scientific theory that you don't even understand on the most fundamental of levels. Take AP Bio, learn what all these words mean and why precisely we think these things are correct, and then you can have a "debate". In the mean time you don't even have the most basic understanding of what it is you are rejecting (which of course can only make you look purposefully foolishly ignorant).

(2) I believe the words you are looking for are "Common" and "Descent". But the problem you are faced with is this: we know that animals evolve, that speciation can and does occur (and has occurred), and we see no reason that these mechanisms aren't completely and totally sufficient to explain the diversity of life. Your only option is to propose some sort of *extra* mechanism that prevents these others from moving forward, of course that' woul be making a claim that must be substantiated by evidence; so then your only option is to discover some sort of extra mechanism that acts as a cap on the others.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

OK, I don't disagree with Evolution then, 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.

(1) You seem to have missed the point. To remind you, the point is that you vehemently disagree with a scientific theory that you don't even understand on the most fundamental of levels. Take AP Bio, learn what all these words mean and why precisely we think these things are correct, and then you can have a "debate". In the mean time you don't even have the most basic understanding of what it is you are rejecting (which of course can only make you look purposefully foolishly ignorant).

(2) I believe the words you are looking for are "Common" and "Descent". But the problem you are faced with is this: we know that animals evolve, that speciation can and does occur (and has occurred), and we see no reason that these mechanisms aren't completely and totally sufficient to explain the diversity of life. Your only option is to propose some sort of *extra* mechanism that prevents these others from moving forward, of course that' woul be making a claim that must be substantiated by evidence; so then your only option is to discover some sort of extra mechanism that acts as a cap on the others.

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.

 

[australopithecus]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

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.

No, no it's not. You've demonstrated you don't know what biological evolution is, or at least were ignorant of the definition until WE told you (and only AFTER you'd entered into a debate on the subject), so why again should we pay any attention to anything you claim? Seriously, name one good reason.

The mass of evidence in favour of the theory of Evolution and it's susequent components is well documented and massively tested and retested ad infinitum. As Borro said, your only option is to propose a testable alternative or to give evidence for a genetic cap that prevents speciation.

Them's your choices, so give us your best shot.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

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.

If you hadn't shown time and time again you do not possess even the most rudimentary understanding of biology, I might take you seriously. If you didn't have a habit of regularly making unsubstantiated claims and failing to ever substantiate them, I might take you seriously (and ask for evidence that your metaphor actually corresponded to reality). As it is I can only chuckle to myself at the cocksure assertion of someone so willfully ignorant.

 

[Inferno]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

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.

But we DO see it. That's the whole point!

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

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.

No, no it's not. You've demonstrated you don't know what biological evolution is, or at least were ignorant of the definition until WE told you (and only AFTER you'd entered into a debate on the subject), so why again should we pay any attention to anything you claim? Seriously, name one good reason.

The mass of evidence in favour of the theory of Evolution and it's susequent components is well documented and massively tested and retested ad infinitum. As Borro said, your only option is to propose a testable alternative or to give evidence for a genetic cap that prevents speciation.

Them's your choices, so give us your best shot.

What you just did was a straw man, I never said that speciation was impossible, Imagine if you have 2 giant stone puzzle pieces that fit together perfectly. Now split them up and wait 3000 years, they don't fit together anymore because of erosion, Does this explain the origin of the Puzzle pieces?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

What you just did was a straw man, I never said that speciation was impossible, Imagine if you have 2 giant stone puzzle pieces that fit together perfectly. Now split them up and wait 3000 years, they don't fit together anymore because of erosion, Does this explain the origin of the Puzzle pieces?

Let's see how far are you willing to go. 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 wass done, like the role of DNA and selection? (even if at this moment you do not reconise that it applys to everything else).

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

What you just did was a straw man, I never said that speciation was impossible, Imagine if you have 2 giant stone puzzle pieces that fit together perfectly. Now split them up and wait 3000 years, they don't fit together anymore because of erosion, Does this explain the origin of the Puzzle pieces?

My evolution-denialist father used this analogy on me too. I could not help but laugh in his face for three minutes straight, so allow me to do it to you now.

:lol:

 

[Inferno]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Does this explain the origin of the Puzzle pieces?

And you call "Straw Man"? Evolution does not explain the origin, merely the biodiversity. In your example, Evolution would not explain the origin of the pieces, merely the erosion of them.

 

[australopithecus]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

What you just did was a straw man, I never said that speciation was impossible, Imagine if you have 2 giant stone puzzle pieces that fit together perfectly. Now split them up and wait 3000 years, they don't fit together anymore because of erosion, Does this explain the origin of the Puzzle pieces?

1) I never said that you said speciation was impossible, I said propose a mechanism that prevents it. Your cry of strawman is itself strawmans my original point.

2) Yout analogy is flawed and nonsensical.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Does this explain the origin of the Puzzle pieces?

And you call "Straw Man"? Evolution does not explain the origin, merely the biodiversity. In your example, Evolution would not explain the origin of the pieces, merely the erosion of them.

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