onceforgivennowfree

[Onceforgivennowfree]

Thanks Prolescum for approving my posts, and thanks for the welcome!

AronRa said:

“Answer me in your very next post. Do not think I will let you duck-and-dodge every point or query put to you. You will forfeit if you repeatedly ignore direct questions.”

I think you should see Prolescum’s post above. It’s not my fault that my post wasn't approved/accepted until now. You would think that the fact that it’s posted BEFORE your response is a good clue that I’m not dodging your questions. It’s hard to predict your questions and respond ahead of time So please don’t use this as a way to claim that I “forfeit”. I really want to hear your proof of Evolution.

I will ignore a large part of your posts since it is irrelevant to this discussion (whether or not most Christians accept evolution, or if most scientists accept it, etc etc). Those are interesting discussions, but they do not prove Evolution either way. Let’s not get sidetracked. I want to hear this proof you have. That’s it.

You want to claim that your definition of evolution is the single universally-accepted definition. Ok. I can go with that. Can you prove it now?

When I clarified that I’m not asking you to disprove God, you stated that:

“Those words actually came out of your mouth, and I understood them better than you did.”

I’m amazed at how much you like to sidetrack. I did not say those words. If that’s how you want to interpret them, fine, but that’s certainly not what I said, and it’s not what I meant either.

You raised this point again later on when I stated that I want you to demonstrate that the design around us (or apparent design, however you wish to call it) did not require an intelligent designer. This doesn’t mean that I want you to disprove God – All I’m saying is that I want you to show that the design can originate by natural means, without any outside intelligent input. You don’t have to PROVE that there is no intelligent mind “out there”, you just have to prove that naturalistic means are capable of producing the design. As I already stated, the idea of God is a different question. Hopefully you understand what I’m trying to say and we can move on. You do believe that natural processes are capable of creating all the design we see in living things, right? That’s what I want proof of. That’s it.

Your definitions seem fine. However, it would be good to point out something obvious. As a Creationist, I already believe in Evolution in some sense (ie descent with modifications, and varying allele frequencies). So no one is debating those concepts. We all agree on that. The reason I doubt Evolution is because I’m not convinced that natural processes are capable of producing the designs we see in living things.

Just to be clear, I’m not convinced that a protein or gene can evolve into a different protein or gene. I realize that if only a single mutation is required to convey a beneficial advantage, then it can happen by chance and natural selection can take over. But what if a protein fold (the smallest structural change) requires several coordinated mutations before a beneficial, functional change occurs so that natural selection can work? It seems to me that “blind chance” wouldn't work in this case (note that I’m not saying that the entire evolutionary process is based on blind chance. I’m only referring to the multiple mutations required to convey a beneficial advantage before natural selection can act). That’s the main problem I have with Evolution, so if you could offer any proof that natural processes can convert one protein into another, or at least something along those lines, that would be awesome.

I think I answered all of your questions directly. To clarify again, yes it’s only one challenge (prove evolution), and yes I accept your definitions (although I already believe in some of the “softer” definitions of evolution already, as do all Creationists). That’s why I clarified what I am skeptical about.

Still waiting for your proof.
-Onceforgivennowfree

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

You want to claim that your definition of evolution is the single universally-accepted definition. Ok. I can go with that. Can you prove it now?

That is easy enough. Here is what I told ThePuppyTurtle (a fallow creationist at the time) three years ago:

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]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.

As one can plainly see, the definition provided is the universally accepted one. However, one wonders why you blustered so much about this issue, seeing as how you later say this:

Your definitions seem fine. However, it would be good to point out something obvious. As a Creationist, I already believe in Evolution in some sense (ie descent with modifications, and varying allele frequencies). So no one is debating those concepts. We all agree on that. The reason I doubt Evolution is because I’m not convinced that natural processes are capable of producing the designs we see in living things.

As I predicted, the goalposts have shifted in order for Onceforgivennowfree to hold onto his strawman. By doing this Onceforgivennowfree, you have essentially proven AronRa correct, in that your challenge was never to prove evolution correct (you already accept it, thus AronRa’s job here is done), but "to disprove an intelligent purposeful designer using miraculous powers". You being unconvinced is nothing more than an argument from incredulity, and claiming that incredulity as your reason for accepting that a god(s) designed life is poor logic on your part.

 

[DutchLiam84]

Design, you like to use that word a lot OFNF but tell me exactly how one can qualify and quantify design in living organisms. Is there a unit for design? Can you qualify it without using tautologies or comparisons to non-living objects?

If you don't want to answer these questions and stick to talking to AronRa, no problem, but then I suggest you and Aron use the debate thread where only you 2 can post.

BTW, as far as I now, this is not an atheist forum. It's a forum with a lot of atheists....there is a difference. I'd say that most users here are men as well but that doesn't make it a male forum either.

Speaking of your "lack of faith" (pun intended) in natural selection, this is actually up for debate in the scientific community. It's become more and more obvious that genetic drift trumps natural selection on the molecular level, this is called Neutral Theory. However, this does not, in the slightest way challenge the theory of evolution and thus common descent.

 

[dandan]

Aron, why don´t you simple define evolution with your own words, and see if OFNF is willing to accept that definition for the purpose of the challenge?
I, like many others, are genuinely interested in your response to OFNF´s challenge,

it´s a bit annoying when a debate becomes an issue of words and definitions, instead of an issue regarding the actual arguemnts.

 

[AronRa]

Answer me in your very next post. Do not think I will let you duck-and-dodge every point or query put to you. You will forfeit if you repeatedly ignore direct questions.

I think you should see Prolescum’s post above. It’s not my fault that my post wasn't approved/accepted until now. You would think that the fact that it’s posted BEFORE your response is a good clue that I’m not dodging your questions. It’s hard to predict your questions and respond ahead of time So please don’t use this as a way to claim that I “forfeit”. I really want to hear your proof of Evolution.

You posted after me, mistakenly thinking that I was replying to your previous post, which hadn't shown up by the time I composed my reply to your video instead. Your subsequent comment, (posted after mine) did not address my post. If you'll check each of the other people I have tried this with in this forum, you'll see that they all repeatedly avoided direct points and challenges until the conversation had to be dropped for their lack of participation. It is a frequent pattern, constantly repeated by creationists, so I will set the expectations at the onset.

I will ignore a large part of your posts since it is irrelevant to this discussion (whether or not most Christians accept evolution, or if most scientists accept it, etc etc). Those are interesting discussions, but they do not prove Evolution either way. Let’s not get sidetracked. I want to hear this proof you have. That’s it.

Then we first have to establish what evolution is - and what it is not. You you were clearly wrong about what 'evolutionists' believe. That was the point. You're not asking for proof of evolution; you're asking for disproof of God. You just don't understand what you're saying. The definition of evolution does not say that it necessarily excludes "intelligent supernatural agencies" [God].

You want to claim that your definition of evolution is the single universally-accepted definition. Ok. I can go with that. Can you prove it now?

I can prove that I'm using the one-and-only universally-accepted definition, yes. I will prove the rest once we establish what you already accept and whatever else you need to see to satisfy you.

When I clarified that I’m not asking you to disprove God, you stated that:

“Those words actually came out of your mouth, and I understood them better than you did.”

I’m amazed at how much you like to sidetrack. I did not say those words. If that’s how you want to interpret them, fine, but that’s certainly not what I said, and it’s not what I meant either.

I don't like to side-track at all; that's your doing. That is what you said, and you've said it repeatedly. You even said it again later in this post.

You raised this point again later on when I stated that I want you to demonstrate that the design around us (or apparent design, however you wish to call it) did not require an intelligent designer. This doesn’t mean that I want you to disprove God – All I’m saying is that I want you to show that the design can originate by natural means, without any outside intelligent input.

So you're positing that there is 'intelligent input' which exists "outside of nature". Yet you say you're not talking about a god. What other option is there?

You don’t have to PROVE that there is no intelligent mind “out there”, you just have to prove that naturalistic means are capable of producing the design. As I already stated, the idea of God is a different question. Hopefully you understand what I’m trying to say and we can move on.

Unfortunately you still do not understand what you're saying, and we cannot 'move on' until you do. The idea of God is not a different question; it is exactly the same question. You're positing an alternative which is not natural, a supernatural agency which you somehow do not recognize as a god. What is it then? And how can we know that such an alternative even exists? Because I suspect that you're talking about something for which there is no evidence, and thus no reason to believe it, nor to assume what you do about it.

You said we're only going to talk about science here. In science, there is only what is supported by evidence and what is not-supported by evidence, and whatever is not supported does not warrant serious consideration. So rather than having me disprove your unsupported empty assertions, you should cough up some indication that there actually is some alternative to nature. Otherwise it would be silly to give you the benefit of the doubt there, because what you posit has no merit. If there is no way for you to ever distinguish your beliefs from the illusions of delusion, then we can safely assume that delusion is all that it is. Otherwise you have to show that there's a THERE there. Until you can show that there is something else, nature is all that there is.

You do believe that natural processes are capable of creating all the design we see in living things, right? That’s what I want proof of. That’s it.

So you don't want proof of evolution; you want proof that nature did it rather than a god.

Your definitions seem fine. However, it would be good to point out something obvious. As a Creationist, I already believe in Evolution in some sense (ie descent with modifications, and varying allele frequencies). So no one is debating those concepts. We all agree on that. The reason I doubt Evolution is because I’m not convinced that natural processes are capable of producing the designs we see in living things.

Then I have no reason to prove evolution. Instead you already accept that evolution is a fact, and I have already satisfied your challenge before we even begin. What you're asking for instead is an entirely different discussion on the subject of emergence.

Just to be clear, I’m not convinced that a protein or gene can evolve into a different protein or gene.

So you don't believe in missense mutations; you think all mutations are silent, and that genes composed of a different configuration of different amino acids at various locations will still produce identical proteins? Is that seriously what you're saying?

I realize that if only a single mutation is required to convey a beneficial advantage, then it can happen by chance and natural selection can take over. But what if a protein fold (the smallest structural change) requires several coordinated mutations before a beneficial, functional change occurs so that natural selection can work?

Every human zygote has an estimated 128 mutations at the onset even as a single cell. These are compounded as additional mutations occur throughout an individual life. Most mutations wouldn't even be noticeable until they are identified as representative traits throughout a population. That's when it becomes evolution.

It seems to me that “blind chance” wouldn't work in this case (note that I’m not saying that the entire evolutionary process is based on blind chance. I’m only referring to the multiple mutations required to convey a beneficial advantage before natural selection can act). That’s the main problem I have with Evolution, so if you could offer any proof that natural processes can convert one protein into another, or at least something along those lines, that would be awesome.

So would you accept the documented identification of specific mutations producing new genes with beneficial effects? Or do you want to move the goal posts again?

I should also point out that most mutation doesn't require beneficial advantage and that genetic drift actually accounts for far more diversity than natural selection necessarily applies to.

I think I answered all of your questions directly. To clarify again, yes it’s only one challenge (prove evolution),

Which you already accept, and instead want me to prove emergence in order to displace an unwarranted assertion of a supernatural intelligence which is exactly like God but (according to you) should not to be confused with God.

and yes I accept your definitions

Then you should retract your earlier comment that you're a skeptic. As a creationist, you are clearly not a skeptic in any sense.

(although I already believe in some of the “softer” definitions of evolution already, as do all Creationists). That’s why I clarified what I am skeptical about.

Not all creationists accept evolution, certainly. In fact creationism is defined as a rejection of evolution specifically and of methodological naturalism in general. That's the real problem!

Still waiting for your proof.

OK, even though your original challenge turned out not to be the actual challenge at all, let me still satisfy that before we move on to what your challenge really is. Having accepted the definitions, you understand that 'proof' is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence. 'Evidence' is a body of facts which are concordant with, supported by, and/or indicative of only one available explanation over any other, and a 'fact' is a point of data which is either not in dispute, or is indisputable in that it is objectively verifiable. With that in mind, (and to save time) do you accept the following?

The fact that evolution happens; that biodiversity and complexity do increase, that both occur naturally according to the laws of population genetics amid environmental dynamics.

The fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations, and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups.

The fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance both in scientific literature and in practical application.

The fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by descendant groups, and that several independent sets of biological markers do exist which trace these lineages backwards over myriad generations.

The fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs, in the same way that ducks are a subset of birds, and that humans are a subset of apes in exactly the same way that lions are a subset of cats.

The fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its most basal form through reverse-sequencing, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology, and embryological development, as well as through chronologically correct placement of successive stages revealed in the geologic column.

The fact that every animal on earth has obvious relatives either living nearby or evident in the fossil record, and that the fossil record holds hundreds of clearly transitional species even according to the strictest definition of that term.

The fact that both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly-observed and documented dozens of times, both in the lab and in naturally-controlled conditions in the field, and that these instances have all withstood critical analysis in peer-review.

The fact that evolution is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or measurable validity, and that no would-be alternate notion has ever met even one of the criteria required of a scientific theory.

 

[dandan]

Evolution: Unless otherwise specified, the scientific context always refers to an explanation of biodiversity via population mechanics; summarily defined as ‘descent with inherent [genetic] modification’: Paraphrased for clarity, it is a process of varying allele frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets. When compiled over successive generations, these can expand biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.

The question is ¿can ALL the biodiversity of life can be explained by this process?

Aron would say yes
OFNF would say no

¿why not focusing the challenge on this specific point?

 

[AronRa]

Evolution: Unless otherwise specified, the scientific context always refers to an explanation of biodiversity via population mechanics; summarily defined as ‘descent with inherent [genetic] modification’: Paraphrased for clarity, it is a process of varying allele frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets. When compiled over successive generations, these can expand biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.

The question is ¿can ALL the biodiversity of life can be explained by this process?

Aron would say yes
OFNF would say no

¿why not focusing the challenge on this specific point?

His original challenge, the one he posted to YouTube, was to prove that evolution is a fact. I have to do that before we can move on to the completely different challenge that he wants to make it out to be.

 

[dandan]

His original challenge, the one he posted to YouTube, was to prove that evolution is a fact. I have to do that before we can move on to the completely different challenge that he wants to make it out to be.

Yes that is the point ...prove that evolution is a fact, prove that descend with modifications + natural selection can explain the ALL diversity of life.

I won´t talk in the name of OFNF, but I sure that’s what he meant since the very beginning.

 

[AronRa]

His original challenge, the one he posted to YouTube, was to prove that evolution is a fact. I have to do that before we can move on to the completely different challenge that he wants to make it out to be.

Yes that is the point ...prove that evolution is a fact, prove that descend with modifications + natural selection can explain the ALL diversity of life.

I won´t talk in the name of OFNF, but I sure that’s what he meant since the very beginning.

You're asking two different things too, and you're assuming there is some other option to consider. Until you show evidence of one, this is all we've got.

 

[dandan]

You're asking two different things too, and you're assuming there is some other option to consider. Until you show evidence of one, this is all we've got.

Ok prove that descend with modifications + natural selection can explain all the biodiversity of life.

If you don´t what to call it evolution, don´t call it evolution. But I am sure that this is what OFNF meant with “evolution”


Well let’s wait and see if OFNF meant what I think he did. maybe I am missrepresenting him

 

[Inferno]

The question is ¿can ALL the biodiversity of life can be explained by this process?

Aron would say yes
OFNF would say no

Up until now, the answer is "yes, it can be".

Yes that is the point ...prove that evolution is a fact, prove that descend with modifications + natural selection can explain the ALL diversity of life.

Incorrect. Evolution =/= descent with modification + natural selection, that's a far too simplistic explanation. If that were the challenge, then OFNF would be correct. However, Evolution includes many more processes than the above: genetic drift, artificial selection, migration, coevolution, arms races, sexual selection and so on, to name but the few I am familiar with.

Now, the real challenge here is, as far as I'm concerned, the following: Aron must show that evolution ("change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms") has happened and is still happening. That's a fairly trivial challenge. So Aron must also show that it can result in speciation. That's trivial too, we've already done that in this thread.
OFNF now has to state which degree of diversity would be satisfactory: Is it enough to show that sarcopterygian fish eventually gave rise to (or perhaps, are closely related cousins of) tetrapods? Is it enough to show that cetaceans evolved from land mammals? That sirenians did the same? That horses have precursors in mesohippus and so on? Do we have to show that humans are definitely related to other apes and monkeys?

Or does OFNF want us to go further and show that we are definitely related to monkeys, mice, fish, yeast and fungus?

All of these are possible but each one of those involves a separate discussion. All of these can be (and have already been) done.

 

[dandan]

Up until now, the answer is "yes, it can be".



Incorrect. Evolution =/= descent with modification + natural selection, that's a far too simplistic explanation. If that were the challenge, then OFNF would be correct. However, Evolution includes many more processes than the above: genetic drift, artificial selection, migration, coevolution, arms races, sexual selection and so on, to name but the few I am familiar with.

Now, the real challenge here is, as far as I'm concerned, the following: Aron must show that evolution ("change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms") has happened and is still happening. That's a fairly trivial challenge. So Aron must also show that it can result in speciation. That's trivial too, we've already done that in this thread.
OFNF now has to state which degree of diversity would be satisfactory: Is it enough to show that sarcopterygian fish eventually gave rise to (or perhaps, are closely related cousins of) tetrapods? Is it enough to show that cetaceans evolved from land mammals? That sirenians did the same? That horses have precursors in mesohippus and so on? Do we have to show that humans are definitely related to other apes and monkeys?

Or does OFNF want us to go further and show that we are definitely related to monkeys, mice, fish, yeast and fungus?

All of these are possible but each one of those involves a separate discussion. All of these can be (and have already been) done.

Ok, lets wait and see if OFNF can clarify this.

Speaking for myself

Evolutoin (descend with modification + natural selection+ sexual selection + artificial selection+ random genetic drift…) is suppose to explain all the diversity of life.



All the diversity of life includes modern eyes, brains, wings etc. so I would expect Aron to provide evidence that this mechanism can create all this stuff.

 

[AronRa]

Speaking for myself

Evolutoin (descend with modification + natural selection+ sexual selection + artificial selection+ random genetic drift…) is suppose to explain all the diversity of life.

All the diversity of life includes modern eyes, brains, wings etc. so I would expect Aron to provide evidence that this mechanism can create all this stuff.

As Inferno already explained, evolution has many mechanisms, and we don't yet know them all. But if OFNF is on the same page as you are, then this will be much easier than I thought.

 

[dandan]

Speaking for myself

Evolutoin (descend with modification + natural selection+ sexual selection + artificial selection+ random genetic drift…) is suppose to explain all the diversity of life.

All the diversity of life includes modern eyes, brains, wings etc. so I would expect Aron to provide evidence that this mechanism can create all this stuff.

As Inferno already explained, evolution has many mechanisms, and we don't yet know them all. But if OFNF is on the same page as you are, then this will be much easier than I thought.

Well hopefully he is, I honestly what to see the evidence that supports the idea that ALL the diversity of life can be explained by evolution (descend with modification, NS, sexual selection, genetic drift etc.)
But we will have to wait until OFNF accepts or rejects this definition.

 

[Baggi]

I must say this is all very confusing. I will do my part to try and clarify.

AronRa writes that he has tried, in the past, to prove evolution at the very beginning of this discussion:

I don't know how many times I have tried to prove evolution to creationists over the last decade or so

Ok, so far, it seems like ONFN has offered a challenge, prove evolution. AronRa, who has attempted to do this before, in the past, appears to accept this challenge.

Then there is some back and forth which seems to distract but finally AronRa writes:

Evolution: Unless otherwise specified, the scientific context always refers to an explanation of biodiversity via population mechanics; summarily defined as ‘descent with inherent [genetic] modification’: Paraphrased for clarity, it is a process of varying allele frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets. When compiled over successive generations, these can expand biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.
Microevolution: “Small scale” evolution within a single species / interbreeding population.
Macroevolution: “Large scale” evolution between different species / populations: The emergence of new taxa at or above the species level.

This is in a list of definitions, which AronRa says is the starting place. Start with definitions.

OFNF responds with:

Your definitions seem fine. However, it would be good to point out something obvious. As a Creationist, I already believe in Evolution in some sense (ie descent with modifications, and varying allele frequencies). So no one is debating those concepts. We all agree on that. The reason I doubt Evolution is because I’m not convinced that natural processes are capable of producing the designs we see in living things.

It appears that OFNF agrees with the definitions. And then he clarifies.

So far, so good, once you get through the rest of it. It's good to define what it is that AronRa should be proving. Clearly people hear different things when the word Evolution is spoken, so this is a great starting place.

AronRa responds:

The fact that evolution happens; that biodiversity and complexity do increase, that both occur naturally according to the laws of population genetics amid environmental dynamics.

The fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations, and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups.

The fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance both in scientific literature and in practical application.

The fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by descendant groups, and that several independent sets of biological markers do exist which trace these lineages backwards over myriad generations.

The fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs, in the same way that ducks are a subset of birds, and that humans are a subset of apes in exactly the same way that lions are a subset of cats.

The fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its most basal form through reverse-sequencing, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology, and embryological development, as well as through chronologically correct placement of successive stages revealed in the geologic column.

The fact that every animal on earth has obvious relatives either living nearby or evident in the fossil record, and that the fossil record holds hundreds of clearly transitional species even according to the strictest definition of that term.

The fact that both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly-observed and documented dozens of times, both in the lab and in naturally-controlled conditions in the field, and that these instances have all withstood critical analysis in peer-review.

The fact that evolution is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or measurable validity, and that no would-be alternate notion has ever met even one of the criteria required of a scientific theory.

I honestly think the rest could be skipped. It's all smoke and mirrors and word games.

I look forward to hearing OFNF's response to AronRa to see how much of these purported facts he accepts.

 

[Inferno]

All the diversity of life includes modern eyes, brains, wings etc. so I would expect Aron to provide evidence that this mechanism can create all this stuff.

--------------

Well hopefully he is, I honestly what to see the evidence that supports the idea that ALL the diversity of life can be explained by evolution (descend with modification, NS, sexual selection, genetic drift etc.)
But we will have to wait until OFNF accepts or rejects this definition.

Ah, I forgot that yesterday. Of course, how did things like the eye evolve. Possibly even, how did "new genetic information" (which still hasn't been defined by any creationist I know) enter our DNA.

Sure, all valid questions.

As for the definition, if he does not accept the definition of evolution, then he doesn't know what evolution is. If he doesn't accept what Aron's task is, then I'm really curious as to what Aron's supposed to do. But we'll see.

 

[Baggi]

As for the definition, if he does not accept the definition of evolution, then he doesn't know what evolution is.

This is circular reasoning and besides the point.

One person has put forward a challenge. That challenge is to prove evolution. Another person has accepted the challenge.

The question remains, can they agree on what the challenge is? IE: What is evolution?

Once they can agree on the definition of evolution, then AronRa can decide if he wants to accept the challenge or back down.

But it's pointless to say one side doesn't know what something is. So what? We're attempting to communicate in the English language. If I say to you, "Prove that banks exist." and you set out to prove that Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Chase are all banks, but first insist that I accept your definition of the word bank or I don't know what a bank is, that gets us no where. Because I was talking about the bank of a river. Instead of asking me what I meant by the word bank and asked me to define my terms, you just assumed and caused confusion.

Let's not assume what OFNF means by evolution or say he doesn't know what it is if his definition differs from yours. Instead, let's try and listen a little more and be more charitable with those with whom we disagree.

 

[Baggi]

As I predicted, the goalposts have shifted in order for Onceforgivennowfree to hold onto his strawman. By doing this Onceforgivennowfree, you have essentially proven AronRa correct, in that your challenge was never to prove evolution correct (you already accept it, thus AronRa’s job here is done)

Why is his job done?

OFNF has asked for proof of evolution.

Let's say for a moment that OFNF completely agrees with AronRa that evolution is real, it exists, and it explains everything.

Now, let's look at AronRa's definition of Proof:

Proof: [legal sense, common vernacular] That which strongly shown to be true according to a preponderance of evidence.

Has the agreement shown by OFNF proven evolution? Of course it hasn't. Just as a handful of students agreeing with their teacher that gravity exists doesn't prove gravity.

No matter how much OFNF may agree with AronRa, it will never lead to proof. Proof is found, as defined above, by showing that which is true according to a preponderance of the evidence.

 

[AronRa]

Well hopefully he is, I honestly what to see the evidence that supports the idea that ALL the diversity of life can be explained by evolution (descend with modification, NS, sexual selection, genetic drift etc.)
But we will have to wait until OFNF accepts or rejects this definition.

He already accepted the definition. He didn't really have any choice there, as I can prove that I am using the one-and-only universally accepted definition used throughout higher education, and he is using a straw-man mischaracterization. Once he concedes that evolution is a fact, then we'll move on to his real challenge, and discuss emergence. At that time, we will doubtless have to explain epistemology, scientific methodology, the nature of evidence, and the burden of proof all over again, because creationists habitually have all that twisted around completely backward.

 

[dandan]

Well hopefully he is, I honestly what to see the evidence that supports the idea that ALL the diversity of life can be explained by evolution (descend with modification, NS, sexual selection, genetic drift etc.)
But we will have to wait until OFNF accepts or rejects this definition.

He already accepted the definition. He didn't really have any choice there, as I can prove that I am using the one-and-only universally accepted definition used throughout higher education, and he is using a straw-man mischaracterization. Once he concedes that evolution is a fact, then we'll move on to his real challenge, and discuss emergence. At that time, we will doubtless have to explain epistemology, scientific methodology, the nature of evidence, and the burden of proof all over again, because creationists habitually have all that twisted around completely backward.

MMM that sounds like more word games,