The Questions That Abiogenesis Needs To Answer, Before Evolution.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
When you guys have to pull out the bully tactics, your side is on the downward slope.

Bully tactics? You have been vigorously attacking atheism this entire thread, and expect no backlash at all?

Fact: the vast majority of your posts in this thread have been rants about atheism rather than evolution or abiogenesis.

Of course no mention on my arguments on the premise of this thread.

What arguments? Can you point out the argument where you addressed the science behind evolution or proved that evolution requires abiogenesis? Simply denying it isn't an argument and neither is insulting atheists when evolution is a scientific view, not an atheistic one.

Scientists using evolution to change the Earth's biosphere tampering with photosynthesis when they cannot demonstrate the origin of life proving they have command of the subject matter and are qualified technicians for this planet. Changing photosynthesis on the basis of evolutionary assumptions is no little thing. Next they will want to toss out the mitochondria for a more efficient artificial symbiosis.

How does not knowing the answer for how life originally emerged on earth, indicate that they know absolutely nothing about biology, photosynthesis or anything else? Your arguments are absolutely ridiculous and your agenda is obvious. That's like saying that you don't care if somebody is a nuclear fusion expert, because they don't know what caused the big bang. It's not an argument, it's a deflection. Knowing abiogenesis is not a prerequisite to understanding biology. You don't need absolute knowledge of the universe to be correct about certain facts that exist TODAY. It's not easy learning about a process that happened 3.8 billion years ago. You act like it should be easy, and that because we haven't learned yet, we never will.

Leave science alone. Thanks to science we have learned quite a bit, and it generally gets us where we want to go. Stop lumping it in with atheism, it is completely unrelated.

It is their rubber stamp of approval, their evolutionary studies are the basis for their conclusions that photosynthesis should be made more efficient. They are spending money and resources to do just that.

Their own data shows periods of population explosions, something protein mass comes in handy for but they want to do away with it.

It is easy to contend they are irresponsible with such power. They cannot be trusted to know all of the consequences unless they demonstrate a full working knowledge of the origin of life. They only understand bits and pieces but want to make grand changes and are indeed planning to.

Can you link this study for us? Something tells me it is not nearly as ominous as you are presenting.

Also evolution has nothing to do with what is chosen to run experiments on. I'm just wondering if you are going to argue the topic at some point without non sequiturs and deflection.

echanical marvels are not the same as changing an evolutionary process such as photosynthesis, the basis of which life depends on in the ecosystem. Apples to oranges.

Explain how photosynthesis is an evolutionary process. I don't think you know what you are even talking about. Does photosynthesis cause genetic mutations or natural selection? That is similar to saying that my hand is an evolutionary process. It may be a result of evolution, but that doesn't mean it's evolution every time I use them to raise my beer to my mouth.

Photosynthesis is a process of energy conversion that has gone through the billions of years of evolution on earth, therefor it is a process of evolution same as you would say it is a product of evolution. Nitpicking is quaint but you knew what was implied from the start, you just want to attack symantics instead of the message conveyed.

originally posted by: kennyb72
There is a contingent who want to pick a fight. Most believers will rise to the bait I am afraid. I personally don’t attack atheists beyond pointing out that they are missing something they have no experience of and so are not qualified to make the statements they do, including yourself, I would point out it is not your fault, it is your incapacity, a missing faculty.

Do you not realize how condescending the bolded statement is? Oh, it's not my fault, I'm just mentally inferior. One could say that most religious folk are incapable of processing logic and science. That wouldn't make it true, however, even though the vast majority that post here demonstrate that exact trait. Claiming that atheists are missing something intellectually is an asinine statement. I know many spiritual atheists. Atheism only means lack of belief in a deity. Look at Buddhism, Taoism, etc. They are atheistic systems, yet very spiritual.

I haven’t changed my position on anything, I am posting as a intelligent design proponent. I have never lied about science ever, I may not explain or be able to explain to the satisfaction of a scientist where he is wrong, as that to me is inconsequential. I know what is correct and I know what is wrong. Science does get a lot right, but there are many fundamental issues that science is just plane wrong about.

Correction: You THINK you know what is correct and what is wrong.

Maybe you didn't intentionally lie about science in the past thread, but false things were posted by you, possibly by accident. It seemed like you were pretending to know more about science than you actually did to support your claims about evolution. I could go back and quote them all for you, but I'm sure we both don't want that.

Hylozoics is the truth unadulterated. It has no agenda it does not need further explanation, it is simply the truth of reality. Furthermore it ask for nothing, it does not try to convert or change anyone. It is just the plain simple truth. Once you understand the truth you do change, forever, no going back. If you come from the truth, you can never contradict yourself.

You believe it to be truth, but that does not make it so.

It is not the science so much as the implications that upset religious people and the implications are pointed out very clearly by atheists, people like Richard Dawkins relishes in this fact. So in a sense it is atheism picking a fight with believers of whatever ilk. From that point the gloves are off and the the distinction is highlighted between evolution theory and origin of life the real issue that will make evolution theory make sense to all of us.

90% of the threads in this section are attacks on science made by creationists, not atheists attacking religion. Stop acting like creationists are innocent and don't warrant people like Dawkins making fun of them. I don't like to make fun of anybody but the level of intellectual dishonesty in this section, posted by creationists is off the charts.

I sound like a zealot because I say that evolution doesn't require there to be no god? Please explain. That is a simple fact. YOU made the claim that it does, but that's flat out wrong.

If evolutionists stopped implying that evolution theory was proof that life could exist without a designer, then I believe there would be little argument. Origin of life is everything, It is the big question that humanity as a whole cannot get its collective head around, The goal of studying evolution should be a means to an end to answer that question.

Who claims that evolution proves there is no god? It is extremely rare that an atheist or science supporter makes that argument. Most people that argue against god, cite the fact that there is no objective evidence. God and evolution can coexist but you said above that they can't.

Creationist/Id’rs know, not think, feel, or have an inclination, they know with every fibre of their existence that there is a God or whatever you would like to call it. An all pervading intelligence, a force, a power a presence, unrecognised and undefined by science but as real as our very existence.

The problem is that they do not actually know. They think they know and claim they know, but they don't. You keep putting creationists on a pedestal above atheists claiming they are privy to the truth while others are not, when their view is just as illogical as all the other ancient myths. Strong belief in something is still belief aka faith aka unproven unverifiable stories and concepts.

It is as incredulous to me as saying “do you see that tree that we all see”, and you say no,I don’t believe in trees, they don’t exist. Can you now see what you are up against. Atheists see us as delusional and we see atheist as insensitive to reality. Science will never be able to prove the existence of God because of this phenomena. Something fundamental in a scientific mind is incapable of accepting something illogical, but it is only illogical because it is beyond them.

Just because folks don't subscribe to your belief system, doesn't mean their mental faculties are incapable of understanding it. That is a useless, baseless argument that appeals to emotion and your belief that you are right and others are wrong. Insensitive to reality? How can you use that phrase, when most of them are about proof and evidence? The main reason for not believing is the lack of evidence.

Your tree example is precisely the method of argument that creationists use against evolution. The tree is obviously there, much like evolution. You can't deny it without pretending it doesn't exist and no matter what arguments are made the tree will be there. Looking at a tree isn't like looking at god. God is faith based, a tree is tangible. I wouldn't say science will never prove god, either. It could very well get to that point.

Lets spell it out to avoid confusion, lets say, 'concept of God haters' and no, I am not a Christian apologist, as they have nothing to apologise for, nor may I add do atheists. Nobody should apologise for what they believe. hylozoics is reality not any particular religion although most religions are founded upon this reality. I could just as easily be accused of being biased towards Hinduism, Bhudism, Janisme or Taoism, but I am only interested in the truth.

First, an apologist is not one who apologizes, it is somebody that defends a particular viewpoint or concept (Christianity in this case, ie apologetics). Second, how does a nonbeliever hate god, whether in concept or not? You either believe, you don't believe or you are agnostic. Disagreeing with theism or a particular religion isn't hating the concept of god, it is thinking that the concept is false, and considering there is no objective evidence, it is logical.

You would say that because you don't know any better. Add an eternal life into the equation and see how that changes your outlook on your current life.

Neither of us know any better. One can still believe eternal life or life after death without believing in god, which renders your point moot. Stop the pigeonholing and stop putting your personal beliefs above others.

-ran out of space- more coming

a reply to: Barcs

I tried to condense it all but it only clouded my points, so I decided to make a second post.

I never lie Barcs, I have no reason or inclination to do so, You are just bloody rude sometimes. I would be interested to hear, how you think that evolution theory has benefited humanity in any way.

Your exact quote:

Evolution Theory is an irritating distraction, it tell you nothing, it teaches you nothing.

Yes, that is technically a lie, because evolution has taught us TONS. If it is rude of me to point out this fact, then I'm sorry. It is what it is. I think it's very rude of you to pigeonhole atheists and claim they are incapable of mentally understanding spirituality when you have no basis at all for that claim. There is a big difference between understanding something and believing in something. I don't disbelieve because I don't understand. I disbelieve because I can't find a valid reason TO believe. I see many folks making guesses about what they think about reality and god, but nothing verifiable at all to suggest they are correct.

Evolution has taught us a great deal about diseases and vaccines for them. Evolution is actively applied in modern medicine and has saved lives as a result. That is the purpose of science and the reason it is beneficial to learn how things work. Just because you don't see the value in learning doesn't mean you don't benefit from it. Even if evolution didn't benefit modern medicine the way it does, it STILL is worth learning about because it may lead us to new discoveries in the future.

I mean by your logic why learn about gravity? What benefit does that have? Initially, it had zero benefit, I mean why did Newton waste his time? The point is it led to a better understanding many years down the road, which led to man reaching the moon, putting satellites in orbit and sending probes all over the solar system. Basically I'm saying that not seeing the immediate benefit of an area of study is a very poor reason to not study it. Being against something like that for those particular reasons blows my mind. Humans should try to study and learn about everything they possibly can, because you never know, it may save us one day from extinction.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...

Science knows very little I am afraid, and your defence of it is 'quaint' to put it politely.

Science knows very little? Are you kidding me? We may not know everything, but that doesn't mean "very little." We know far more about the universe than we did just 100 years ago, and the knowledge itself is too much for a single human to fully learn. This is why we have to break it down into individual fields like biology, chemistry, genetics, etc, and even those have areas of specialty. There is way too much information for a single person to learn. It is not "very little", not by a longshot. It's funny how you equate not knowing everything, to knowing next to nothing.

My apparent attack on science is based on my observation that the general population has been mislead into believing that science is close to understand the reality of life and is, in someway, able to make God like decisions, Science is blind to the truth and has lost its integrity. Would you ask a blind person you don't trust, to fly you to any destination?

Would you ask your dentist to fix your car? Obviously not, you'd go to a car expert. Likewise, you go to a biologist for biology. Your blind person metaphor is completely invalid, and it describes your belief system, not science. Science isn't blind, science is a method of fact discovery. Faith is blind. That's the whole joke of the argument. Every perceived "flaw" you bring up with science isn't actually a flaw and applies to your belief system. I don't believe anything based on blind faith, and according to you that means I'm mentally incapable of understanding spirituality (which is completely wrong and makes no sense at all).

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Photosynthesis is a process of energy conversion that has gone through the billions of years of evolution on earth, therefor it is a process of evolution same as you would say it is a product of evolution.

False. By your logic, every aspect of every living thing on earth is a process of evolution. It's not a process, it's a RESULT of evolution. You attack evolution with nothing but strawmans and fallacies. The process of evolution is genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. Photosynthesis is a life process, but not an evolutionary one. Sorry. Again, it's as valid as calling my right hand an evolutionary process, or claiming that nuclear fusion is a process of the big bang. It's not.

Nitpicking is quaint but you knew what was implied from the start, you just want to attack symantics instead of the message conveyed.

Semantics? Are you kidding me? I addressed practically every point you made in detail. You ignored the majority of my response, and accuse me of nitpicking. That's rich. You didn't offer any rebuttals. You didn't post the link to the study that I requested. You didn't post your valid arguments against evolution that you claimed to have made. Accusing me of semantics and nitpicking is a complete joke when my post was that long and detailed. But yeah, that's typical, ignore any points you don't like rather than present counterpoints. I'm well familiar with your debating strategies.

a reply to: rnaa

However you have it completely backwards. Evolution Theory cannot 'fall apart' if some eventual "Theory of Abiogenesis" makes it impossible. It is the other way around: some eventual proposal for a "Theory of Abiogenesis" will be rejected completely if it fails to show how "Life As We Know It" (LAWKI) formed. That is the constant known entity: "Life As We Know It". Evolution will be unaffected either way - it is based on LAWKI already. A candidate "Theory of Abiogenisis" has to show how "LAWKI" was formed. It doesn't matter what form that theory takes as long as it results in "LAWKI"

LAWKI??? The whole of evolutionary theory is not Life As We Know It. To limit the research of lifes origin to only a theory that coheres with the idea we all evolved from a single cell common ancestor is completely closed minded and it hinders out capacity for knowledge. I don't think I have it backwards at all. Life's origin is directly involved in the beginning of theoretical evolutionary ideas.

It seems to me what you are saying is the process went a little something like this:

No life.
Something happened.
Life.
Evolution of Life.

So many questions arise that I highly doubt you can answer with ample justification:
You are presupposing the the first life is what?
You are presupposing that the first life evolved into a more complex species based on what convincing empirical evidence?
How does your view account for the Cambrian explosion?


While I concede that we can observe variance amongst species, I see no reason to believe that Macro-evolution can be put in the category of LAWKI as its is not known. Macro-evolution is supposedly to slow to observe, and so all we are left with is fossils and rocks and our interpretations of those fossils and rocks. This is not convincing evidence nor is it empirically verifiable evidence.

You tried to slip past my argument by terming it a "matter of fact" that Evolutionary theory is LAWKI. I think now in order to circumvent my position you need to meet your burden of proof. I've got many questions beside the ones above I just think they are a good place to start.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Can you answer them?

Those in scentific fields are quite comfortable answering "we don't know but we're still searching".

That is an honest answer, but for some that isn't enough. Why?

ETA: You do have it backwards. LAWKI is the result, so the theory of how that result came about pretty much centers on that very same result.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: kennyb72.
Others however are very vocal in their disdain for a religious point of view and regularly devolve the conversation to that of atheists and believers.

It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with intellectual dishonesty and shoddy debate tactics. A lot of religious folks pull out every single example of poor debate tactic that exists when trying to denounce accepted science. I don't care if you're religious or atheist, I'm going to display disdain for people who are deliberately intellectually dishonest.

There are two intellectually-honest debate tactics:

1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts
2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic

Now let's look at some of the examples of intellectually-dishonest debate tactics:

1. Name Calling
2. Changing the subject
3. Stating WHY you are wrong without stating WHERE you are wrong.
4. Questioning the motives of the opponent.
5. Stereotyping
6. Citing irrelevant facts or logic
7. False premise
8. Hearsay
9. Unqualified expert opinion
10. Vagueness
11. Playing on widely held fantasies or fears
12. Scapegoating
13. Redefining words
14. Straw Man
15. Rejecting facts or logic as opinion
16. Badgering
17. Disagreeing with non-opinion statements
18. "You commit [insert dishonest debate tactic here] all the time"

We've seen examples of every single one of these tactics in this thread at least once, most of them multiple times and from the same posters (*cough* TinfoilTP *cough*).

I personally don’t attack atheists beyond pointing out that they are missing something they have no experience of and so are not qualified to make the statements they do, including yourself, I would point out it is not your fault, it is your incapacity, a missing faculty.

Except you've name-called atheists multiple times in this very thread. You're also guilty of stereotyping... I was educated in a Christian school and raised southern baptist. I have a very solid understanding of the Christian religion/faith. I was a Christian until I reached my teen years and started to question everything I was being taught. The indoctrination didn't work on me... logic and scientific fact won out over ancient superstition. Your opinion that atheists are simply not qualified or missing some sort of faculty is ridiculous.

Science knows very little I am afraid, and your defence of it is 'quaint' to put it politely. My apparent attack on science is based on my observation that the general population has been mislead into believing that science is close to understand the reality of life and is, in someway, able to make God like decisions, Science is blind to the truth and has lost its integrity. Would you ask a blind person you don't trust, to fly you to any destination?

Because of your religion-based opinion that "science knows very little", you claim intellectual superiority?

In the very same post you claim that you don't lie... amazing.

You just name dropped me then provided quotes from other posters immediately following that. You leave the distinct impression they were from me and they are not.

Put yourself at the top of the list of dishonest tactics.

I think it was quite clear to everyone that I was addressing one person's post and merely mentioning you.

Way to grasp at straws though... and prove my point.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb


LAWKI??? The whole of evolutionary theory is not Life As We Know It. To limit the research of lifes origin to only a theory that coheres with the idea we all evolved from a single cell common ancestor is completely closed minded and it hinders out capacity for knowledge. I don't think I have it backwards at all. Life's origin is directly involved in the beginning of theoretical evolutionary ideas.

The Theory of Evolution is based upon evidence observed and verified repeatedly by scientists. The explanation for the source of life will have to stand up to the same scrutiny... anything else is merely a hypothesis. If a stated hypothesis doesn't match up with what we currently know about the evolution of complex life, it must be dismissed. I know that religious people would love it if a discovery was made that somehow proved "god did it" but even that would not invalidate the Theory of Evolution... it would only confirm life's origins and wouldn't have anything to do with the mechanisms by which organisms evolved.

It seems to me what you are saying is the process went a little something like this:

No life.
Something happened.
Life.
Evolution of Life.

No, it's more like:

No life.
Life developed somehow.
Evolution of life.

Unless life arrived here from an extraterrestrial origin i.e. meteor strike or similar, saying "something happened" indicates that some sort of event occurred from which life sprang forth. The answer is probably much more mundane than that i.e. the right combination of chemical and environmental processes combined to produce something recognizable as a living organism. If god is the one responsible for life on our planet, then he must have seeded several other planets in our own galaxy because we've already found pretty hearty evidence for molecular/bacterial life on other celestial bodies.

So many questions arise that I highly doubt you can answer with ample justification:
You are presupposing the the first life is what?

Scientists have a few ideas. Google is your friend if you actually want to know.

You are presupposing that the first life evolved into a more complex species based on what convincing empirical evidence?

Almost all life starts as a single cell. That's pretty convincing empirical evidence that we didn't have to spark into existence from a magic man in the sky breathing into a handful of dirt.

How does your view account for the Cambrian explosion?

I'm going to assume you like to throw that one out without fully understanding the Cambrian Explosion.

The Cambrian Explosion is often posed as a challenge for evolution because the sudden burst of change in the fossil record appears to be inconsistent with the more typical gradual pace of evolutionary change. However, although different in certain ways, there are other times of very rapid evolutionary change recorded in the fossil record -- often following times of major extinction. The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of challenging and important questions because it represents the time during which the main branches of the animal tree of life became established. It does not create a challenge to the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution, the descent of all living species from a common ancestor. This important period in the history of life extended over millions of years, plenty of time for the evolution of these new body plans (phyla) to occur. Furthermore, the fossil record provides numerous examples of organisms that appear transitional between living phyla and their common ancestors. The ongoing research about the Cambrian period is an exciting opportunity to advance our understanding of how evolutionary processes work, and the environmental factors shaping them.
The major animal body plans that appeared in the Cambrian Explosion did not include the appearance of modern animal groups such as: starfish, crabs, insects, fish, lizards, birds and mammals. These animal groups all appeared at various times much later in the fossil record.3 The forms that appeared in the Cambrian Explosion were more primitive than these later groups, and many of them were soft-bodied organisms. However, they did include the basic features that define the major branches of the tree of life to which later life forms belong.Source

While I concede that we can observe variance amongst species, I see no reason to believe that Macro-evolution can be put in the category of LAWKI as its is not known. Macro-evolution is supposedly to slow to observe, and so all we are left with is fossils and rocks and our interpretations of those fossils and rocks. This is not convincing evidence nor is it empirically verifiable evidence.

Ahhh the old "macro-evolution" vs "micro-evolution" argument. You do realize that the whole argument stems from evolution-deniers' (often deliberate) misinterpretation of macro and micro evolution, right? It's simple... if changes within a species are easily observed, why would those changes not eventually accumulate to alter the species so much that it would then be considered a different species?

You tried to slip past my argument by terming it a "matter of fact" that Evolutionary theory is LAWKI.

Yeah, "Life as we know it." In other words: "as has been proven by scientific research."

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

And here we have it, a creationist pulling out the terms Macro (and by inference micro) evolution. Its not the first time Servant of the Lamb (baaaaa) has tried this gambit either.

Servant of the Lamb:

Micro-evolution, and Macro-Evolution: You keep using those words, I do not think they mean, what you think they mean.

These terms are much like abiogensis and evolution, being miss used here. The later you and your congregation insist are inseparable. Conversely you try to imply that micro and macro evolution are separable. I am very sorry to inform you that they are not. No credible life scientist will use them as separate identities. They are on a scale.

So there we have it folks, we've had the creationist go too excuse whipped out on page 15 of this thread. I predicted this a few pages back too Not because I have psychic abilities, no because I've seen this display of plumage from the wild creationist before.

a reply to: daskakik

Can you answer them?

I am not the one claiming to know Macro-evolution is LAWKI. I never said the origin of life didn't have to cohere with LAWKI. I am saying I don't think Macro-evolution has enough evidence to fall into the category of LAWKI. I've said many times on this thread and others, nothing about my beliefs would stop me from accepting evolutionary theory. I just don't think Macro-evolution has met its burden of proof.

Those in scentific fields are quite comfortable answering "we don't know but we're still searching"

Well that definitely shouldn't be the answer for something someone is claiming to be part of LAWKI....


I am perfectly ok with someone saying I don't know as you said its an honest answer.

a reply to: Answer

The Theory of Evolution is based upon evidence observed and verified repeatedly by scientists.

No. Variance among species is based upon observed evidence. Speciation over billions of years is assumed based off of fossils and rocks. The fossils and rocks are the evidence. Evolutionary theory is an interpretation of the evidence. If your going to claim it as objectively true, then the burden of proof is yours take it away. Constantly you appeal to evidence in your post but present none...

I know that religious people would love it if a discovery was made that somehow proved "god did it" but even that would not invalidate the Theory of Evolution... it would only confirm life's origins and wouldn't have anything to do with the mechanisms by which organisms evolved.

You seem to understand that Science studies mechanisms. If Science gives us mechanistic descriptions of the world, how do you get to the idea that Science could ever discover a God or Gods...which would be what is known in philosophy as an agent? God or Gods would not be mechanistic descriptions of the world but rather the agent behind it.

Again you assert that we KNOW speciation occurs over billions of years, but the only evidence you can site for that is your interpretation of rocks and fossils. The rocks and fossils are the evidence. Your interpretation of them needs to be shown as valid in order for you to say you KNOW that occurs. I could be real mean and require you to justify inductive reasoning but its off topic...

Almost all life starts as a single cell. That's pretty convincing empirical evidence that we didn't have to spark into existence from a magic man in the sky breathing into a handful of dirt.

Are you referring to reproduction....

Furthermore, the fossil record provides numerous examples of organisms that appear transitional between living phyla and their common ancestors.

From your spill on the Cambrian explosion that had nothing to do with my question...Notice here how they say organisms APPEAR to be transitional(they really have no idea its just their interpretation)...the entire argument for the majority of macro-evolution is based on the assumption that common appearance means common ancestor....what evidence do you have that this is true?

The cambrian explosion is presented against evolution because the majority of the animals found their have no evolutionary history...which brings to question where did they come from? How did they fully develop without going through the process everything else supposedly went thru?

Ahhh the old "macro-evolution" vs "micro-evolution" argument. You do realize that the whole argument stems from evolution-deniers' (often deliberate) misinterpretation of macro and micro evolution, right?

I don't see how I have misinterpreted the term..the term focuses on evolution at or above the level of species. Micro-evolution is variance among species due to evolution and natural selection.

It's simple... if changes within a species are easily observed, why would those changes not eventually accumulate to alter the species so much that it would then be considered a different species?

I suppose it would come down to the definition of species. I define a species as animals that can mate and have viable offspring. Any breeder knows there are limits to what you can do. I don't know those limits, and they won't be found anytime soon cause no one is doing the research because it disagrees with evolution and any attempt to publish such would get you black listed quick. I will say its lazy to just assume that can occur on a larger scale.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
I just don't think Macro-evolution has met its burden of proof.

Not like the concept of an omnipotent invisible man in the sky - that stuff is rock solid!

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
If your going to claim it as objectively true, then the burden of proof is yours take it away. Constantly you appeal to evidence in your post but present none...

Because I'm tired of going through the effort to present solid evidence just to have it ignored. You and the other evolution-deniers have drained me of my ability to deal with willful ignorance. The same goes for your other questions, as well. It's not my job to give you the scientific education you should have received in school.

We've done this dance over and over. I'm bored with it.

Evolution denier: "Where's the proof?! Where's the evidence?!"
Logical person: "Scientists believe this and here's a link if you'd like to read it."
Evolution denier: "That doesn't prove anything! Where's the evidence?"
Logical person: "Well here's some more information and a link."
Evolution denier: "Well what about bananas reproducing with seahorses?"
Logical person: "What? That's irrelevant."
Evolution denier: "So you admit that you don't know the answer and your science is all crap."
Logical person: "No, that's not what I'm saying at all."
Evolution denier: "Oh? Well where's your proof? Where's your evidence?"
Logical person: "sigh... I don't even know what you're asking for now..."
Evolution denier: "Ah hah! See, there is no evidence to support evolution!"

a reply to: Noinden

You keep calling me a creationist like I agree with the majority of nuts that are Christians out there. I mean I am a creationist in the sense that I believe we live in a creation rather than a random chance universe. Other than that I would assume my views are probably not something you've spent a lot of time studying.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Except that definition doesn't come anywhere near the concept of a Creator. I am not here to convince people of my God. They see my name and steer the conversation towards my beliefs rather than the topic at hand .

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Noinden

You keep calling me a creationist like I agree with the majority of nuts that are Christians out there. I mean I am a creationist in the sense that I believe we live in a creation rather than a random chance universe. Other than that I would assume my views are probably not something you've spent a lot of time studying.

When you parrot all of the creationist talking points, you should expect to be lumped in with them.

a reply to: Answer

So basically you want to appeal to the mass amount of evidence and then you can't even produce a little bit? You see this is just hilarious. You want to talk a lot of #, but when it comes to me trying to discuss what the truth is you want to run. I am not here to deny evolution. I am simply not convinced of it. I made great grades in science and have had some college science classes. None of those questions were answered and a lot of what I was taught was not evidence but interpretations of that evidence. I can think for myself I don't need someone to tell me what something means. If the evidence repertoire is so massive, then simply show the evidence without yours or anyone elses input and it should convince me of macro-evolution on its own.

a reply to: Answer

Creationist make some good rejections. I don't necessarily agree with what they put in place of whatever it is they are rejecting, but you don't need to agree with their side to see that they have raised some valid questions about certain things.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Answer

So basically you want to appeal to the mass amount of evidence and then you can't even produce a little bit? You see this is just hilarious. You want to talk a lot of #, but when it comes to me trying to discuss what the truth is you want to run. I am not here to deny evolution. I am simply not convinced of it. I made great grades in science and have had some college science classes. None of those questions were answered and a lot of what I was taught was not evidence but interpretations of that evidence. I can think for myself I don't need someone to tell me what something means. If the evidence repertoire is so massive, then simply show the evidence without yours or anyone elses input and it should convince me of macro-evolution on its own.

What part of "I'm tired of participating only to have it ignored" do you not understand?

If you truly wanted evidence, you would look for it on Google or in the COUNTLESS other threads on ATS where this argument has occurred.

You're using the same stupid debate tactic used by so many creationists, which is essentially: "beat down your opponent with straw man arguments, logical fallacies, irrelevant counterpoints, and denial of evidence until they're so frustrated that they give up... then claim victory."

a reply to: Answer

You're using the same stupid debate tactic used by so many creationists, which is essentially: "beat down your opponent with straw man arguments, logical fallacies, irrelevant counterpoints, and denial of evidence until they're so frustrated that they give up... then claim victory."

Logic is my favorite subject. Please point out anything I have said that was a logical fallacy and call it by name. No strawman's have been presented by me that I am aware of so again please again point it out. I need evidence to be presented in order to deny it lol you haven't even presented any so how can I deny it? It seems to me you lack a back bone when it comes to someone being skeptical of your views. I welcome criticism of the Biblical world view as so far it has done nothing but strengthen my belief in the Bibles words. You don't seem to welcome a skeptic into your camp on the basis that anyone who disagrees with you is a fool who can do nothing right...