Creation v Evolution argument can end

a reply to: pthena

Well, technically abiogenesis is an origin thing, so I would see no problem with posting the thread in this section. In fact, I encourage that, because this section rarely has good meaty threads that really make you think, it's usually just bickering back and forth about ID and evolution. That's actually an interesting idea and wouldn't mind hearing more about it.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
You have nothing to show me, just your faith, religion to grasp on to with no evidence

Why do you hate science, it has brought you the computer you type on, your car, yor comfort, why turn it into religion, why abuse science with your religion, why the hate on religion

This is all you really want to do, isn't it? Like I posted earlier, get people to yell uncle.

So, yes some people might be religious about science but I don't think it is most people. Heck most people don't even care all that much. "Saw a show on Discovery and they said the universe stared with a big bang, those are some smart fellows". You think those people will kill anyone offering an alternative theory? No, they are not fundamentalists, except, maybe in your personal definition of fundamentalist, which I think you posted somewhere on ATS.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: pthena

Well, technically abiogenesis is an origin thing, so I would see no problem with posting the thread in this section. In fact, I encourage that, because this section rarely has good meaty threads that really make you think, it's usually just bickering back and forth about ID and evolution. That's actually an interesting idea and wouldn't mind hearing more about it.

I would love to hear anything on abiogenesis as well, never heard those who believe in "the natural" discuss it.
I am totally unfamiliar with it
what does common sense say in relation to abiogenesis?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

You turned the table on your own question.

If you want an answer to your second question about space dirt and space water, please provide evidence that evolutionary science says that humanity arose from space dirt and space water. To the best of my knowledge, I have never read any research paper or textbook which says that humans arose from space dirt and space water. So please provide your reference material.
And remember - it must be empirical evidence.

I am sorry you didnt notice, I edited abiogenesis out, dropped abiogenesis, dismissed it and asked for no evidence of abiogenesis.

I want evidence of single cell to multi celled life forms.
No interest in abiogenesis at all.
I dismissed that because I dont want to scare you away

Me, I dont believe in unguided abiogenesis so its pointless me to provide any scientific evidence, i have seen none

Thats not what I requested

You are running away, changing the argument, deflecting

Lets leave abiogenesis out, I made a mistake in bringing it up, its irrelevant

I want evidence of single cell to multi celled life forms.


Proof of single celled to humans

Yes or no

Please provide a reference from evolutionary science which says that a single cell became a human, or any other life form.
I can find no such reference. Thanks

mn

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

You turned the table on your own question.

If you want an answer to your second question about space dirt and space water, please provide evidence that evolutionary science says that humanity arose from space dirt and space water. To the best of my knowledge, I have never read any research paper or textbook which says that humans arose from space dirt and space water. So please provide your reference material.
And remember - it must be empirical evidence.

I am sorry you didnt notice, I edited abiogenesis out, dropped abiogenesis, dismissed it and asked for no evidence of abiogenesis.

I want evidence of single cell to multi celled life forms.
No interest in abiogenesis at all.
I dismissed that because I dont want to scare you away

Me, I dont believe in unguided abiogenesis so its pointless me to provide any scientific evidence, i have seen none

Thats not what I requested

You are running away, changing the argument, deflecting

Lets leave abiogenesis out, I made a mistake in bringing it up, its irrelevant

I want evidence of single cell to multi celled life forms.


Proof of single celled to humans

Yes or no

Please provide a reference from evolutionary science which says that a single cell became a human, or any other life form.
I can find no such reference. Thanks

You know the problem here Phantom

I dont know how, I think scientists make stuff up about evolution, that evolution is a big lie, that there is no evidence, that you are telling lies about evidence

You just said that scientists make up stuff about evolution. But you can't provide a reference written by a scientist who has done that. If you think scientists are making things up, please provide a reference in the scientific literature which demonstrates your position.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

You turned the table on your own question.

If you want an answer to your second question about space dirt and space water, please provide evidence that evolutionary science says that humanity arose from space dirt and space water. To the best of my knowledge, I have never read any research paper or textbook which says that humans arose from space dirt and space water. So please provide your reference material.
And remember - it must be empirical evidence.

I am sorry you didnt notice, I edited abiogenesis out, dropped abiogenesis, dismissed it and asked for no evidence of abiogenesis.

I want evidence of single cell to multi celled life forms.
No interest in abiogenesis at all.
I dismissed that because I dont want to scare you away

Me, I dont believe in unguided abiogenesis so its pointless me to provide any scientific evidence, i have seen none

Thats not what I requested

You are running away, changing the argument, deflecting

Lets leave abiogenesis out, I made a mistake in bringing it up, its irrelevant

I want evidence of single cell to multi celled life forms.


Proof of single celled to humans

Yes or no

Please provide a reference from evolutionary science which says that a single cell became a human, or any other life form.
I can find no such reference. Thanks

You know the problem here Phantom

I dont know how, I think scientists make stuff up about evolution, that evolution is a big lie, that there is no evidence, that you are telling lies about evidence

You just said that scientists make up stuff about evolution. But you can't provide a reference written by a scientist who has done that. If you think scientists are making things up, please provide a reference in the scientific literature which demonstrates your position.

Empirical evidence
over 20 pages and still asking the same question, empirical evidence please
now you are asking me for evidence of evolution
Sorry, I dont have any
see, I can admit it


www.google.com.au...=a+single+cell+evolved+became+a+human

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

You turned the table on your own question.

If you want an answer to your second question about space dirt and space water, please provide evidence that evolutionary science says that humanity arose from space dirt and space water. To the best of my knowledge, I have never read any research paper or textbook which says that humans arose from space dirt and space water. So please provide your reference material.
And remember - it must be empirical evidence.

I am sorry you didnt notice, I edited abiogenesis out, dropped abiogenesis, dismissed it and asked for no evidence of abiogenesis.

I want evidence of single cell to multi celled life forms.
No interest in abiogenesis at all.
I dismissed that because I dont want to scare you away

Me, I dont believe in unguided abiogenesis so its pointless me to provide any scientific evidence, i have seen none

Thats not what I requested

You are running away, changing the argument, deflecting

Lets leave abiogenesis out, I made a mistake in bringing it up, its irrelevant

I want evidence of single cell to multi celled life forms.


Proof of single celled to humans

Yes or no

Please provide a reference from evolutionary science which says that a single cell became a human, or any other life form.
I can find no such reference. Thanks

You know the problem here Phantom

I dont know how, I think scientists make stuff up about evolution, that evolution is a big lie, that there is no evidence, that you are telling lies about evidence

You just said that scientists make up stuff about evolution. But you can't provide a reference written by a scientist who has done that. If you think scientists are making things up, please provide a reference in the scientific literature which demonstrates your position.

Empirical evidence
over 20 pages and still asking the same question, empirical evidence please
now you are asking me for evidence of evolution
Sorry, I dont have any
see, I can admit it

You dumped empirical evidence about 5 pages ago.

So here's where we're at:

You asked for empirical evidence of evolution. I offered to provide it then you changed the subject.

You then asked for proof that humans came from space water and space dirt. I asked for a citation from the literature claiming that humans came from space dirt and space water. You couldn't do it. Change the question again.

Then you asked for proof that humans came from a single cell. I asked you for a citation from the scientific literature. Again, you couldn't provide it.

Now you're making a claim that scientists lie about evolution. I asked you for a reference example of a scientist lying about evolution. Once again, you can't do it.

So here's the bottomline - you don't have a F^*(TTubging clue about anything you've asked from the first post to the most recent.

You, my friend, have been proven to be a fraud. You've made multiple claims that you can't substantiate. You've made statements about scientists, evolution, empirical evidence, space dirt, space water, single cells to human - all without a single reference from evolutionary science.

Guilty as charged.
Sentencing to be determined (I have to think about that one).

originally posted by: Phantom423


So here's where we're at:

You asked for empirical evidence of evolution. I offered to provide it then you changed the subject.

You then asked for proof that humans came from space water and space dirt. I asked for a citation from the literature claiming that humans came from space dirt and space water. You couldn't do it. Change the question again.

Then you asked for proof that humans came from a single cell. I asked you for a citation from the scientific literature. Again, you couldn't provide it.

Now you're making a claim that scientists lie about evolution. I asked you for a reference example of a scientist lying about evolution. Once again, you can't do it.

So here's the bottomline - you don't have a F^*(TTubging clue about anything you've asked from the first post to the most recent.

You, my friend, have been proven to be a fraud. You've made multiple claims that you can't substantiate. You've made statements about scientists, evolution, empirical evidence, space dirt, space water, single cells to human - all without a single reference from evolutionary science.

Guilty as charged.
Sentencing to be determined (I have to think about that one).

So here's where we're at:

I asked for empirical evidence of evolution. You HAVNT provided it

You then asked for proof that humans came from space water and space dirt. I asked for a citation from the literature claiming that humans came from space dirt and space water. You couldn't do it. Change the question again.

I cant do it, never said I could took it back and went back to the standard line
asking for empirical evidence of evolution

asked for proof that humans came from a single cell, no reply from you, still asking
www.google.com.au...

Made claims that scientists lie about evolution. I asked you for a reference example of a scientist lying about evolution.

Evolutionist: it’s OK to deceive students to believe evolution
Done it.
Published: 24 September 2008(GMT+10)

There have been many examples of evolutionary falsehoods used to indoctrinate students into evolution. The list includes

Forged Haeckel embryo pictures, still used in many textbooks
Staged photos of peppered moths which wouldn’t even prove goo-to-you evolution anyway but merely the creationist-invented theory of natural selection.
Misleading analogies that cars and airplanes evolved when of course they were designed (Intelligent Design leader Phillip E. Johnson calls this ‘Berra’s Blunder’, and Ian Plimer committed this blunder too).
Claiming that creationists believe that God must have created cave fish as blind.
Insinuating that creationists deny natural selection and variation.
Piltdown Man, an obvious forgery not exposed for 40 years, and the peccary tooth dubbed ‘Nebraska man’1
Archaeoraptor , the Piltdown Bird.

creation.com...

I dont condemn you Phanta, I pity you.

www.fillthevoid.org...

whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Phantom423

and still, no empirical evidence.
I called that pages ago

a reply to: Raggedyman

The science is that evolution happened. Creationism is crap.
There. NOW the conversation can end.

I have no interest in doing your homework for you. But here's a picture of some dinosaur bones.



and some ammonite, enormous shell-fish fossil

a reply to: Raggedyman

There is empirical evidence. You just keep saying there isn't.

a reply to: Raggedyman


There is no one on ATS who can actually prove anything unless scientists have done it. But they have not.


They can not prove how any species came to be. Or in what order they came, Or how many.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Look familiar?

originally posted by: humanityrising
a reply to: Raggedyman

Look familiar?

Yeah and the elephant man was evolving into an elephant

Is that your empirical evidence, seriously

Where did mammals come from if not evolution? 100m years ago there were no mammals. Now there are. Where do you think they came from?

a reply to: Raggedyman

I would love to hear anything on abiogenesis as well, never heard those who believe in "the natural" discuss it.

Last universal ancestor Hypotheses
In 1859, Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in which he twice stated the hypothesis that there was only one progenitor for all life forms. In the summation he states, "Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed." The very last sentence is a restatement of the hypothesis: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one."

When the LUA was hypothesized, cladograms based on genetic distance between living cells indicated that Archaea split early from the rest of life. This was inferred from the fact that all known archaeans were highly resistant to environmental extremes such as high salinity, temperature or acidity, and led some scientists to suggest that the LUA evolved in areas like the deep ocean vents, where such extremes prevail today. Archaea, however, were discovered in less hostile environments and are now believed to be more closely related to eukaryotes than bacteria, although many details are still unknown.

Archaea use more energy sources than eukaryotes: these range from organic compounds, such as sugars, to ammonia, metal ions or even hydrogen gas. Salt-tolerant archaea (the Haloarchaea) use sunlight as an energy source, and other species of archaea fix carbon; however, unlike plants and cyanobacteria, no known species of archaea does both. Archaea reproduce asexually by binary fission, fragmentation, or budding; unlike bacteria and eukaryotes, no known species forms spores.

Archaea were initially viewed as extremophiles living in harsh environments, such as hot springs and salt lakes, but they have since been found in a broad range of habitats, including soils, oceans, marshlands and the human colon, oral cavity, and skin. Archaea are particularly numerous in the oceans, and the archaea in plankton may be one of the most abundant groups of organisms on the planet. Archaea are a major part of Earth's life and may play roles in both the carbon cycle and the nitrogen cycle. No clear examples of archaeal pathogens or parasites are known, but they are often mutualists or commensals. One example is the methanogens that inhabit human and ruminant guts, where their vast numbers aid digestion.

A cladogram linking all major groups of living organisms to the LUA (the black trunk at the bottom). This graph is derived from ribosomal RNA sequence data.

Keyword to look for: hypothesized, inferred.

I really don't think that there is any reason to have these three branches meet at the bottom as one. It's more of a feel-good measure: As Darwin said: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one."

Archaea themselves can be split into two separate origins. No real reason to think there was only one Archaean ancestor, could easily be two.

originally posted by: Barcs
100m years ago there were no mammals. Now there are.

That's not true. Mammals have existed for more than 200 million years.