There's the Theory of Evolution and the Interpretation of Evolution

originally posted by: peter vlar
I'll start you off easy with just one, The Lenski experiment. 10's of thousands of generations under laboratory controls showing speciation and the ability of one group to live off of citrate that would kill other groups who tried to ingest it.

You didn't mention the species involved in the Lenski experiment, although it supposedly showed "speciation".... !

The Lenski experiment used the bacterial species E. coli, to 'prove' evolution was true.

A 30 year experiment that started out with the E. coli species, and finished with the same E. coli species, is your idea of 'evolution', of an entirely different species'??

No, you didn't say it had 'evolved', into a completely new, distinct species, that's for sure!

You didn't mention the species it began with, and didn't say that a different species came from it. You'd be lying if you said it. So you didn't say it.


I've tried to explain this to you before, many times.

You should be able to understand that this experiment did not change E. coli into another species, right?

And you know I've asked you for proof of a species changing - 'evolving' - into another, completely different species, yes?


A single example of 'evolution', where a species transforms into a completely different species - that is all I've asked you for.

So when you show me another example of a species that adapts to an environment, which remains the exact same species.

No matter how varied, in range, in scope, in color, in size, in physical features......a species has remained the SAME species.

There have been countless studies/experiments/tests which have attempted to show 'evolution' of a species into another species. And none have shown it, ever.

Otherwise, you would have shown it to me, as proof of 'evolution' - a species that becomes another, completely different species.

That's what you say, so back it up with proof, if you can.....


If this is your best example of 'evolution', it's about time you see the reality...not hide behind a lie, built from another lie, all to support yet another lie, to hold up the countless other lies, since then

Do you realize that your example is only proving the complete opposite?

The experiment was to prove that any species, replicated millions of times, will not remain the same species throughout the entire period. It will become another, different species - or more than one - during that period.

Since 'evolution' of a species had never happened, or showed any sign of it, over the past 10,000 years, with millions of species available, it surely indicates no species has evolved in longer periods, either. Scientific method was based on all the evidence, prior examples, being repeatable, etc.

A period of 10,000 years have shown no prior examples of 'evolution' exist, have no valid evidence of ever happening, and cannot be repeated in any way.

So when our 'scientists' all agreed that 'evolution' was true, that showed the most fundamental tenet - the scientific method - was now dead, and buried.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: turbonium1

I don't know where you get that idea. Go to a Scientific conference, look at email correspondences between academics. They question it all the time.

Many of us have posted proof of evolutionary theory here, repeatedly. Yet you guys refuse to read it.

It's not proof of any 'evolution', that's the problem.

Look at the last example, to understand why it's not proof, of any sort.


They don't dispute evolution, they vary on how evolution occurred, mostly. A few theories exist, but they all support evolution.

Are scientists actually saying evolution has no evidence, no proof, at all? I don't think so.

Do they mention that evolution has no valid evidence? Not a chance.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Noinden

Sorry brother I don't give free passes to flat earthers...

Personally I think they should be banned... but I don't run the place

I can put up with a lot of stupidity but that just breaks the camel's back... er the cat's

That is beyond what this forum should put up with, and personally it has no place in any intellectual discussion

Just my opinion of course

That's an opinion based on fear, and ignorance, of any who doubt Earth is a spinning ball, speeding through space.

My view is based on evidence. Insults are for the ignorant who fear honest discussions.


When I asked someone to account for 1800 feet of missing curvature, it was not answered. A pilot left the thread, after I asked him to account for it.

So if you think it's such nonsense, why not answer the question, right here?

Don't be afraid, now...

a reply to: turbonium1

Answered in the other flat earth thread...

Again... first of all you don't have a clue what you're even talking about when it comes to flight... and you've proven that over and over in numerous threads

Second... its anything but fear or ignorance... just a lack of respect for stupidity

As many members have shown you time and time again, theres nothing... not a shred of evidence for your flat earth delilusion. Nothing but youtube links and morons from the flat earth society

You ignore any reply that proves your silly ideas wrong and just continue to ramble on about the same things thst have already been shown to you...

Theres honestly absolutely nothing to "fear" about a ridiculous concept such as flat earth.... its complete and utter nonsense in every single aspect of the idea

1800 feet of decent over 6 hours as you claim would be 300 feet and hour

Traveling 30k some odd feet in the air moving at approx 150-200mph (basically to maintain flight)... that 300 feet of decent per hour would be almost nothing

Though you seem to think since the earth has a curvature planes should be dive bombing from
The sky... but again, this is because you know nothing about the basic fundamentals of flight... or science for that matter

But all this has been explained to you numerous times... and you ignore it

a reply to: turbonium1

You keep missing the point. Do you see anyone disputing the evidence of the speed of light in a vacuum? Of Gravity existing? NO, because it has long since been shown to be what we know now. Same goes for evolution. IF you look at the conference proceedings and records around the time Charles Darwin postulated the initial version of the theory of evolution was release (and this was after Darwin angsted over doing so) there was much debate. It went on for decades. However over a cenutry later, with much evidence. Evolution is accepted as a viable theory.

As for the rest of your rant. Of course they differ on how evolution occured. That is how science works. New evidence, now changes to a theory.

So using Hitchens Razor. You say there is no valid evidence of evolution. YOU (not a Youtube video, not a creationist blog YOU) show how this is so. You made an extraordinary claim, it will require extraordinary evidence. If you can not show that to be so. You should stop. Because you are clearly out of your depth.

a reply to: Noinden

You’re asking an awful lot from someone who doesn’t use the standard definitions of what evolution actually is and instead ilutilizes YEC definitions for all aspects. Particularly the old tripe of “that’s not evolution, that’s just adaptation” it’s an unwinable argument because the discussion isn’t approached from an open minded position. Turbo Nuuk has all the answers as far as they’re concerned and we’re just jumping through his backwards hoops.

The theory of evolution: Thousands of documented instances of genetic mutations. Thousands of demonstrations of natural selection. Speciation done in a lab. Millions of fossils that have been dated. Tons of ways to falsify, yet hasn't been in 150+ years of research. 300,000+ research papers.

The interpretation of evolution: Yeah, it happens, duh.

a reply to: peter vlar

Call me a hard task master, but if you are going to engage the science, and a scientist talks back at you, you best be prepared to understand that words have specific meaning in science. Otherwise, stick to patting your fellow creationists backs. Right?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: peter vlar

Call me a hard task master, but if you are going to engage the science, and a scientist talks back at you, you best be prepared to understand that words have specific meaning in science. Otherwise, stick to patting your fellow creationists backs. Right?

While not working in the paleo end of Anthropology any longer, I certainly agree with you that if one wants to engage in an discussion Regarding actual science with those who are educated in and work or have worked in their chosen fields, it would then behiove the individual to actually have a grasp on the basic fundamentals. Especially if they are attempting to dispute the scientific topic in question. To refuse to learn the language used by those you are debating against, ounaimpmy display the most willful of ignorances and not command of a counterpoint.

a reply to: peter vlar

I liken it to the English speaking folk who speak loudly in foreign countries assuming that will make them understood. Hell even here in New Zealand (an English speaking nation) we get that... So these Creationist think they can shout at people to be understood, and get their way. They hate when people calmly talk back.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Noinden

You’re asking an awful lot from someone who doesn’t use the standard definitions of what evolution actually is and instead ilutilizes YEC definitions for all aspects. Particularly the old tripe of “that’s not evolution, that’s just adaptation” it’s an unwinable argument because the discussion isn’t approached from an open minded position. Turbo Nuuk has all the answers as far as they’re concerned and we’re just jumping through his backwards hoops.

The evolution claim is that all species on Earth, were all a random brew of garbage once, which came to life, and every life came from it, afterwards.

Why we accept this claim is beyond me.

It is a soul, we are given

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Noinden

You’re asking an awful lot from someone who doesn’t use the standard definitions of what evolution actually is and instead ilutilizes YEC definitions for all aspects. Particularly the old tripe of “that’s not evolution, that’s just adaptation” it’s an unwinable argument because the discussion isn’t approached from an open minded position. Turbo Nuuk has all the answers as far as they’re concerned and we’re just jumping through his backwards hoops.

The evolution claim is that all species on Earth, were all a random brew of garbage once, which came to life, and every life came from it, afterwards.

Why we accept this claim is beyond me.

It is a soul, we are given

a reply to: turbonium1

Could you actually quote what the theory of evolution sates? Or is this beyond you? Because what you typed, is not evolution. You confuse abiogensis (a hypothesis, one of many) with evolution (a theory, with evidence that is suportative). If you can not do that. You are not up to posting about it. Kapish?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Noinden

You’re asking an awful lot from someone who doesn’t use the standard definitions of what evolution actually is and instead ilutilizes YEC definitions for all aspects. Particularly the old tripe of “that’s not evolution, that’s just adaptation” it’s an unwinable argument because the discussion isn’t approached from an open minded position. Turbo Nuuk has all the answers as far as they’re concerned and we’re just jumping through his backwards hoops.

The evolution claim is that all species on Earth, were all a random brew of garbage once, which came to life, and every life came from it, afterwards.

Why we accept this claim is beyond me.

It is a soul, we are given

That’s not at all what is stated in the Modern Ecolutionary Synthesis. That’s the evolutionary theory that eeg been operating under since 1948 so that you know what is being discussed. What you reference above is the hypothesis of Abiogenesis. How life began isn’t a part of evolutionary theory. No matter how many time your want to repeat a lie, it doesn’t make it true. All it does is show how little you actually understand about a subject that is clearly above your ability to understand the basics of let alone the finer points.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: turbonium1

Could you actually quote what the theory of evolution sates? Or is this beyond you? Because what you typed, is not evolution. You confuse abiogensis (a hypothesis, one of many) with evolution (a theory, with evidence that is suportative). If you can not do that. You are not up to posting about it. Kapish?

My elementary school classroom had a huge chart on the wall. A creature of some sort, dated X million years BC. Followed by another creature, but larger. Then an ape-like creature. And more apes, afterwards, ever more like modern apes. And then human-like species. And finally, it showed a human, at the very end of the chart.


I don't know what you were shown in school, if anything at all, but this is what I was shown in school, as 'evolution'.

This is the 'evolution' I'm referring to, specifically.

Don't say this is not evolution, because this is EXACTLY what I was taught about 'evolution', in my own schoolroom.


Do you think humans have ape-like ancestors, or not?


If you do, what is the evidence for it, if any?

If not, then what is it you are supporting as 'evolution?

a reply to: turbonium1

My elementary school classroom had a huge chart on the wall. A creature of some sort, dated X million years BC. Followed by another creature, but larger. Then an ape-like creature. And more apes, afterwards, ever more like modern apes. And then human-like species. And finally, it showed a human, at the very end of the chart.

This would be a decent way of explaining it to a child...

I assume you don't have that poster on your wall these days?

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Noinden

You’re asking an awful lot from someone who doesn’t use the standard definitions of what evolution actually is and instead ilutilizes YEC definitions for all aspects. Particularly the old tripe of “that’s not evolution, that’s just adaptation” it’s an unwinable argument because the discussion isn’t approached from an open minded position. Turbo Nuuk has all the answers as far as they’re concerned and we’re just jumping through his backwards hoops.

The evolution claim is that all species on Earth, were all a random brew of garbage once, which came to life, and every life came from it, afterwards.

Why we accept this claim is beyond me.

It is a soul, we are given

That’s not at all what is stated in the Modern Ecolutionary Synthesis. That’s the evolutionary theory that eeg been operating under since 1948 so that you know what is being discussed. What you reference above is the hypothesis of Abiogenesis. How life began isn’t a part of evolutionary theory. No matter how many time your want to repeat a lie, it doesn’t make it true. All it does is show how little you actually understand about a subject that is clearly above your ability to understand the basics of let alone the finer points.

That is correct, they do not speak about how life first began on Earth.

Evolution says life began as only one, simple-celled, microbial organism. And from that one life, every other life form evolved, right?


Nothing needs to be specifically said, about how life first began....when they say life first began as a simple-celled organism!

The options are rather limited here, to say the least, right?

a reply to: turbonium1

Evolution says life began as only one, simple-celled, microbial organism. And from that one life, every other life form evolved, right?

Not really...

Its more like, life began as simple organisms
… and expanded from there...

Not necessarily just one single "kind" of organism

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

My elementary school classroom had a huge chart on the wall. A creature of some sort, dated X million years BC. Followed by another creature, but larger. Then an ape-like creature. And more apes, afterwards, ever more like modern apes. And then human-like species. And finally, it showed a human, at the very end of the chart.

This would be a decent way of explaining it to a child...

I assume you don't have that poster on your wall these days?

I would consider this chart to be one of the most indecent forms of brainwashing very young children.

In fact, that 'chart' is all I remember on the subject of 'evolution'.

Why did they teach an 8 year old child about theoretical ideologies that attempt to explain how every life form originated from a simple-celled microbe.


They didn't. Couldn't.

That's why they had a big chart on the wall.

a reply to: turbonium1

why do we teach our children of a big fat man in a read suit comes rippin down our chimney to put presents under a decorated tree

Its fantasy... so our children can stay that way for a bit

before the world introduces them to reality in a few years