The Case Against Playing in the Evolution Court.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Barcs

How can you not see that they are related, oh of course, it hurts your argument

Explain the common mechanisms of evolution theory and abiogenesis. LOL! Put the lies away for once, dude.

originally posted by: cooperton
Evolution requires an abiogenesis event.

100% false. Why do you keep lying???? Do you deny the possibility that a god could create life that evolves?

This is exactly what we see with biological systems - complete systems that could not have culminated in a step-by-step process due to the interdependence of the pieces.

100% false again. No system is ever complete and you have never proved that any system COULD NOT have arisen via incremental steps. You just repeatedly state this assumption as fact, but have NEVER ONCE PROVED IT.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
See I called that exact response, thank you for doing it.

Yes, you predicted that I would refute your false lie and I did and you offered ZERO to support your fraudulent claim, as usual. Thanks for proving me correct by not even offering a counterpoint. Amazing how arrogant you are about a faith based belief position. LMFAO!

Nope, that is just your perspective of how you want to see it, your the one that is failing at logic.

Wow, great job refuting his points. You basically plugged your ears and said, "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU." Typical dishonest creationist. "I'm right, your wrong, but I have zilch to support my position." Grow up, kid. Usually people ditch childhood fantasies when they hit the age of reason.

originally posted by: Barcs
No system is ever complete and you have never proved that any system COULD NOT have arisen via incremental steps.

I did, you responded with insults and side-tracks as per your usual tactic. Regardless, it is your responsibility having the burden of proof to demonstrate that biological systems could have arisen through incremental steps.

This thread uses the eye/optic track / visual cortex as an example of something that could not have been spawned incrementally... especially without intelligent input.

Go ahead, propose a mechanism. Or even try to find one from a scientist. But I'll save you time: there is no coherent way that the optic system could have formed incrementally via random mutations to the genetic code. As demonstrated by the 22 pages of that thread^ with no one offering a verifiable mechanism. Evolution is a faith-based system. Offer empirical evidence or stop Barcing.

a reply to: cooperton

You were thoroughly refuted in that thread, you just won't admit it because you are not honest. You proved absolutely nothing as the crux of your argument relies on the ASSUMPTION that the first life on earth was exactly the same as today on the genetic level, which is laughably stupid.

Again, you never proved that the eye COULD NOT HAVE developed incrementally. Scientists have already demonstrated a plausible path for that to happen based on various levels of eye development in the animal kingdom today. But yeah, when in doubt, just deny it all and pretend they have never shown a possible path.

Propose a mechanism? Are you really that dense? Genetic mutations and natural selection are the mechanisms. Can you refute one? Nope, didn't think so. Keep those lies coming, bro. It keeps us all laughing.

a reply to: Barcs

you predicted that I would refute your false lie and I did and you offered ZERO to support your fraudulent claim

Done & Done; in multiple interactions in posts and threads many times in the past, not going to keep beating a dead horse.
There are two diametrically opposed total concepts, you will never believe my concept of reality, and I will never believe your concept of reality, you can show me all the proof in the world and it's all fake news to me. Your claim is just as much of a total fraud to me, as you perceive mine to be to you.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Barcs

How can you not see that they are related, oh of course, it hurts your argument

Explain the common mechanisms of evolution theory and abiogenesis. LOL! Put the lies away for once, dude.

That’s not how science works barcs,

I have been asking for empirical evidence for evolution, LOL 😂

You havnt got anythingLOL 🤣

Science is not magic, life did not magic, unless you have faith

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: edmc^2

Many of the points you raise are just as equally applicable to the alternative point of view.

As it stands evolution is by far the best explanation we have.
It's not set in stone and its continually developing as new discoveries are found.

You talk about no empirical evidence for evolution....well where is the empirical evidence for creationism or even intelligent design?

As an aside; how many creationists are also flat earthers, believe the earth is only 10,000 years old or so and that dinosaur fossils were placed there deliberately by 'God' as some sort of test?

I don't know if there's a God, and to be honest I don't really care.

Every bit of evidence I've ever seen or read or watched or whatever leads me to think that evolution has a far better chance of being proven true than creationism....please, please try and prove otherwise.

Hi Freeborn, you seem to be a free thinker. I fully understand where you're coming from, but can you please answer this one simple question:

Can the evidence provided by evolutionists be interpreted in a different way?

For instance, the famous Finch Birds - i.e. different sizes of beaks - can it also be interpreted as variety instead of evolution? Just as we have varieties of dogs and cats?

If no, why not?

a reply to: edmc^2

I have considered that if the planet received larger amounts of radiation from SOL or another celestial object like a radioactive asteroid would or could that alter carbon dating?

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Creationists are like horses. You can lead them to water, but they’re not smart enough to understand books. Even if you read it to them.

Ey! Smart One, let's test your scientific knowledge:

Origins+Evolution = non-living to living.

Actually, No. And contrary to your rant in the OP, nobody is demanding you use the “same evolutionist”definitions. We’re using standard biological definitions as used by scientists from every possible discipline. With that said, insisting that Abiogenesis, which is only a hypothesis, is a part of the evolutionary process is at best, intellectually dishonest and moving the goal posts to favor your view point

Abiogenesis = organic matter being able to self assemble into precursors to actual single felled life.

Evolution = change in allele frequency over time

Origins+Creation = Living to Living/Life begets life.

As a supernatural entity, is your version of god a living entity? Can you test that? Is your god being an actual living entity falsifiable?

Which one is 100% testable and credible?

Evolution and even Abiogenesis are more testable and falsifiable than ‘origins plus creation = life begets life’ of them all, only the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is, as you ask, 100% testable

I’ll be quite pleased though if you can actually demonstrate testability and falsifiability for your personal version of events.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
There are two diametrically opposed total concepts, you will never believe my concept of reality, and I will never believe your concept of reality, you can show me all the proof in the world and it's all fake news to me. Your claim is just as much of a total fraud to me, as you perceive mine to be to you.

Well said. So either the atheists are right or the theists are. If the atheists are right, then nothing matters, because all human consciousness will eventually die out. If the theists are right, then there is inherently a purpose that God has for us, which, given God's omniscience, would be a gift beyond our current comprehension.

So, which side of the coin should you be on?

1) If you choose atheism, you might as well never give an opinion again, because all will eventually end, totally apathetic to the brief existence we had anyway.

2) Or choose hope, and strive for love and understanding of our Creator.

If you choose atheism and that ends up being right, then you're no better off than if you believed you were a unicorn your whole life, because all fades away forever regardless of what you believe. But if you choose atheism and its wrong, how could your unbelieving consciousness transition into God's graces if you persistently ignore God's call? Whereas if you're theist, and strive for God, then you will join the omniscience and nothing will be impossible for you.

a reply to: cooperton

Yes their gamble of faith in op-ed scientific reports that support their world view is infinitely larger than ours when you consider the actual end result for our long term existence.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Barcs

How can you not see that they are related, oh of course, it hurts your argument

Explain the common mechanisms of evolution theory and abiogenesis. LOL! Put the lies away for once, dude.

That’s not how science works barcs,

I have been asking for empirical evidence for evolution, LOL 😂

You havnt got anythingLOL 🤣

Science is not magic, life did not magic, unless you have faith

Oh yeah and you are totally an authority on how science works. LMAO! You guys are all the same, you ignore everything posted and dismiss it without refuting a single thing. Yes, that is exactly how science works. If you claim abiogenesis and evolution are related, then its on you to demonstrate the common mechanisms.

Sorry guys, there is no excuse for this level of mental illness.

a reply to: peter vlar

Evolution and creationism have this in common...
Neither are falsifiable...
Neither can be true scientific theory...
You are quite plain and simply wrong...
Evolution is as much faith based as creation...
You will suggest all the scientific supposition you want on evolution, any and all of them are pure conjecture no actual proof positive only suggested possibilities that fall short of actual proof of anything...
Yet all things in existence have been created from one process or another with the logical conclusion that something started everything... The greatest form of flattery is imitating and that’s exactly what we see all in existence doing, you know creating...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

So the scientific theory of evolution isn't nor cannot be a scientific theory.

Well thanks, random internet guy. I am sure the world will agree with your claim based on... nothing.

OK, glad that is cleared up.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Everything I said was factual unlike what you believe...
Aside from a widely accepted belief or faith in evolution it is not testable there is no evidence or repeatable experiments which validate its claims...
It’s just a theory...
My claim is not based on nothing, that would be the theory of evolution...

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Barcs

How can you not see that they are related, oh of course, it hurts your argument

Explain the common mechanisms of evolution theory and abiogenesis. LOL! Put the lies away for once, dude.

That’s not how science works barcs,

I have been asking for empirical evidence for evolution, LOL 😂

You havnt got anythingLOL 🤣

Science is not magic, life did not magic, unless you have faith

Oh yeah and you are totally an authority on how science works. LMAO! You guys are all the same, you ignore everything posted and dismiss it without refuting a single thing. Yes, that is exactly how science works. If you claim abiogenesis and evolution are related, then its on you to demonstrate the common mechanisms.

Sorry guys, there is no excuse for this level of mental illness.

Barcs, just get empirical evidence and YOU WILL shut up most creationists

I don’t have to be a creationist to be a christian, I don’t have to believe the bible is perfect to be a Christian

I don’t have to nor can I refute assumption, give me some real evidence not assumption
Life EVOLVED FROM NOTHING is the evolutionists belief or was it created by aliens?

Science is not defined by you or anyone else, I choose what I believe and you can complain and winge and sook but you don’t decide my beliefs, I completely dismiss you or anyone of your authorities
An argument from authority is dumb and seeing as that’s your argument it is self reflective

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: 5StarOracle

So the scientific theory of evolution isn't nor cannot be a scientific theory.

Well thanks, random internet guy. I am sure the world will agree with your claim based on... nothing.

OK, glad that is cleared up.

I don’t think anyone is saying that evolution is not a theory, it seems people are saying it’s not a fact

A scientific theory is a scientific guess, we are just asking for proof

a reply to: Raggedyman

I don’t think anyone is saying that evolution is not a theory, it seems people are saying it’s not a fact

Did you not read it? 5Star clearly stated evolution isn't a scientific theory.
I just thought it was funny.

A scientific theory is a scientific guess

That is funny too.

we are just asking for proof

It doesn't look that way at all.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I didn’t realize you couldn’t comprehend what I was saying...
Let me dumb it down for you...
There were no scientists around nor none today who have witnessed nor can any of them perform experiments to back up the conjecture they are peddling as a scientific theory. Yet the scope of the lie is so broad and commonly accepted that
It’s acceptable for them to sell it as such... But without such key tenants it does not even meet the requirements to be a scientific theory...
I’m saying you are being lied to and you are fine with it...