Why will people argue Creation vs. Evolution when it is possible to have both?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

But if you wanted to take it seriously, be my guest. I'll just sit back and laugh uproariously at the mayhem.

So your question was pointless.

This is a discussion board. What would be the point of not discussing an issue?

reply to post by itsthetooth

Based on everthing that I have read, all of which I was sent to by ATS members, evolution is a hypothesis.

Guess you should read more - a great, great, great deal more.

It wouldn't hurt to learn the scientific meaning of: science, theory, hypothesis, fact, and evolution for starters.

Then you can learn that there are facts showing evolution exists. Evolution is a fact. The question is how evolution happens. How evolution happens is formulated in theories of evolution.

reply to post by stereologist

Based on everthing that I have read, all of which I was sent to by ATS members, evolution is a hypothesis.

Guess you should read more - a great, great, great deal more.

It wouldn't hurt to learn the scientific meaning of: science, theory, hypothesis, fact, and evolution for starters.

There is no need, all I had to do is look up the definition of evoution from two different sources.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well seeing how it isn't even a proven theory,

Are you still under the impression that there is such a thing as a “proven theory” in science?

whos to say what best conditions are for creating anything?

Who indeed… I’d say that the paleoclimatologists who have actually studied the conditions found on Earth about 4 billion years ago. Is there someone else that you’d turn to for a description of conditions found on this planet around the time that life first appears in the fossil record?

So your impressed that someone was able to polish a turd?

Can you express why you think the original Miller-Urey experiment and all of the subsequent research based upon it is “a turd”, or should we just take your word for it?

Not at all, I do just look at it like its just another step in the every growing mass of unproven claims.

So you acknowledge that abiogenesis and evolution are two totally different concepts, yet somehow the fact that abiogenesis is still a hypothesis has some bearing on evolution. Can you explain?

I understand just as much as anyone else does with the exception of the use of the words, may, possible, appears, and so on. It appears that evolutionists on this thread accept those words to mean they have confirmed evolution, but I know better.

It’s apparent that you understand far less about evolution than most of the people that participate in these discussions. The only two things you seem to know more about than everyone else in this thread are blue laminates and target foods, primarily because you made both of those concepts up.

reply to post by iterationzero

Well seeing how it isn't even a proven theory,

Are you still under the impression that there is such a thing as a “proven theory” in science?

Not when its a hypothesis like evolution.

whos to say what best conditions are for creating anything?

Who indeed… I’d say that the paleoclimatologists who have actually studied the conditions found on Earth about 4 billion years ago. Is there someone else that you’d turn to for a description of conditions found on this planet around the time that life first appears in the fossil record?

Your assumption that evolution was lurking around that time is nothing more than a guess.

So your impressed that someone was able to polish a turd?

Can you express why you think the original Miller-Urey experiment and all of the subsequent research based upon it is “a turd”, or should we just take your word for it?

Its just more hypothesis, and totally ignores the historical data that we have.

Not at all, I do just look at it like its just another step in the every growing mass of unproven claims.

So you acknowledge that abiogenesis and evolution are two totally different concepts, yet somehow the fact that abiogenesis is still a hypothesis has some bearing on evolution. Can you explain?

because its just another hypothesis in the ever growing pot of evolution. As far as I'm concearned it may as well be part of it.

It once again shows no regard for the historical data that we currently have.

I understand just as much as anyone else does with the exception of the use of the words, may, possible, appears, and so on. It appears that evolutionists on this thread accept those words to mean they have confirmed evolution, but I know better.

It’s apparent that you understand far less about evolution than most of the people that participate in these discussions. The only two things you seem to know more about than everyone else in this thread are blue laminates and target foods, primarily because you made both of those concepts up.

Do you have some proof that I made up the blue laminate? Of course I made up target food.

reply to post by itsthetooth

There is no need, all I had to do is look up the definition of evoution from two different sources.

You better keep going since you are still clueless what it means in science.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Evolution is a fact. Evolution is not a hypothesis. There are hypotheses concerning evolution, but evolution is a fact.

Its just more hypothesis, and totally ignores the historical data that we have.

More bizarre, unsubstantiated opinion from someone unable to understand the meaning of evolution as used in science.

because its just another hypothesis in the ever growing pot of evolution. As far as I'm concearned it may as well be part of it.

It once again shows no regard for the historical data that we currently have.

More unsubstantiated rambling.

Of course I made up target food.

Are you lying now or did you lie in previous threads about being the original source for that nonsense?

split - I have had this feeling for a long time

the reason for the debate imho is it' beacuse people are arguing over the "origin of man" question, no the origin of life

and people just like to argue on the innerwebz

reply to post by stereologist

Evolution is a fact. Evolution is not a hypothesis. There are hypotheses concerning evolution, but evolution is a fact.

Evolution is not a fact, no one has ever witnessed an ape evolving into a human. No one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species.

A theory is only as good as its weakest link, and in this case its listed as a hypothesis.

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses.

Evolution

Its just more hypothesis, and totally ignores the historical data that we have.

More bizarre, unsubstantiated opinion from someone unable to understand the meaning of evolution as used in science.

The only thing in evolution thats used in science is adaptive observations, which are NOT evolution. There isn't even any proof that adaptation is a part of evolution only that it's said to be.

re you lying now or did you lie in previous threads about being the original source for that nonsense?

Target food was first oserved by ME. Through the observation of many diets, and their patterns.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Evolution is not a fact, no one has ever witnessed an ape evolving into a human. No one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species.

A theory is only as good as its weakest link, and in this case its listed as a hypothesis.

Again you show us all that you have no idea what science means by evolution.

The only thing in evolution thats used in science is adaptive observations, which are NOT evolution. There isn't even any proof that adaptation is a part of evolution only that it's said to be.

You continue to show everyone your willful ignorance of science.

Target food was first oserved by ME. Through the observation of many diets, and their patterns.

Therefore you admit now to tell lies in other threads. Thank you for again admitting to being untruthful.

reply to post by stereologist

Evolution is not a fact, no one has ever witnessed an ape evolving into a human. No one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species.

A theory is only as good as its weakest link, and in this case its listed as a hypothesis.

Again you show us all that you have no idea what science means by evolution.

Unless you believe in polishing a turd.

The only thing in evolution thats used in science is adaptive observations, which are NOT evolution. There isn't even any proof that adaptation is a part of evolution only that it's said to be.

You continue to show everyone your willful ignorance of science.

Evolution has managed to pass off speciation as though its scientific, but the fact is no one has ever proven that a species is actually changing, its only adaptation.

Target food was first oserved by ME. Through the observation of many diets, and their patterns.

Therefore you admit now to tell lies in other threads. Thank you for again admitting to being untruthful.

No one has ever proven any part of Target Food to be untruthful.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Unless you believe in polishing a turd.

Thanks for confirming that you are completely and utterly clueless and have nothing to say.

Evolution has managed to pass off speciation as though its scientific, but the fact is no one has ever proven that a species is actually changing, its only adaptation.

Please learn the meaning of evolution as used in science.

No one has ever proven any part of Target Food to be untruthful.

False. Nothing of Tooth's Folly has ever been shown to be correct.

reply to post by stereologist

Unless you believe in polishing a turd.

Thanks for confirming that you are completely and utterly clueless and have nothing to say.

Thanks for confirming that you like to polish a turd.

Evolution has managed to pass off speciation as though its scientific, but the fact is no one has ever proven that a species is actually changing, its only adaptation.

Please learn the meaning of evolution as used in science.

The only parts of evolution that are used in science is speciation, and lt actually is, is just adaptation. No scientist on this planet has ever told a person they are evolving, with proof.

No one has ever proven any part of Target Food to be untruthful.

False. Nothing of Tooth's Folly has ever been shown to be correct.

Target Food has prevailed as a winning theory, and not a single person has proven any of its findings to be false.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Thanks for confirming that you like to polish a turd.

Continued gibberish.

The only parts of evolution that are used in science is speciation, and lt actually is, is just adaptation. No scientist on this planet has ever told a person they are evolving, with proof.

Of course scientists know that individuals do not evolve, species evolve.

Target Food has prevailed as a winning theory, and not a single person has proven any of its findings to be false.

All parts of tooth's folly have been shown to be false. In fact, tooth admits to lying about his folly.

reply to post by stereologist

Thanks for confirming that you like to polish a turd.

Continued gibberish.

If your goal is to try to bring in another theory to evolution, with no proof, your polishing a turd.

The only parts of evolution that are used in science is speciation, and lt actually is, is just adaptation. No scientist on this planet has ever told a person they are evolving, with proof.

Of course scientists know that individuals do not evolve, species evolve.

That was just a gray area that was made in the theory to counter act the fact that I'm pointing out. It doesn't matter if populations evolve, or individuals, at some point somone is going to be noticed for evolving, and to day I could fly over to asia and have offspring with anyone there. None of the human population has speciated. Of course this grey area of explanation in evolution would just use the lame excuse that we are not seperated enough, but the fact of the matter is we don't even eat the same food.

Target Food has prevailed as a winning theory, and not a single person has proven any of its findings to be false.

All parts of tooth's folly have been shown to be false. In fact, tooth admits to lying about his folly.

None of my claims have been shown to be false, and in fact I have been waiting for someone to do so. I'm anxious to see it happen, but I'm still waiting. If you believe someone has proven any part of Target Food wrong, I wasn't there to witness it, or your delusional.

reply to post by itsthetooth

If your goal is to try to bring in another theory to evolution, with no proof, your polishing a turd.

More gibberish.

That was just a gray area that was made in the theory to counter act the fact that I'm pointing out. It doesn't matter if populations evolve, or individuals, at some point somone is going to be noticed for evolving, and to day I could fly over to asia and have offspring with anyone there. None of the human population has speciated. Of course this grey area of explanation in evolution would just use the lame excuse that we are not seperated enough, but the fact of the matter is we don't even eat the same food.

Actually it does matter than individuals do not evolve.

Species evolve, not individuals.

The bulk of your comments are pointless.

None of my claims have been shown to be false, and in fact I have been waiting for someone to do so. I'm anxious to see it happen, but I'm still waiting. If you believe someone has proven any part of Target Food wrong, I wasn't there to witness it, or your delusional.

Tooth folly has been proven false in every way.

reply to post by stereologist

If your goal is to try to bring in another theory to evolution, with no proof, your polishing a turd.

More gibberish.

What your really saying is "wax on, wax off."

Actually it does matter than individuals do not evolve.

Species evolve, not individuals.

The bulk of your comments are pointless.

No humans have ever been found to be evolving, I notice how you keep avoiding that little fact.

Tooth folly has been proven false in every way.

And I'm suppose to believe this coming from that guy that actually believed that I stole the idea from someone else.

reply to post by itsthetooth

What your really saying is "wax on, wax off."

Yet more gibberish.

No humans have ever been found to be evolving, I notice how you keep avoiding that little fact.

Human individuals do not evolve. Individuals do not evolve. Species evolve. The human species evolves.

And I'm suppose to believe this coming from that guy that actually believed that I stole the idea from someone else.

This from someone that argued that cats and rabbits could interbreed to form cabbits?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

We have cats and rabbits, two totally different species, are able to breed with one another and make a cabbit.

reply to post by stereologist

What your really saying is "wax on, wax off."

Yet more gibberish.

You mean more wax?

No humans have ever been found to be evolving, I notice how you keep avoiding that little fact.

Human individuals do not evolve. Individuals do not evolve. Species evolve. The human species evolves.

According to allopatric speciation, as an example, people seperated by large regions, would speciate. NO HUMANS are speciating, its a crock.

And I'm suppose to believe this coming from that guy that actually believed that I stole the idea from someone else.

This from someone that argued that cats and rabbits could interbreed to form cabbits?

You said it yourself, I allready copy and pasted your posts about not believing that I was the author of Target Food, and after all that, and now the fact that you can't disprove it, all you can do is try to claiim its proven false.

reply to post by itsthetooth

You mean more wax?

More gibberish.

According to allopatric speciation, as an example, people seperated by large regions, would speciate. NO HUMANS are speciating, its a crock.

You simply write no and how do you think people respond to that? They burst out with laughter.

I stated, "The human species evolves."

Here is an example of a human population that is evolving.
Darwin Lives! Modern Humans Are Still Evolving

You said it yourself, I allready copy and pasted your posts about not believing that I was the author of Target Food, and after all that, and now the fact that you can't disprove it, all you can do is try to claiim its proven false.

Who cares if I thought that Tooth's Folly was so stupid that I was willing to give you a pass on it.

At least I do not think that male and female mosquitoes are different species because only females consume blood.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Cabbits and mosquitoes.