Evolution vs. Creationism[W:2571, 3239]

[presluc]

Do you know what a 'Gish Gallop' is? Do you understand what that means? Is English your second language?

Do you know how to converse with average people without using 3 dollar words got off of wikipedia? Fact there are more average people speaking plain and simple than they are of you.
Some people like you make everything complex, forgetting there are average people that speak plain even use slang occasionally
There are certain areas of certain cities you best not use that talk or adjective you get hurt.
Me I go where I want.eace

.

 

[RAMOSS]

Do you know how to converse with average people without using 3 dollar words got off of wikipedia? Fact there are more average people speaking plain and simple than they are of you.
Some people like you make everything complex, forgetting there are average people that speak plain even use slang occasionally
There are certain areas of certain cities you best not use that talk or adjective you get hurt.
Me I go where I want.eace

.

You may go where you want, and by your bliss never be interrupted.

 

[presluc]

a) There is no religious "god" for sure

b) Religion has not made it a compelling case (not enough evidence) to assert that their main concept of "god" really exists.

The position that atheists take is b) and not a).

Comparing evidences, science has more to support its claims than religious anecdotal evidence and ancient people's/desert dwellers/shepards opinion.

So you have organized religion telling you there is a God because they say so , they got the bible , they got miracles
First of all just because some one says so? second the bible was written by man , man makes mistakes, and miracles could be unexplained phenomena
There is a difference between having faith in God and following religion. I don't follow the crowd of religion

However, Atheist say there is no God because they say so , Atheist have books , but books are written by man, man makes mistakes , Atheist have theories based on circumstantial evidence that are not confirmed as facts. Atheist also say they know how evolution started after all they did an experiment in a lab, but as I have said man makes mistakes
Atheist have the universe all figured out but they caN't figure out how to get to another planet , let alone leave their own solar system
There is no difference than being an Atheist and following non belief they follow the crowd of non believers.eace

 

[Quag]

So you have organized religion telling you there is a God because they say so , they got the bible , they got miracles
First of all just because some one says so? second the bible was written by man , man makes mistakes, and miracles could be unexplained phenomena
There is a difference between having faith in God and following religion. I don't follow the crowd of religion

However, Atheist say there is no God because they say so , Atheist have books , but books are written by man, man makes mistakes , Atheist have theories based on circumstantial evidence that are not confirmed as facts. Atheist also say they know how evolution started after all they did an experiment in a lab, but as I have said man makes mistakes
Atheist have the universe all figured out but they caN't figure out how to get to another planet , let alone leave their own solar system
There is no difference than being an Atheist and following non belief they follow the crowd of non believers.eace

You just compeltely ignored what he wrote.
You are just making a strawman that has nothing to do with what DDD or anyone else on this thread has been saying.

 

[presluc]

The question was, 'Do you know what the definition of biological evolution is, and can you state it in a sentence or two'. Well, do you?

So let me get this straight according to Darwin Evolution , that's just evolution is for living species to evolve get better get stronger, get smarter, "well some anyway"
Now you are saying evolution is not evolution it is biological evolution?
Even if it was there would be the evolution of living species in there somewhere would it not.
In 166 physics 101 to have an explosion you must have matter, energy and a detonator
In 2016 physics 101 according to Atheist an explosion happened in a vacuum of nothing to start the universe without matter ,energy, or a detonator
It would seemed like Atheist changed the laws of Physics which helped Atheist , but how did this benefit the people of the Earth? food for thought.eace

 

[Quag]

So let me get this straight according to Darwin Evolution , that's just evolution is for living species to evolve get better get stronger, get smarter, "well some anyway"

No that isnt evolution.

Now you are saying evolution is not evolution it is biological evolution?
Even if it was there would be the evolution of living species in there somewhere would it not.
In 166 physics 101 to have an explosion you must have matter, energy and a detonator
In 2016 physics 101 according to Atheist an explosion happened in a vacuum of nothing to start the universe without matter ,energy, or a detonator
It would seemed like Atheist changed the laws of Physics which helped Atheist , but how did this benefit the people of the Earth? food for thought.eace

Just because scientists dont know what existed before the Big bang doesnt mean it came from nothing. Not knowing does not mean not existing.

 

[presluc]

Your definition does now show any understanding about the definition of evolution.

Let me give you it.. and see if you can understand it.

There are two basic definitions of biolgoical evolution, which are basically saying the same thing in a different manner.

Number 1.

Biological evolution is the change of frequencies of alleles over generations. (An allele is a variation of a gene)

Number 2.

Decent with modification (i.e. .. not a perfect duplicate of the parents.

Well to know that you would have to be on really good terms with Natural Law. it does exist you know
Frankly I don't think you are I've brought up Natural Law before nobody said anything about it then.
If you know Natural Law so well , perhaps you could tell the people of the earth where the next disaster will be , or what animal is headed for the endangered list care to research that.
Bottom line no human on earth can keep up with or predict, or compete with Natural Law They may try but they will fail history proves that., it might hurt your pride but even you can never compete with Natural Law the one factor Atheist over look.eace

 

[RAMOSS]

Well to know that you would have to be on really good terms with Natural Law. it does exist you know
Frankly I don't think you are I've brought up Natural Law before nobody said anything about it then.
If you know Natural Law so well , perhaps you could tell the people of the earth where the next disaster will be , or what animal is headed for the endangered list care to research that.
Bottom line no human on earth can keep up with or predict, or compete with Natural Law They may try but they will fail history proves that., it might hurt your pride but even you can never compete with Natural Law the one factor Atheist over look.eace

No one has ever shown that 'Natural Law' is anything but a metaphysical concept that can be defined as 'this is the way things ought to be'.

 

[Quag]

Well to know that you would have to be on really good terms with Natural Law. it does exist you know
Frankly I don't think you are I've brought up Natural Law before nobody said anything about it then.
If you know Natural Law so well , perhaps you could tell the people of the earth where the next disaster will be , or what animal is headed for the endangered list care to research that.
Bottom line no human on earth can keep up with or predict, or compete with Natural Law They may try but they will fail history proves that., it might hurt your pride but even you can never compete with Natural Law the one factor Atheist over look.eace

Still waiting for you to define natural law

 

[presluc]

It's not a fallacy, it's a rebuttal against the attempt to disprove evolution because of things like the differences between chimpanzees and humans.

Didn't answer my question after this "fallacy" well you couldn't say fact could you? Does the spectrum remain someplace else,or is it gone for good?eace

Notice I said food for thought , you must not be very hungry.

 

[Quag]

Didn't answer my question after this "fallacy" well you couldn't say fact could you? Does the spectrum remain someplace else,or is it gone for good?eace

Notice I said food for thought , you must not be very hungry.

Parts of the spectrum are lost. Fossils are quite rare
The Learning Zone: What is a fossil?

 

[presluc]

The above is not food for thought, it's gibberish. What are you trying to say? What do you believe "discrete" means?

You answer a question, with a question and you dare to call my post gibberish?
I'm trying to be nice the fallacy of a spectrum? gees that's from an old T.V. show called Mr. Wizard?
I don't mind reminiscing about old T.V shows but this hardly seems the thread for it.
FYI, After watching this on T.V. I did think about it I was 12 yrs old then.
Thinking is fun , you should take it up , that way you'll answer a question with a statement rather than a question.eace

 

[presluc]

Sadly this is not the second time you have posted drivel. It is many times more than that.

Your drivrel replies to points make it clear that you fully understand that you have no point to make and are just making noise for the sake of it.

I notice you keep using the adjective drivel. Personal question do you drool or is this adjective the best you could come up with?eace

 

[presluc]

You know that carbon chemistry today will create evolution in the lab. Imediately. With nobody designing the exact chemicals that are produced by the process. You know that this will cause more complex forms to happen.

You know that the conditions for this to happen were present on the early earth.

You know that the process of evolution was inevitable given these conditions.

You know that the way nature works has not changed since 13+ billion years ago.

Who do you think you are fooling? It can only be yourself!

You keep saying in the lab. that means nothing' Billions of years ago pre the universe that is something
I can't say I do know such conditions were present during the early Earth how early Earth are you talking , even then did evolution start then?

First of all the way nature works has changed quite a bit , at one time the earth had a hole in the ozone layer Water" shouldn't have to say more" global warming or is it Climate change, animals that are extinct ect

Who do you think you are fooling you trying to tell me that before the universe there was an experimental lab floating around in a vacuum of nothing ?eace

 

[presluc]

The only way your question makes any sense is if you are asking how the universe and life began, otherwise the nonsense about BBT is irrelevant.
You do realize that unless life makes exact duplicates of itself every single time it reporduces it will evolve right?


No your question was about how life began, I was using gravity as an explanation of why it is NOT a question about evolution.
I am not trying to distract you I am trying to make soem sense out of what you are saying. That isnt meant as an insult it is a sincere statement.

Well, I could stop asking questions about the so called BIG BANG , wouldn't be the first time an Atheist told me to stop asking questions about the theories of the Big Bang.
I gotta say not so e3loquently though irrelevant .not necessary right?

Look I've explained every way but one , didn't want to use this thought I might get in trouble but here goes.
Suppose you want to make a clone of somebody , What would you need.?
Something to go by yes?
Now if you can go out in space with nothing and come back with a new living being that will get my attention if not you Atheist boys are just as much in the dark at the beginning of evolution than I am

However I have an unproven circumstantial unconfirmed theory , whether, intelligent design or accidental it has something to do with the Natural Law of planet Earth.eace

 

[Manc Skipper]

You answer a question, with a question and you dare to call my post gibberish?
I'm trying to be nice the fallacy of a spectrum? gees that's from an old T.V. show called Mr. Wizard?
I don't mind reminiscing about old T.V shows but this hardly seems the thread for it.
FYI, After watching this on T.V. I did think about it I was 12 yrs old then.
Thinking is fun , you should take it up , that way you'll answer a question with a statement rather than a question.eace

More rambling drivel. The sentence I questioned made no sense, I asked for clarification, and got the above in response. It seems to suggest that part of the inscrutable sentence made reference to some long-dead American kids TV series. That's not going to work for a Briton who's never heard of it. Why would you introduce a topic unrelated to the thread if not to further obfuscate and derail?

 

[presluc]

You may go where you want, and by your bliss never be interrupted.

As will you , just a matter of time.

Alpha humans are here... Omega humans are shall we say interrupted?eace

 

[Quag]

Well, I could stop asking questions about the so called BIG BANG , wouldn't be the first time an Atheist told me to stop asking questions about the theories of the Big Bang.
I gotta say not so e3loquently though irrelevant .not necessary right?

I didnt tell you to stop askign about BBT. I said a thread on Evolution vs creationism is the wrong place. Please open a thread about BBT and have at it.

Look I've explained every way but one , didn't want to use this thought I might get in trouble but here goes.
Suppose you want to make a clone of somebody , What would you need.?
Something to go by yes?

Clones are by definition not involved in evolution as they are exact copies.

biology : a plant or animal that is grown from one cell of its parent and that has exactly the same genes as its parent


2

: a product (such as a computer) that is a copy of another product produced by a well-known company


3

: a person or thing that appears to be an exact copy of another person or thing

Clone | Definition of Clone by Merriam-Webster
Evolution is when things dont make exact replicas of themselves and thus change.

Now if you can go out in space with nothing and come back with a new living being that will get my attention if not you Atheist boys are just as much in the dark at the beginning of evolution than I am

1. I am not an atheist
2. You appear to be confusing the origins of life with evolution again.

However I have an unproven circumstantial unconfirmed theory , whether, intelligent design or accidental it has something to do with the Natural Law of planet Earth.eace

Please define natural law.

 

[presluc]

You just compeltely ignored what he wrote.
You are just making a strawman that has nothing to do with what DDD or anyone else on this thread has been saying.

I don't think so best look over his post again
i I have never complained of strawmen but if you want to go that route I'm at your convenience, for I have let a lot slide on this debate including you
Tell you what I'll hold off for a while give you a chance to review the post sent to me on this thread.eace:

 

[presluc]

Still waiting for you to define natural law

I said I know Natural law works didn't say I could define it for it is in constant change .

Perhaps a small question for you about Natural Law.
Which ocean got filled first Atlantic or Pacific you answer that I get back to you .

 

[Quag]

I don't think so best look over his post again
i I have never complained of strawmen but if you want to go that route I'm at your convenience, for I have let a lot slide on this debate including you
Tell you what I'll hold off for a while give you a chance to review the post sent to me on this thread.eace:

This is what DDD said

a) There is no religious "god" for sure

b) Religion has not made it a compelling case (not enough evidence) to assert that their main concept of "god" really exists.

The position that atheists take is b) and not a).

This is what you said

However, Atheist say there is no God because they say so , Atheist have books , but books are written by man, man makes mistakes , Atheist have theories based on circumstantial evidence that are not confirmed as facts. Atheist also say they know how evolution started after all they did an experiment in a lab, but as I have said man makes mistakes
Atheist have the universe all figured out but they caN't figure out how to get to another planet , let alone leave their own solar system
There is no difference than being an Atheist and following non belief they follow the crowd of non believers.

Your initial bit is actually dealing with scenario A not B of DDD`s post. Or in other words you are ignoring what DDD said and using a strawman.
Then you are continuing saying that atheists (not scientists but atheists why do you always claim it is atheists and not scoentists? a scientist is not necessarily an atheist) claim to KNOW everything when pretty much everyone on here has made it quite clear that nobody KNOWS everything.

So yeah it is a strawman as you are claiming that people are makign arguments that they are not making.

 

[presluc]

No one has ever shown that 'Natural Law' is anything but a metaphysical concept that can be defined as 'this is the way things ought to be'.

"THIS IS THE WAY THINGS OUGHT TO BE", you just took a page right out of organized religion they say the same thing about a verse in the bible called Genesis, course they were wrong as are you.eace

 

[Quag]

I said I know Natural law works didn't say I could define it for it is in constant change .

If you cant define your own terms how am I supposed to be able to talk with you about it?

Perhaps a small question for you about Natural Law.
Which ocean got filled first Atlantic or Pacific you answer that I get back to you .

No clue, have you tried googling it?

 

[presluc]

Parts of the spectrum are lost. Fossils are quite rare
The Learning Zone: What is a fossil?

You did say parts of the spectrum are lost not all though right..

Ah not the old fossil thing ,
1 Are you sure that fossil is that old?
2 Are you sure this fossil did not come from someplace else?
3 Do any of you Atheist look to the future or are you stranded in the past?eace

 

[presluc]

No that isnt evolution.


Just because scientists don't know what existed before the Big bang doesn't mean it came from nothing. Not knowing does not mean not existing.

If Atheist/scientist don't know what happened before the big bing , How can they say for certain the Big Bang happened?

I have said many times on this post that Science is science nothing more , I suggest Atheist leave science and scientist alone.

"Just because Scientist don't know what happened before the Big Bang"
This a statement saying that all scientist believe in the Big Bang maybe further on it will be used again making science an Atheist only club

So Quag since you are speaking for all the scientist of the world; maybe you could look them up for conformation and documentation of course I'll look for your blog , might need more than one though
If not do not use scientist as a ventriloquist dummy, I don'teace.