An Evolution Primer for Creationists

Dixie said:
Apparently, going to school for 6 years was a total waste of your parents money. Perhaps you should have spent less time playing beer pong and more time studying, then you may understand, science never draws conclusions. This is precisely why theories are called theories, and not proven fact.

"I just showed how phylogenies are extremely powerful, testable and falsifiable evidence for macroevolution."

No, you didn't "SHOW" anything, you said it, but I refuted it and challenged you to prove it. You can't, because science doesn't prove things. There is no evidence to suggest any species of life form, ever changed into another.

I read every word you posted, and it sounded quite impressive, but fancy words and science terminology doesn't equate to proving your case. You are under the complete misconception that what some may theorize (macroevolution is highly controversial), is somehow a proven fact of life. I'm sorry you are that closed-minded and foolish, but I can't allow you to get away with spewing nonsense here.

"To say that life is not universally related is an argument from ignorance. How comes the DNA in me is virtually the same in all living things?"

No, it's an argument of definitive fact. Your DNA is not similar to plant DNA in any way, it is a completely different structure, your cells are completely different and function in a different way. Plants exist largely for human consumption, we were created with flat teeth to chew vegetation, and we could probably not exist if it weren't for plants. They also help to convert the carbon dioxide we exhale back into oxygen.

"Why is the blood clotting mechanism in horses virtually indentical to blood clotting in humans?"

Perhaps because we are both mammals? Why do plants not have brains?

"Why is the Krebbs (sic) cycle in humans virtually identical to the Krebbs cycle in corn?"

Children of the Corn, huh? The Krebs Cycle is a series of chemical reactions... why would chemical reactions be different depending on the host? The purpose of the reaction in humans is completely different than the purpose served in plants.

"I could have listed many more examples and went into much greater detail on how each piece of evidence I listed supports macroevolution."

Proven facts don't require evidence to support them, they have been proven already. What you listed were points supporting a theory that has not been confirmed, and is largely controversial in the science world.

"What else explains this more robustly than macroevolution?"

Well, I am not sure, but it almost seems like it was "designed" that way! One thing is for certain, you will never find answers if you have drawn conclusions. I have studied science as much as you, if not more, because you have to take biology to get a degree in psychology. One thing I know for a fact is, science doesn't EVER draw conclusions or determine something is proven or disproved.
Click to expand...

My parents didn't pay for my college. Unlike you I paid for both undergraduate and graduate school myself. I worked my way through School and graduated with a science degree with a better than 3.0 gpa.

Dixie, just go to the side lines. Your arguments are senseless. I didn't write my post to play "Wack A Mole" with a creationist. I was more interested in having a dialogue with Tobasco.

I think we'll let the readers of our post figure out for themselves who knows what they are talking about.
 
Watermark said:
Well if you think he said that you should talk to him about your misinterpretation of his words Dixie. I'm not going to waste anymore time on it.
Click to expand...

Not misinterpreting his words, he said... Nobody has ever suggested that one living species changes into a different living species. ...He obviously never met you or Mott, because that is indeed what you are suggesting.

There is no evidence that cross-genus evolution has ever happened. Some species have evolved over time, and some species have not. But there is no evidence that any species ever became another genus, and according to Dunning, that is ludicrous fantasy.

Mott presents a nice 'theory' for macroevolution, but it is no more valid than theories regarding intelligent design. Neither theory is testable, we can only make observations, and those observations are subject to individual interpretation. I'm very careful not to ever say something is a "fact" or something else is "impossible" because we just don't know, and we will probably never know. But it is important for us to not draw a conclusion based on our personal faith and beliefs, either FOR or AGAINST a deity. That's all I am saying here... you guys have allowed your prejudice against religious belief, to cloud your objectivity on this issue... you want to make things into fact that simply are not fact, and you want to "debunk" things that can't be debunked by science. A religious nut could do the same thing, make the same kind of stubborn and ignorant arguments, based on "facts" he determined by observation, but it isn't any more valid than what you two are trying to do here.
 
Mottleydude said:
My parents didn't pay for my college. Unlike you I paid for both undergraduate and graduate school myself. I worked my way through School and graduated with a science degree with a better than 3.0 gpa.

Dixie, just go to the side lines. Your arguments are senseless. I didn't write my post to play "Wack A Mole" with a creationist. I was more interested in having a dialogue with Tobasco.

I think we'll let the readers of our post figure out for themselves who knows what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

Again Mott, bragging about your credentials doesn't make you correct.
 
once again I stand triumphant as all the evolutionists slink away when confronted with the facts.

FACT, no one has ever observed millions of years of constant growth and species adaptation in a laboratory!!!

FACT, science doesn't prove things. There is no evidence to suggest any species of life form, ever changed into another.

FACT, watermark claims we have evolved from monkeys, but in that case, WHERE IS HIS TAIL?
 
Dixie said:
Again Mott, bragging about your credentials doesn't make you correct.
Click to expand...

No. The facts and evidence I listed make me and the scientific community correct. Where as you just simply don't know what you're talking about on this topic. Every person on here with a science back ground has told you the same thing. I'll give you credit Dixie. You are indomitable. Wrong but indomitable.
 
Mottleydude said:
No. The facts and evidence I listed make me and the scientific community correct. Where as you just simply don't know what you're talking about on this topic. Every person on here with a science back ground has told you the same thing. I'll give you credit Dixie. You are indomitable. Wrong but indomitable.
Click to expand...

Neither fact or evidence is on your side, Mott. You haven't presented anything that has been established as fact, and we have no evidence of macroevolution ever happening.

I honestly don't care how many people tell me something that is total bullshit, nor do I care what degrees they claim to have. As far as I know, you and I are the only two people here with a degree in any kind of science, Waterhead certainly doesn't have a degree, he's still in Special Ed! This debate isn't about your education, and you can wave your diplomas around all you like, it does absolutely nothing to support your argument. In fact, I don't even KNOW that you have a degree in science, you sure as hell don't act like you do! The hallmark principle of ALL science, is that it doesn't seek to conclude, prove, or assume things. The very principle of science is to continue exploring and asking questions, not to use in the manner you have done here, as if it were some kind of empirical establishment of fact.
 
Damocles said:
H2O? I thought it was Darla. But then I've just been enjoying the silly caricature.
Click to expand...

No, it's Waterhead. I can tell, (and I am certain.) I'm glad you're getting a kick out of the insulting parody which serves no valuable purpose to your forum, and violates your "flaming" rule in every way. I'm not as amused. I think it's juvenile, petty, and immature, and shows a complete lack of creativity and intelligence.
 
Dixie said:
No, it's Waterhead. I can tell, (and I am certain.) I'm glad you're getting a kick out of the insulting parody which serves no valuable purpose to your forum, and violates your "flaming" rule in every way. I'm not as amused. I think it's juvenile, petty, and immature, and shows a complete lack of creativity and intelligence.
Click to expand...
Which rule does it violate? I'm pretty sure my rules says "Flaming is okay".

The one about clones would only count if it actually tricked people into thinking it was you.
 
I reccommended that Watermark make the picture of the chicks in the rebel flag bikinis the avitar for Daxie, so we'll see if he does it...
 
Damocles said:
Which rule does it violate? I'm pretty sure my rules says "Flaming is okay".

The one about clones would only count if it actually tricked people into thinking it was you.
Click to expand...

11. Flaming is cool - So long as it remains within the bounds set above. No threats folks. That can be illegal and if I allow them to continue it is possible for me to be held accountable... This does not mean you have free reign to follow somebody around and flame incessantly, let's keep it reasonable and within actual debate. This site is made for debate, not to test your alacrity at insults and test your ability to incite anger in others.

Now would you care to explain what a "troll" named "Daxie" who wants to parody me in a harassing and insulting way, has to fucking do with DEBATE????
 
Dixie said:
11. Flaming is cool - So long as it remains within the bounds set above. No threats folks. That can be illegal and if I allow them to continue it is possible for me to be held accountable... This does not mean you have free reign to follow somebody around and flame incessantly, let's keep it reasonable and within actual debate. This site is made for debate, not to test your alacrity at insults and test your ability to incite anger in others.

Now would you care to explain what a "troll" named "Daxie" who wants to parody me in a harassing and insulting way, has to fucking do with DEBATE????
Click to expand...

Hey fuck you in the ass, mr. cunt.
 
Dixie said:
11. Flaming is cool - So long as it remains within the bounds set above. No threats folks. That can be illegal and if I allow them to continue it is possible for me to be held accountable... This does not mean you have free reign to follow somebody around and flame incessantly, let's keep it reasonable and within actual debate. This site is made for debate, not to test your alacrity at insults and test your ability to incite anger in others.

Now would you care to explain what a "troll" named "Daxie" who wants to parody me in a harassing and insulting way, has to fucking do with DEBATE????
Click to expand...

 
You are failing to address this asshole dixie and his childish rants. Frankly I DON'T EVEN CARE about dixie copying my name but it just shows you to be all hypocrites. Dixie is clearly breaking the rules by pretending to be me. So what are you going to do about it?!?!?!
 
Daxie said:
You are failing to address this asshole dixie and his childish rants. Frankly I DON'T EVEN CARE about dixie copying my name but it just shows you to be all hypocrites. Dixie is clearly breaking the rules by pretending to be me. So what are you going to do about it?!?!?!
Click to expand...

Man I wish I could still see the trolls. This one is really bad. Really. We're infested with the opposite of intelligence or creativity.
 
Nothing, it will be forever left as a part of this thread, to illustrate how you react to being totally and completely PWNED in debate. You got thoroughly trounced, and you resorted to this kind of silly child-like behavior to deflect from your resounding ass whooping.

I am actually flattered that you would take the time to go make a new user, for the sole purpose of acting like the imbecile you are. It means that I must have really gotten under your skin! Hey... I understand, Waterhead... it must be frustrating when someone uses your very own source to thwack you upside your goofy head! Now, run along and post your silly nonsense under your cute little moniker, as if that means a damn thing to anyone, I will return to ignoring you (and your new found friend.)

Greets! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top