(12-10-2015 08:13 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 07:35 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 07:21 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 05:25 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:25 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  So you have all these smart people prying into both subjects. One subject goes back about 4,000 years and there is historical evidence and scores of theories. The other subject goes back billions of years and there is no historical evidence and there is only one mainstream theory.

Lesson: groupthink is dangerous.

There is a startling amount of ignorance in this paragraph.

And folks, I know it's easy to do but let's try not conflating the origin of the universe, or even of life, with the origin of species.

You should look up the word ignorance and get back to me

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

You should look it up yourself. You've demonstrated a couple of times that you don't understand evolution. Your "no historical evidence" comment is just the latest example.

Ok, I'll bite. Show me the historical evidence.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

You can't prove that evolution didn't happen... HA! Checkmate!

(12-10-2015 08:13 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 07:35 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 07:21 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 05:25 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:25 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  So you have all these smart people prying into both subjects. One subject goes back about 4,000 years and there is historical evidence and scores of theories. The other subject goes back billions of years and there is no historical evidence and there is only one mainstream theory.

Lesson: groupthink is dangerous.

There is a startling amount of ignorance in this paragraph.

And folks, I know it's easy to do but let's try not conflating the origin of the universe, or even of life, with the origin of species.

You should look up the word ignorance and get back to me

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

You should look it up yourself. You've demonstrated a couple of times that you don't understand evolution. Your "no historical evidence" comment is just the latest example.

Ok, I'll bite. Show me the historical evidence.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

OK, but now we're making the transition from mere ignorance to willful ignorance. Neither is attractive but the former is a little easier to wear.

Start with these links...
On the Origin of Species
Fossil Record
Radiometric Dating
Stratigraphy

You're going to need a basic understanding of the material in the links above if we're going to discuss this. They're well referenced, if you want to do a deeper dive and really have a good conversation.

On the other hand, if all you're doing here is arm waving because to you "no historical evidence" really just means no evidence that agrees with your world view, then we're not going to get anywhere. It's perfectly fine to disagree, but science says you've got to show your work. You might recall how this works from your "plenty of science classes... way more than the average liberal arts major".

(12-11-2015 12:13 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 08:13 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 07:35 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 07:21 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 05:25 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  There is a startling amount of ignorance in this paragraph.

And folks, I know it's easy to do but let's try not conflating the origin of the universe, or even of life, with the origin of species.

You should look up the word ignorance and get back to me

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

You should look it up yourself. You've demonstrated a couple of times that you don't understand evolution. Your "no historical evidence" comment is just the latest example.

Ok, I'll bite. Show me the historical evidence.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

OK, but now we're making the transition from mere ignorance to willful ignorance. Neither is attractive but the former is a little easier to wear.

Start with these links...
On the Origin of Species
Fossil Record
Radiometric Dating
Stratigraphy

You're going to need a basic understanding of the material in the links above if we're going to discuss this. They're well referenced, if you want to do a deeper dive and really have a good conversation.

On the other hand, if all you're doing here is arm waving because to you "no historical evidence" really just means no evidence that agrees with your world view, then we're not going to get anywhere. It's perfectly fine to disagree, but science says you've got to show your work. You might recall how this works from your "plenty of science classes... way more than the average liberal arts major".

I asked for historical evidence. You provided somewiki articles and geological evidence. Historical evidence is written... so unless there are some drawings in a cave somewhere depicting an ape giving birth to a human, or even a homo erectus beast, there isn't any. Any evolution that may have happened would have been prehistory. I have acknowledged that there is evidence for evolution. It is not historical evidence. Egyptology is based on historical evidence.

(12-11-2015 08:37 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 12:13 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 08:13 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 07:35 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 07:21 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  You should look up the word ignorance and get back to me

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

You should look it up yourself. You've demonstrated a couple of times that you don't understand evolution. Your "no historical evidence" comment is just the latest example.

Ok, I'll bite. Show me the historical evidence.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

OK, but now we're making the transition from mere ignorance to willful ignorance. Neither is attractive but the former is a little easier to wear.

Start with these links...
On the Origin of Species
Fossil Record
Radiometric Dating
Stratigraphy

You're going to need a basic understanding of the material in the links above if we're going to discuss this. They're well referenced, if you want to do a deeper dive and really have a good conversation.

On the other hand, if all you're doing here is arm waving because to you "no historical evidence" really just means no evidence that agrees with your world view, then we're not going to get anywhere. It's perfectly fine to disagree, but science says you've got to show your work. You might recall how this works from your "plenty of science classes... way more than the average liberal arts major".

I asked for historical evidence. You provided somewiki articles and geological evidence. Historical evidence is written... so unless there are some drawings in a cave somewhere depicting an ape giving birth to a human, or even a homo erectus beast, there isn't any. Any evolution that may have happened would have been prehistory. I have acknowledged that there is evidence for evolution. It is not historical evidence. Egyptology is based on historical evidence.

Man, you really don't understand how evolution works lol.

(12-11-2015 08:44 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 08:37 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 12:13 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 08:13 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 07:35 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  You should look it up yourself. You've demonstrated a couple of times that you don't understand evolution. Your "no historical evidence" comment is just the latest example.

Ok, I'll bite. Show me the historical evidence.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

OK, but now we're making the transition from mere ignorance to willful ignorance. Neither is attractive but the former is a little easier to wear.

Start with these links...
On the Origin of Species
Fossil Record
Radiometric Dating
Stratigraphy

You're going to need a basic understanding of the material in the links above if we're going to discuss this. They're well referenced, if you want to do a deeper dive and really have a good conversation.

On the other hand, if all you're doing here is arm waving because to you "no historical evidence" really just means no evidence that agrees with your world view, then we're not going to get anywhere. It's perfectly fine to disagree, but science says you've got to show your work. You might recall how this works from your "plenty of science classes... way more than the average liberal arts major".

I asked for historical evidence. You provided somewiki articles and geological evidence. Historical evidence is written... so unless there are some drawings in a cave somewhere depicting an ape giving birth to a human, or even a homo erectus beast, there isn't any. Any evolution that may have happened would have been prehistory. I have acknowledged that there is evidence for evolution. It is not historical evidence. Egyptology is based on historical evidence.

Man, you really don't understand how evolution works lol.

hell, he doesn't understand that history is rewritten on a daily basis.....that's what really makes discovery cool.....is akin to the first hominid that figured out 1+1=2, friction generates heat, and the circle is a pretty neat shape to move things from point A to point X

history is about as subjective as it gets with certain thingys.....like religion....it all depends how the author presents the 'past' in text and how it's absorbed by the minions

history.....I laugh every time I see the word....

I still contend hey-zues would never have survived the internutz and is no different than jimmy j w/o the K mix.....but that's just me....

if some people want to believe that some feller died to save us all, was born from a virgin that was married, and was also the son of god????.....more power to 'em.....

creationism....it's laughable the way it's written....always has been....

discovery is how man has moved forward......regardless of the many attempts to disrupt discovery by the religious 'right' o' day.....

nobody has a clue how we got here other than we have gathered evidence to support a path from nothing to something.....it's still a theory and will always be continually developing until we engineer humans......then none of this bs will mean diddly....you guys do know the 'scientists' agreed to move forward with the beginnings of human genetic engineering last week.....right?

That's the first time I ever understood the entire post of stinkfist. I don't know if I should congratulate him or me though?

(12-11-2015 09:46 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  That's the first time I ever understood the entire post of stinkfist. I don't know if I should congratulate him or me though?

it's early in the day.....

to you also....you're a good feller!

(12-11-2015 08:37 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 12:13 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 08:13 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 07:35 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 07:21 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  You should look up the word ignorance and get back to me

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

You should look it up yourself. You've demonstrated a couple of times that you don't understand evolution. Your "no historical evidence" comment is just the latest example.

Ok, I'll bite. Show me the historical evidence.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

OK, but now we're making the transition from mere ignorance to willful ignorance. Neither is attractive but the former is a little easier to wear.

Start with these links...
On the Origin of Species
Fossil Record
Radiometric Dating
Stratigraphy

You're going to need a basic understanding of the material in the links above if we're going to discuss this. They're well referenced, if you want to do a deeper dive and really have a good conversation.

On the other hand, if all you're doing here is arm waving because to you "no historical evidence" really just means no evidence that agrees with your world view, then we're not going to get anywhere. It's perfectly fine to disagree, but science says you've got to show your work. You might recall how this works from your "plenty of science classes... way more than the average liberal arts major".

I asked for historical evidence. You provided somewiki articles and geological evidence. Historical evidence is written... so unless there are some drawings in a cave somewhere depicting an ape giving birth to a human, or even a homo erectus beast, there isn't any. Any evolution that may have happened would have been prehistory. I have acknowledged that there is evidence for evolution. It is not historical evidence. Egyptology is based on historical evidence.

I don't even. Why would that count as evidence to you?

It is very difficult to reconcile these statements...

(12-10-2015 09:46 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Took plenty of science classes... way more than the average liberal arts major... just know how to think critically.

(12-10-2015 09:51 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I'm not a Genisis literalist, nor am I really even that religious...

(12-11-2015 08:37 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I asked for historical evidence. You provided somewiki articles and geological evidence. Historical evidence is written... so unless there are some drawings in a cave somewhere depicting an ape giving birth to a human, or even a homo erectus beast, there isn't any. Any evolution that may have happened would have been prehistory. I have acknowledged that there is evidence for evolution. It is not historical evidence. Egyptology is based on historical evidence.

(12-11-2015 01:59 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  It is very difficult to reconcile these statements...

(12-10-2015 09:46 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Took plenty of science classes... way more than the average liberal arts major... just know how to think critically.

(12-10-2015 09:51 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I'm not a Genisis literalist, nor am I really even that religious...

(12-11-2015 08:37 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I asked for historical evidence. You provided somewiki articles and geological evidence. Historical evidence is written... so unless there are some drawings in a cave somewhere depicting an ape giving birth to a human, or even a homo erectus beast, there isn't any. Any evolution that may have happened would have been prehistory. I have acknowledged that there is evidence for evolution. It is not historical evidence. Egyptology is based on historical evidence.

So nobody wants to have a serious discussion. Just memes and unsubstantiated insults. I'll be the adult and bow out. Stinkfist gets honorable mention for being the only one who knows what historical evidence is.

People are confusing the differences between what creationism deals with, and what evolution deals with.

Evolution deals with existing organisms, and how they can change over time. It deals with how new species are created from other species. It does not start with the creation of organisms from nothing. Spontaneous creation does not exist, which was the way some in the past tried to have evolution handle this part. Evolution speaks to how things that are here, got here from something else that was here.

Creationism deals with how matter, animals, plants, and people were created when there was nothing.

So why people believe that just because some parts of evolution may be true shoots down creationism is beyond me. Also, some part of evolution that are true were well known long before Darwin. Creationism explains how God created energy, created DNA and the ability of people, animals, and plants to reproduce. (Prior to the creation of the sun, by the way.) There is no part of evolution that has been proven that explains how anything got here in the first place.

(12-11-2015 03:07 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  People are confusing the differences between what creationism deals with, and what evolution deals with.

Evolution deals with existing organisms, and how they can change over time. It deals with how new species are created from other species. It does not start with the creation of organisms from nothing. Spontaneous creation does not exist, which was the way some in the past tried to have evolution handle this part. Evolution speaks to how things that are here, got here from something else that was here.

Creationism deals with how matter, animals, plants, and people were created when there was nothing.

So why people believe that just because some parts of evolution may be true shoots down creationism is beyond me. Also, some part of evolution that are true were well known long before Darwin. Creationism explains how God created energy, created DNA and the ability of people, animals, and plants to reproduce. (Prior to the creation of the sun, by the way.) There is no part of evolution that has been proven that explains how anything got here in the first place.

Evolution does not attempt to explain this, you're looking for abiogenesis.

How does creationism explain how god created DNA, energy, abilities, etc? How are these explanations substantiated? The fact that scientists are still working out abiogenesis does not lend credence to Creationism.

(12-11-2015 03:40 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 03:07 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  People are confusing the differences between what creationism deals with, and what evolution deals with.

Evolution deals with existing organisms, and how they can change over time. It deals with how new species are created from other species. It does not start with the creation of organisms from nothing. Spontaneous creation does not exist, which was the way some in the past tried to have evolution handle this part. Evolution speaks to how things that are here, got here from something else that was here.

Creationism deals with how matter, animals, plants, and people were created when there was nothing.

So why people believe that just because some parts of evolution may be true shoots down creationism is beyond me. Also, some part of evolution that are true were well known long before Darwin. Creationism explains how God created energy, created DNA and the ability of people, animals, and plants to reproduce. (Prior to the creation of the sun, by the way.) There is no part of evolution that has been proven that explains how anything got here in the first place.

Well, you made at least one mistake: thinking that evolution has ever tried to explain that. You're looking for abiogenesis.

Abiogensis doesnt explain it either. That's my point. None of that, including evolution, explains what creationism explains. Creationism and evolution are explaining two totally different things.

EDIT: I think I see what you are saying, so I probably need to clarify the bolded statement. What I was eluding to is how some i the scientific community was trying to explain how things originated without God. Spontaneous creation still relied upon something. It was just that it was used in a way to try to show how things could be created without God. The point I was making is that none of that explains what Creationism explains, which is the creation of everything from nothing.

I won!

(12-11-2015 03:49 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 03:40 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 03:07 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  People are confusing the differences between what creationism deals with, and what evolution deals with.

Evolution deals with existing organisms, and how they can change over time. It deals with how new species are created from other species. It does not start with the creation of organisms from nothing. Spontaneous creation does not exist, which was the way some in the past tried to have evolution handle this part. Evolution speaks to how things that are here, got here from something else that was here.

Creationism deals with how matter, animals, plants, and people were created when there was nothing.

So why people believe that just because some parts of evolution may be true shoots down creationism is beyond me. Also, some part of evolution that are true were well known long before Darwin. Creationism explains how God created energy, created DNA and the ability of people, animals, and plants to reproduce. (Prior to the creation of the sun, by the way.) There is no part of evolution that has been proven that explains how anything got here in the first place.

Well, you made at least one mistake: thinking that evolution has ever tried to explain that. You're looking for abiogenesis.

Abiogensis doesnt explain it either. That's my point. None of that, including evolution, explains what creationism explains. Creationism and evolution are explaining two totally different things.

EDIT: I think I see what you are saying, so I probably need to clarify

This is what I'm getting at: The fact that scientists are still working out abiogenesis does not lend credence to Creationism. That would be a god of the gaps argument.

(12-11-2015 03:51 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 03:49 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 03:40 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 03:07 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  People are confusing the differences between what creationism deals with, and what evolution deals with.

Evolution deals with existing organisms, and how they can change over time. It deals with how new species are created from other species. It does not start with the creation of organisms from nothing. Spontaneous creation does not exist, which was the way some in the past tried to have evolution handle this part. Evolution speaks to how things that are here, got here from something else that was here.

Creationism deals with how matter, animals, plants, and people were created when there was nothing.

So why people believe that just because some parts of evolution may be true shoots down creationism is beyond me. Also, some part of evolution that are true were well known long before Darwin. Creationism explains how God created energy, created DNA and the ability of people, animals, and plants to reproduce. (Prior to the creation of the sun, by the way.) There is no part of evolution that has been proven that explains how anything got here in the first place.

Well, you made at least one mistake: thinking that evolution has ever tried to explain that. You're looking for abiogenesis.

Abiogensis doesnt explain it either. That's my point. None of that, including evolution, explains what creationism explains. Creationism and evolution are explaining two totally different things.

EDIT: I think I see what you are saying, so I probably need to clarify

This is what I'm getting at: The fact that scientists are still working out abiogenesis does not lend credence to Creationism. That would be a god of the gaps argument.

They are unrelated. Abiogensis REQUIRES something to exist so that something else (life) can originate. Abiogensis does not explain how something can exist from nothing. Abiogenesis is not inconsistent with the bible version of things. But you cant have Biogenesis WITHOUT creation occurring first.

(12-11-2015 03:54 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 03:51 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 03:49 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 03:40 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 03:07 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  People are confusing the differences between what creationism deals with, and what evolution deals with.

Evolution deals with existing organisms, and how they can change over time. It deals with how new species are created from other species. It does not start with the creation of organisms from nothing. Spontaneous creation does not exist, which was the way some in the past tried to have evolution handle this part. Evolution speaks to how things that are here, got here from something else that was here.

Creationism deals with how matter, animals, plants, and people were created when there was nothing.

So why people believe that just because some parts of evolution may be true shoots down creationism is beyond me. Also, some part of evolution that are true were well known long before Darwin. Creationism explains how God created energy, created DNA and the ability of people, animals, and plants to reproduce. (Prior to the creation of the sun, by the way.) There is no part of evolution that has been proven that explains how anything got here in the first place.

Well, you made at least one mistake: thinking that evolution has ever tried to explain that. You're looking for abiogenesis.

Abiogensis doesnt explain it either. That's my point. None of that, including evolution, explains what creationism explains. Creationism and evolution are explaining two totally different things.

EDIT: I think I see what you are saying, so I probably need to clarify

This is what I'm getting at: The fact that scientists are still working out abiogenesis does not lend credence to Creationism. That would be a god of the gaps argument.

They are unrelated. Abiogensis REQUIRES something to exist so that something else (life) can originate. Abiogensis does not explain how something can exist from nothing. Abiogenesis is not inconsistent with the bible version of things. But you cant have Biogenesis WITHOUT creation occurring first.

Yes, it requires that the universe exists. Depending on what kind of creationist a person is, they believe that a specific act of god created life (not just the universe). That conflicts with a naturalistic explanation.

I understand where you're coming from, though. I don't necessarily agree that creation had to occur at all, though.

(12-11-2015 02:59 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  So nobody wants to have a serious discussion. Just memes and unsubstantiated insults. I'll be the adult and bow out. Stinkfist gets honorable mention for being the only one who knows what historical evidence is.

I don't think a serious discussion is possible if your position is that for something to be credible it needs to have eye witnesses. I'm sorry if that's not what you are intending, but it comes off that way to me (and others, apparently).

Yes, there IS evidence. Mountains of it. It can be observed, now, as a record of something that happened in the past. If you want to pick up the conversation from here, let me know.

But if you are just trying to point out that we haven't seen evidence of species-level evolution in the last 4,000 years or so, well, ok. No one is going to disagree, but you'll have to let us know why you think that's important.

(12-11-2015 04:18 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 02:59 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  So nobody wants to have a serious discussion. Just memes and unsubstantiated insults. I'll be the adult and bow out. Stinkfist gets honorable mention for being the only one who knows what historical evidence is.

I don't think a serious discussion is possible if your position is that for something to be credible it needs to have eye witnesses. I'm sorry if that's not what you are intending, but it comes off that way to me (and others, apparently).

Yes, there IS evidence. Mountains of it. It can be observed, now, as a record of something that happened in the past. If you want to pick up the conversation from here, let me know.

But if you are just trying to point out that we haven't seen evidence of species-level evolution in the last 4,000 years or so, well, ok. No one is going to disagree, but you'll have to let us know why you think that's important.

Exactly. ER already stopped being serious when he started using creationist arguments. When someone acts like Ken Ham, they deserve the scorn given to Ken Ham.