Jump to content


Photo

We've Been Waiting And Waiting


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#1 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1898 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 09 December 2012 - 01:53 PM

The creationists on this website have repeatedly challenged the evolutionist minded posters to give us evidence of (1) any observed evolution of any organism into an identifiably/classifiably different organism. We have yet to see even one example either in recorded history or in the fossil record. And (2) any evidence that nature has ever evolved life from non-living matter or even that nature COULD potentially do so.

No one has yet come forth with any evidence for either. So we are still waiting and waiting.

#2 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5482 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 09 December 2012 - 04:19 PM

The creationists on this website have repeatedly challenged the evolutionist minded posters to give us evidence of (1) any observed evolution of any organism into an identifiably/classifiably different organism. We have yet to see even one example either in recorded history or in the fossil record. And (2) any evidence that nature has ever evolved life from non-living matter or even that nature COULD potentially do so. No one has yet come forth with any evidence for either. So we are still waiting and waiting.


Yeah this happens often, whenever the evolutionist is shown to be wrong either

1) the person argues
2) the person leaves, (sometimes loudly like Xanifred's rant)

Generally after a while of 1, 2 follows. I have yet to see an evolutionist admit that maybe we have a point and that evolution isn't as solid as that person would like to believe. However that isn''t to say that it hasn't occured or will do again, its just an observation from my time here.


#3 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 09 December 2012 - 09:54 PM

Yeah this happens often, whenever the evolutionist is shown to be wrong either
1) the person argues
2) the person leaves, (sometimes loudly like Xanifred's rant)
Generally after a while of 1, 2 follows. I have yet to see an evolutionist admit that maybe we have a point and that evolution isn't as solid as that person would like to believe. However that isn''t to say that it hasn't occured or will do again, its just an observation from my time here.

Emphasis added

Shoot! Looks like I missed the latest fireworks while I was out of town. I've seen so many atheists/agnostics/evolutionists come through here and try to battle cliche straw men. Xanifred set the tone for that with his first post in his "What if the Earth Were Old?" thread where he just regurgitated the standard scholastic Galileo myth.

Gilbo, I might add to your list a third (although it could be considered a subset of #1):
3) the person redraws the line in the sand.

Agnophilo123 did this on the subject of the orientation of the legs of a bat. When his irrelevant search engine link proved to be inadequate and I showed him a picture of the natural orientation of the leg of a bat, he first claimed that the leg could belong to the other bat, and when I pointed out the absurdity of that claim due to the connecting membrane, he then claimed that the leg was in a contorted position and demanded that I produce another photo to demonstrate the point (I guess if he couldn't google it to his satisfaction in five minutes it must not be true Posted Image ).

Redrawing the line in the sand is just a classic stalling technique to preoccupy your opponent while you try to redirect the subject to something else. Posted Image

#4 Bond007

Bond007

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Reading.
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 10 December 2012 - 06:43 AM

Hay all im new here just thought id post some things i found

http://www.biology-d.../content/2/1/21

In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. Usually, this pattern is attributed to cladogenesis compressed in time, combined with the inevitable erosion of the phylogenetic signal.

There seems to be a striking commonality between all major transitions in the evolution of life. In each new class of biological objects, the principal types emerge abruptly, and intermediate grades (e.g., intermediates between the precellular stage of evolution and prokaryotic cells or between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells), typically, cannot be identified.

#5 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5482 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 10 December 2012 - 09:52 AM

Hay all im new here just thought id post some things i found http://www.biology-d.../content/2/1/21 In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. Usually, this pattern is attributed to cladogenesis compressed in time, combined with the inevitable erosion of the phylogenetic signal. There seems to be a striking commonality between all major transitions in the evolution of life. In each new class of biological objects, the principal types emerge abruptly, and intermediate grades (e.g., intermediates between the precellular stage of evolution and prokaryotic cells or between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells), typically, cannot be identified.


Good find :)

Emphasis added Shoot! Looks like I missed the latest fireworks while I was out of town. I've seen so many atheists/agnostics/evolutionists come through here and try to battle cliche straw men. Xanifred set the tone for that with his first post in his "What if the Earth Were Old?" thread where he just regurgitated the standard scholastic Galileo myth. Gilbo, I might add to your list a third (although it could be considered a subset of #1): 3) the person redraws the line in the sand. Agnophilo123 did this on the subject of the orientation of the legs of a bat. When his irrelevant search engine link proved to be inadequate and I showed him a picture of the natural orientation of the leg of a bat, he first claimed that the leg could belong to the other bat, and when I pointed out the absurdity of that claim due to the connecting membrane, he then claimed that the leg was in a contorted position and demanded that I produce another photo to demonstrate the point (I guess if he couldn't google it to his satisfaction in five minutes it must not be true Posted Image ). Redrawing the line in the sand is just a classic stalling technique to preoccupy your opponent while you try to redirect the subject to something else. Posted Image


You didn't miss much lol it was just a post of him claiming that we ban anyone who disagrees and some other nonsense, I found it ironic since he wasn't banned, nor was anyone banned since he was here, additionally I haven't seen a post from the mods for a while so there was no evidence for his claims unless he was told to say such by a friend.

Yes redrawing the line is a very common tactic, I have been having some discussions with AronRa who in the first message wanted me to agree to his own version of the dictionary. I told him that I'd prefer to use a neutral source since its more creditable than his (the dictionary people do that for a living, he doesn't) as well as is a more unbiased source since the dictionary people are not concerned with our discussions, whereas he does have an interest. "he has a dog in the fight" as the saying goes.

It was telling of his "logic" since on one hand he claimed that his version of the dictionary was accurate as it was sourced from other dictionaries (and "peer reviewed" by his fellow atheists), yet then went on to state that dictionaries are inadequate and so we should use his definitions... If dictionaries are inadequate then how can his be adequate since its (claimed to be), sourced from dictionaries?

I also posted an example where his definition is limited compared to the actual dictionary definition. The word was faith, which he essentially claimed to be blind belief with no evidence, whereas the actual dictionary likens it to confidence/ trust in another, as well as mentioning religious belief. One doesn't have "blind belief" in ones wife ;)

Now this is similar to redrawing the lines in the sand, however its probably a tad more sinister since its attempting to box a person in to a set of rules (definitions) in which to trap the person.

#6 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1898 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 10 December 2012 - 10:54 AM

'Bonedigger

"Agnophilo123 did this on the subject of the orientation of the legs of a bat. When his irrelevant search engine link proved to be inadequate and I showed him a picture of the natural orientation of the leg of a bat, he first claimed that the leg could belong to the other bat, and when I pointed out the absurdity of that claim due to the connecting membrane, he then claimed that the leg was in a contorted position and demanded that I produce another photo to demonstrate the point (I guess if he couldn't google it to his satisfaction in five minutes it must not be true."

Right. Bonedigger, that one stuck out like a sore thumb. And with his attitude being what it was, I was not at all surprised he got banned.

Best wishes, friend.

#7 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1898 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 10 December 2012 - 10:55 AM

Hay all im new here just thought id post some things i found http://www.biology-d.../content/2/1/21 In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. Usually, this pattern is attributed to cladogenesis compressed in time, combined with the inevitable erosion of the phylogenetic signal. There seems to be a striking commonality between all major transitions in the evolution of life. In each new class of biological objects, the principal types emerge abruptly, and intermediate grades (e.g., intermediates between the precellular stage of evolution and prokaryotic cells or between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells), typically, cannot be identified.


Welcome aboard, Sammy! Happy posting.

#8 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5482 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 10 December 2012 - 06:15 PM

'Bonedigger "Agnophilo123 did this on the subject of the orientation of the legs of a bat. When his irrelevant search engine link proved to be inadequate and I showed him a picture of the natural orientation of the leg of a bat, he first claimed that the leg could belong to the other bat, and when I pointed out the absurdity of that claim due to the connecting membrane, he then claimed that the leg was in a contorted position and demanded that I produce another photo to demonstrate the point (I guess if he couldn't google it to his satisfaction in five minutes it must not be true." Right. Bonedigger, that one stuck out like a sore thumb. And with his attitude being what it was, I was not at all surprised he got banned. Best wishes, friend.


I must have missed that didn't know he got banned

#9 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1898 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 10 December 2012 - 09:55 PM

I must have missed that didn't know he got banned


It happens on occasion. I've been kicked off of atheist websites for less. I'm sure I'm not alone.

Best wishes friend. Onward!

#10 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5482 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 11 December 2012 - 02:02 AM

It happens on occasion. I've been kicked off of atheist websites for less. I'm sure I'm not alone. Best wishes friend. Onward!


Not saying he didn't deserve it, just didn't realise it had occured

#11 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New Jersey

Posted 11 December 2012 - 08:16 AM

The creationists on this website have repeatedly challenged the evolutionist minded posters to give us evidence of (1) any observed evolution of any organism into an identifiably/classifiably different organism. We have yet to see even one example either in recorded history or in the fossil record. And (2) any evidence that nature has ever evolved life from non-living matter or even that nature COULD potentially do so. No one has yet come forth with any evidence for either. So we are still waiting and waiting.


I'm still waiting for ANY evidence.

#12 Bond007

Bond007

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Reading.
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:59 AM

The 'evolution' of the eye makes me sick look at these post hoc myths

http://www.pbs.org/w...1/l_011_01.html

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage( HAHAHAHAHAHA WHY? AND HOW?) , perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes (OH OK THEN 'RANDOM CHANGES' YEP THANKS FOR THAT) then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch( WHY? HOW?), a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed (HOW? WHY? WHEN? AND FOR WHAT REASON?), so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage ( O REALLY? WHY? OH CAUSE ITS DARWINS POST HOC MYTHS OK THANKS) , no matter how slight (LOLZ). Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina (IT 'EVOLVED' BECAUSE IT 'EVOLVED'? I THOUGHT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE EXPLAINING HOW IT 'EVOLVED' OH OK THANKS IT 'EVOLVED' BECAUSE IT 'EVOLVED' MY MISTAKE) , the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye (HOW AND WHY?). It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye (FULL OF DESCRIPTIVE TERMS-GIVE THE GULLIBLE READER SOME PICTURES TO GO WITH THE POST HOC FAIRYTALE/MYTH).

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species (NOT HARD WHEN 'THIS SEQUENCE' EXISTS IN THE MIND OF THE DAYDREAMER). The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years ( AHAHAHAHAHAH HOW? AND WHY? AND ARRGHHHHH ) would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

#13 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5482 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 11 December 2012 - 12:40 PM

The 'evolution' of the eye makes me sick look at these post hoc myths http://www.pbs.org/w...1/l_011_01.html Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage( HAHAHAHAHAHA WHY? AND HOW?) , perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes (OH OK THEN 'RANDOM CHANGES' YEP THANKS FOR THAT) then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch( WHY? HOW?), a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed (HOW? WHY? WHEN? AND FOR WHAT REASON?), so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera. Every change had to confer a survival advantage ( O REALLY? WHY? OH CAUSE ITS DARWINS POST HOC MYTHS OK THANKS) , no matter how slight (LOLZ). Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina (IT 'EVOLVED' BECAUSE IT 'EVOLVED'? I THOUGHT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE EXPLAINING HOW IT 'EVOLVED' OH OK THANKS IT 'EVOLVED' BECAUSE IT 'EVOLVED' MY MISTAKE) , the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye (HOW AND WHY?). It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye (FULL OF DESCRIPTIVE TERMS-GIVE THE GULLIBLE READER SOME PICTURES TO GO WITH THE POST HOC FAIRYTALE/MYTH). In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species (NOT HARD WHEN 'THIS SEQUENCE' EXISTS IN THE MIND OF THE DAYDREAMER). The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years ( AHAHAHAHAHAH HOW? AND WHY? AND ARRGHHHHH ) would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.


I share your frustration. It gets even more crazy when they claim that these ad hoc claims are predictions of evolution.... Since a prediction is made before the facts are known, whereas the claims made here are made after the facts are known and are attempting to fit it within the paradigm of evolution, such is not a prediction... However predictions are required for evolution to be a "theory"
  • Calypsis4 likes this

#14 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 11 December 2012 - 02:45 PM

I'm still waiting for ANY evidence.


Don't hold your breath...

... we need you around here! Posted Image
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#15 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 992 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:02 PM

Usually 'time' is the hero of the plot. It simply would need to much time to show that.

#16 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5482 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 16 January 2013 - 12:18 AM

As the thread states, we are still waiting.....

A bit worrisome for something claimed to be science ;-)

#17 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 22 January 2013 - 09:15 AM

The creationists on this website have repeatedly challenged the evolutionist minded posters to give us evidence of (1) any observed evolution of any organism into an identifiably/classifiably different organism. We have yet to see even one example either in recorded history or in the fossil record. And (2) any evidence that nature has ever evolved life from non-living matter or even that nature COULD potentially do so. No one has yet come forth with any evidence for either. So we are still waiting and waiting.


What about the Miller-Eurey Experiment? Isn't that evidence for abiogenesis?

#18 Bond007

Bond007

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Reading.
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 22 January 2013 - 09:57 AM

Lol Miller Urey argues against abiogenesis

#19 elephantgun

elephantgun

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 22 January 2013 - 11:02 AM

Lol Miller Urey argues against abiogenesis


Please explain how the Miller-Urey experiment argued against abiogenesis.

I have to admit, I'm looking forward to this one.

#20 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 22 January 2013 - 11:23 AM

Lol Miller Urey argues against abiogenesis


Yes, the Miller Urey experiment is evidence against abiogenesis. And the complexity of the flagellum is evidence against creationism.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users