"One Fact to Refute Creationism"

[ChristineM]

So evolution, the evidence, and I speak as a scientist, I need to go an buy I shovel look for different places were a fossil might show up, and start digging. I could, but I am not an archeologist .

So I sit here with you and listen to you...

Your turn, how do you evidently prove evolution?

Lines of evidence: The science of evolution

 

[ChristineM]

And in post #308 Enoch07 proudly capitulated with the words
/quote
There is nothing more to talk about.
/endquote

And he's still pulling funny faces

 

[Enoch07]

And he's still pulling funny faces

 

[ChristineM]

And in post #308 Enoch07 proudly capitulated with the words
/quote
There is nothing more to talk about.
/endquote

See what i mean?

 

[Enoch07]

See what i mean?

Just spreading some love and positivity. Don't give in to hate spread the love!

 

[ChristineM]

Just spreading some love and positivity. Don't give in to hate spread the love!

You failed at that to

 

[Enoch07]

You failed at that to

Don't give up yet Christine!

I won't give up on you!

Come on now and give us a big ole smiley face!

 

[ChristineM]

Don't give up yet Christine!

I won't give up on you!

Come on now and give us a big ole smiley face!

Well its like this, i don't want to break any rules of the thread so ill not be telling you what i think of people who wont take responsibly for their own actions.

 

[Enoch07]

Well its like this, i don't want to break any rules of the thread so ill not be telling you what i think of people who wont take responsibly for their own actions.

I cited an article that exposed the hurtful truth about one of your beloved heroes.

Not that I had to say that but there ya go.


Now on to more pressing matters. How about that smiley face?

 

[ChristineM]

I cited an article that exposed the hurtful truth about one of your beloved heroes.

Not that I had to say that but there ya go.


Now on to more pressing matters. How about that smiley face?

I have told you before, i don't rate Dawkins so dont tell porkie pies just to massage your own ego

 

[Enoch07]

I have told you before, i don't rate Dawkins so dont tell porkie pies just to massage your own ego

Ok

So how about them smiley faces?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

(it's only 2:30 long)​

I'm not so interested in Dawkins reply to the request to come up with one sentence to convince the creationist to doubt their theory, but rather his observation of the intractable stance creationists take against the evidence supporting evolution. Dawkins says creationists "simply don't listen They simply stick their fingers in their ears and say 'la la la' " Dawkins calls this a disgrace to the human species.

So my question to the RF creationists here is, is this your stance as well? There is absolutely no fact, or set of facts, or bushels of facts that will ever convince you to doubt creationism. Personally, I believe it is. To admit the possibility that creationism might be wrong is to open a chink in the armor of one's faith. And fearing such a possibility the creationist's best defense is to stick ones fingers in one's ears.

So, am I right or am I right?

On this subject, here is something quite interesting to ponder (or to stick your fingers in your eyes and say "la la la," if you prefer). There is a NEW species of shrimp -- oddly, a self-cloning one -- that has been known now for only about 25 years, and about which a considerable amount has been learned during that time. And for anybody who would care to actually read the article, it does provide at least some evidence for the evolution of A NEW SPECIES during the lifetimes of most of the contributors to these forums. Have a go...This Mutant Crayfish Clones Itself, and It’s Taking Over Europe

 

[Darkstorn]

I cited an article that exposed the hurtful truth about one of your beloved heroes.

Uh, you admitted what, 16 pages ago that the article could be mistaken and abandoned all responsibility for your own claims. And now you're repeating the claim? I'm starting to think that now you're just trolling, or have been the entire time. Are you sure you really want to destroy this thread? Half the posts in it are you acting like an extremely rude simpleton.

/E: I don't think you've given a single rational response to any query so far. This will be my last post in this thread because i feel personally guilty for enabling your attention seeking behavior. So yes, as far as we are concerned, you "win" the contest. Whatever it is.

But i will leave you with this following, and to me self-evident, statement: This is pretty dumb.

 

[Enoch07]

Uh, you admitted what, 16 pages ago that the article could be mistaken and abandoned all responsibility for your own claims.

And now you're repeating the claim?

Make up your mind did I abandon all responsibility or did I repeat the same claim?

Because this:

I cited an article that exposed the hurtful truth about one of your beloved heroes.

Is the only thing I ever claimed as far as responsibility. It is you and Christine who has insisted I am responsible for the content, and wrongly mind you. I am not responsible for an articles accuracy, that is the publisher of the article who is responsible for fact and accuracy check. Considering Dawkins never filed a libel lawsuit, it's safe to assume the article is accurate. Peace!

 

[Jean Valjean]

So...

I am scraping up a little money to buy a shovel, and a makeup box for makeup artist, where should I start?
I am hungry for evidence of evolution...

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

how do you evidently prove evolution?

No need. We only need show that it accounts for all previous observations and provides a mechanism to account for their similarities and differences, has correctly predicted what kinds of things might or could not be found (making it falsifiable), and has had practical application in ways that improve the human condition.

I don't require more than that from a scientific theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So...

I am scraping up a little money to buy a shovel, and a makeup box for makeup artist, where should I start?
I am hungry for evidence of evolution...

First you need to understand the concept of scientific evidence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is so much bias! But you believe it, don't you? People hide their bias all the time!

The following article, from pro-evolution Haarets, has a list of his credited achievements...it is impressive!

An excerpt from it states:

"Other defenders noted that Bechly had a number of species named after him and that his academic citation ranking (in what is called the h-index) was high and thus justified an article. But their true intentions were revealed with claims against Wikipedias evolution warriors and its anti-creationist bias."

A respected scientist comes out against evolution – and loses his Wikipedia page

BTW, some "remain" because they're just too well-known to be swept under the rug.

His credibility as a scientist, and having a number of species name after him, has absolutely no relevance whatsoever as to whether his Wikipedia page met their guidelines or not. In fact, both of those issues were explicitly addressed in the page I linked to that explained why the article was deleted. It would be the exact same process whether the scientist was pro or anti-evolution. Once again: many ID proponents and/or scientists still have pages on Wikipedia. There is NO anti-creationism bias.

 

[Jean Valjean]

So educate me...

Were should I start?

The ruin towns, the graveyard, the senatorium???

 

[Jean Valjean]

I got a book, jay, jay, jay, on problem solving were you program in basic to let it run the repetative test for you... I have no clue though, on how to figure the book out,,