(December 29, 2019 at 1:26 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(December 29, 2019 at 1:14 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Ffs, John. Your religious views, next to your handle, state “Christian”. So, if you don’t accept evolution by natural selection as the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth, which can be easily inferred from the content of your posts on the subject, then it is perfectly reasonable for me or anyone else to also infer that you have an alternative explanation in mind; one that you must think fits the facts better than evolution. That you prefer not to foster a positive case for your belief to a forum full of atheists (I don’t blame you; you’d get hammered) only demonstrates your lack of confidence in the merits of any such argument. Very telling. If you wish people to stop making inferences about whether or not you believe god is responsible for the diversity of life on earth, then tell the truth. I see you skipped over my question to you about the horseshoe crab.

I don't mind you making inferences, just don't use those inferences as strawman. The processes of evolution aren't even at odds with Christianity, since creation is concerned with origins, not what happens after; evolution is concerned with what happens after, not origins.

Correct. Some Christians believe evolution in its entirety. Some believe that god initially created all the various species, but that micro evolution can happen naturally within species. And, some reject evolution altogether, and believe in the literal creation story. That’s why, when I have discussions with Christians regarding evolution, it’s important as a debate partner for me to know what that person’s beliefs are. Do you know why it’s important to know your interlocutor’s position in a debate, John? Because, if your position is that a god played some role in the creation of diverse life on earth, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate god’s mechanisms of action with evidence and sound reasoning. If you believe speciation is impossible, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate which biological mechanisms prevent speciation. If you’re simply attempting to pick at existing evolutionary biology rather than making a actual case for your own position, then your argument is fallacious (as I pointed out to Yukon above), and we MUST address that fallacy before the discussion can continue. So, which category of Christian do you fall into with regard to evolution, John? So, we can prevent anymore strawmen going forward.

Quote:BS on that, check my replies, are you new to Sungulas forum?

Nope the contrary

---

(December 29, 2019 at 4:48 pm)no one Wrote: It's quite hilarious how tater tot continually reprises the same old song and dance about fruit flies, while steadily avoiding any resolve to any presented counterargument

Yup he's a one man comedy routine.Sad thing is most comedians are funny on purpose .With him it's more a comedy of errors .

Yukon Jack

If abiogenesis isn't possible, then god couldn't have created life either. Abiogenesis, life from non life. Already been over this in thread as well.

You two are getting super low energy.

(December 29, 2019 at 7:47 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: If abiogenesis isn't possible, then god couldn't have created life either.  Abiogenesis, life from non life.  Already been over this in thread as well.

You two are getting super low energy.

But Gae 

(December 29, 2019 at 4:59 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Do you know why it’s important to know your interlocutor’s position in a debate, John? Because, if your position is that a god played some role in the creation of diverse life on earth, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate god’s mechanisms of action with evidence and sound reasoning. If you believe speciation is impossible, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate which biological mechanisms prevent speciation. If you’re simply attempting to pick at existing evolutionary biology rather than making a actual case for your own position, then your argument is fallacious (as I pointed out to Yukon above), and we MUST address that fallacy before the discussion can continue. So, which category of Christian do you fall into with regard to evolution, John? So, we can prevent anymore strawmen going forward.

I'm not your debate partner. I'm studying these topics on my own, and engaging in conversation to help with retention. If I believed monkeys created the universe, for example, there is no burden of proof until I make use of that information. I'm bored at this point, lets fast forward. I'll claim monkeys created the universe to make you happy. You'll say the burden of proof is on me bla bla where's the mechanism of action bla bla. Oh no, I have no proof. Oh no, I'm getting hammered by a forum full of atheists. Oh no, I can no longer believe monkeys created the universe [insert sad deconversion experience followed by a renewed purpose and identity].

Now what? Phylogenies are still hypotheses. Species are still poorly defined. Biologists still distinguish microevolution from macroevolution. None of what I've said was affected by my sudden disbelief in creator monkeys.

OFC. It's painfully obvious that our cretins believe that it was magic - but it's important to understand what it is we're saying when we assert things like "abiogenesis aint possible". Particularly when we're using that imagined impossibility in order to propose that it can only be possible..by magic.

Either life can come from non life, or it can't. Sure, sane people think that the same life enabling organic chemistry at play today was operative then - but a fairy and his magic spell is another candidate in the non life category. 50/50

(December 29, 2019 at 7:54 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: OFC.  It's painfully obvious that our cretins believe that it was magic - but it's important to understand what it is we're saying when we assert things like "abiogenesis aint possible".  Particularly when we're using that imagined impossibility in order to propose that it can only be possible..by magic.

Either life can come from non life, or it can't.  Sure, sane people think that the same life enabling organic chemistry at play today was operative then - but a fairy and his magic spell is another candidate in the non life category.  50/50

But he will pull his fallacious statics argument say Tour backs him and call it a day (despite the fact Tours dishonesty is well known and that statistic doesn't seem to discourage the dozens of people just as qualified as Tour from voicing confidence in abiogenesis )

---

Quote:Now what? Phylogenies are still hypotheses. Species are still poorly defined. Biologists still distinguish microevolution from macroevolution. None of what I've said was affected by my sudden disbelief in creator monkeys.

All positions you insist on that have already been refuted

Yes, but..for reasons John is unable to articulate - there is no piece of information that will affect his beliefs concerning biology.

It's wrong, and there are no facts. End of.

(December 25, 2019 at 6:21 pm)Yukon_Jack Wrote:

(December 24, 2019 at 4:26 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Ah. That is a question that the god-botherers avoid.

Exactly how many "micro-evolutionary" changes add up to a "macro-evolutionary" change?

What Richard Lenski proved was that macro evolution is impossible. After how many thousands of fruit fly generations, those flies are ???
Guess what....wait for it........

Still fruit flies. Sorry but you probably should not have mentioned them, (the other poster above)

It would have been quite astonishing if an experiment on E. coli would have yielded fruit flies after a few years.
But joking aside, no one reasonably expects having a box of bacteria who do their thing for a few years change into something radically different such as a multicellular organism. No ecvolutionary theory suggests that a bunch of fruit flies would turn into something completely different in the course of a few years. That's a very silly straw man. Take a sizable population, divide them up and give them selection pressure and a few tens of millions of years, then we're talking.