(December 29, 2019 at 8:14 pm)Alex K Wrote:

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

He will just declare "see no macro evolution " proving his ignorance of Lenski's work which i might add Richard himself has mocked the same silly argument ..That or demand that generations alone is what drives evolution which of course is wrong.

(December 29, 2019 at 8:14 pm)Alex K Wrote: That's a very silly straw man.

It is a silly strawman, so why are you the one raising it lol?

Context 

this guy:
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

Mr. Potato Head:
BS on that, check my replies, are you new to Sungulas forum?

Well, I guess you would know BS, after all, your shit spreading techniques border on legendary. However, your " nana nana boo boo, stick your head in doo doo" argument is not a valid rebuttal or a resolution of any kind. It does, by the way, paint a clear picture of your rampant mental incompetence.

Just like the rest of the nickel a dozen lunkhead creatards you storm through with your trite, unoriginal twaddle of the ineptitudes of science. There is a tremendous difference though, between what science can explain, and what humans understand about said science. I've mentioned this before; a thousand years ago, not a single solitary human on the planet had any idea of the lifecycle of a star. That did not change the science of the lifecycle of a star. Just like today, if it is actually possible to "bypass" the speed of light, and travel 20 million light-years or more in the blink of an eye, then the science for it already exists, regardless of humanity's inability to comprehend it.

I get it, evolution is scary. If evolution is real, then humans are just another byproduct of it. If humans are just another byproduct of evolution, then humans aren't special. If humans aren't special, then that wish granting magic sky daddy sinks further into obscurity and the land of fairy tales.

(December 29, 2019 at 7:53 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(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.

Do you believe god created life on earth, John?

(December 29, 2019 at 9:46 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(December 29, 2019 at 7:53 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: 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.

Do you believe god created life on earth, John?

You know his response will be a small novel of word salad

They get agitated when it’s pointed out that the have to actually support their own position.

(December 29, 2019 at 9:50 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: They get agitated when it’s pointed out that the have to actually support their own position.

That's because their position is reactionary.It's about tearing down a threat to their  view not building anything up.

(December 29, 2019 at 9:46 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Do you believe god created life on earth, John?

I just told you I believe monkeys created the universe. It's implied that they created life on earth as well. And I also admitted I have no support for it.

Quote:I just told you I believe monkeys created the universe. It's implied that they created life on earth as well.