(February 13, 2015 at 6:23 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You can try to hide it any way you want, but if you actually had any evidence for your position, which would be quite a stretch considering literally every part of it is contradicted by numerous pieces of evidence, and you haven't even been able to define large swathes of what you believe in, you would simply say so. You've hardly been so reluctant to share the inanities of your belief system in the past, this sudden coquettish attitude seems more reflective of how insubstantial what you're claiming really is.

Hey! I know! Why don't you tell us some more about the groups of animals that you don't know anything about, and then insist anyway that you do know modern evolutionary theory doesn't reflect them?

You're right, I'm not reluctant to express my beliefs, which is why I've discussed this very same topic in detail in other threads, apparently it was all in vain since you suggest i rehash it here.

In case you don't remember I made the statement -

"You do realize that one species of animal has never been observed to evolve into a completely different species"

And I made it clear that I don't consider two similar frogs a different species anymore than I consider a Great Dane and Chihuahua to be different species. I do however consider a frog and a snake to be different species, and by that definition of "completely different species" evolution has not been observed to have occurred from one species to a completely different species, and assuming that small changes in a species can result in a the creation of a separate species is pure conjecture.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/species

Quote:species
1
a : kind, sort
b : a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name; specifically : a logical division of a genus or more comprehensive class <confessing sins in species and in number>
d (1) : a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name
(2) : an individual or kind belonging to a biological species

Now do you get what I mean by "completely different species"?
The underlined parts are in reference to what I was saying the Bible meant by using the word sort

Quote:And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark - Genesis 6:19

This has always been my stance, that animals evolve from their own kind

Quote:And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. - Genesis 1:25

Is that clear enough for you?

Quote:Thats not an answer, if you're saying I don't have the evidence, then say so.
You know there's nothing I like better than putting people on blast.

(February 13, 2015 at 6:23 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Here's the thing, since you seem incapable of recognizing a subtle point when it's in front of you: I fully believe you think you have evidence for what you're claiming here, and you're so completely intractable that nothing will convince you otherwise. But, as I've pointed out, you're completely unaware of how badly you understand the things you see fit to argue against, making whatever you present as evidence more reflective of your own stunted understanding than of any failing on my part.

I would have thought the explicit reference to the Dunning-Kruger effect would have made that clear, but I guess that's yet another thing you're ignorant about.

No, here's the thing, it's very simple, If you don't think i can back up my claim then call me on it, no need to make a speech. I'm not going to hijack the thread unless you demand I provide evidence for my claims.

You don't have a problem demanding evidence do you?

Quote:*points at sig*

(February 13, 2015 at 6:23 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Yes, I remember the quote in your sig: Rhythm said something, and you presented evidence that it was wrong, leading to Rhythm accepting that and retracting his claim in his very next post. For a mature adult, that would have been the end of it; nobody is perfect, sometimes we're wrong, and the important thing is to adjust your claims to fit the information coming in, which is what happened.

You, on the other hand, decided to enshrine this simple mistake in your sig, in order to crow about it like a toddler for as long as you could. If you think you're making some kind of important point by doing so, when in actuality you're just sticking out your tongue and going "nyah nyah!" to a legitimate adult that made a mistake, that just makes it even sadder.

Funny you remember it that way.
I was going to let it go until he stated that my line of reasoning deserved no respect, not to mention i asked Rhythm for permission to quote him (seeing how last time I quoted someone in a sig, it got deleted despite not breaking any rules) as evidenced here
http://atheistforums.org/thread-21336-po...#pid761884

So Rhythm has no one to blame but himself.

We're back to the Great Staff Conspiracy, are we? That always ends well.

(February 14, 2015 at 1:30 am)Stimbo Wrote: We're back to the Great Staff Conspiracy, are we? That always ends well.

Not a conspiracy, i have the pm's to prove it.

(February 13, 2015 at 7:31 pm)Nestor Wrote: I don't feel like playing catch up but I just have to know:

Huggy believes in the story of Noah's flood?

Well this is the problem. You can't have a serious debate on a scientific topic if people are going to just assert stuff from fairy stories whenever they feel like it.

Evolution being true does not disprove the existence of a God. Disproving evolution does not prove the existence of a God.

Evolution does however show a literal interpretation of most holy texts to be absurd, which is probably the real reason theists often fight against it.

(February 14, 2015 at 1:48 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 14, 2015 at 1:30 am)Stimbo Wrote: We're back to the Great Staff Conspiracy, are we? That always ends well.

Not a conspiracy, i have the pm's to prove it.

Care to share, or do I have to go digging?

(February 14, 2015 at 1:57 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(February 14, 2015 at 1:48 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Not a conspiracy, i have the pm's to prove it.

Care to share, or do I have to go digging?

As long as I get assurances I don't get banned for posting pm's i'll be more than happy to share.

You could always PM them to me, if you prefer.

(February 14, 2015 at 2:23 am)Stimbo Wrote: You could always PM them to me, if you prefer.

Done

I should add, I never received a response to my reply.