Question for the theist

[John V]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that's what you accused your opponent of thinking, and he just didn't pick you up on your wording.

Here's what was said: "fossils and genetics all lead to the same thing, its there, the evidence is there but why do you deny it?" I've cleaned up the terminology but have not distorted his position.

Of course, he can speak for himself and, given that I disagree with the point you're attempting to disprove too, I don't see much point in bringing that up to me.

Given that you disagree with the point I'm attempting to disprove...why are you butting in? This seems to be a blatant admission that you're throwing in red herrings.

Yes, I get it, most scientists believe in evolution. If some of us want to discuss specific claims within evolution, what's that to you? I have not claimed that this specific issue invalidates all of evolution.

[Esquilax]

Given that you disagree with the point I'm attempting to disprove...why are you butting in? This seems to be a blatant admission that you're throwing in red herrings.

I have a problem with people trying to poke holes in existing science, as though that validates some other thing. A more direct route through this conversation would've just been to provide evidence for your initial claim.

Yes, I get it, most scientists believe in evolution. If some of us want to discuss specific claims within evolution, what's that to you? I have not claimed that this specific issue invalidates all of evolution.

That's what I'm saying: instead of discussing evolution, you're just sat here providing problems with it, which is counter-productive given that you did have a claim, in the beginning.

[John V]

I have a problem with people trying to poke holes in existing science, as though that validates some other thing.

I didn't claim that the error in his position validates some other thing. You're reading that into my posts.

A more direct route through this conversation would've just been to provide evidence for your initial claim.

That's what I'm saying: instead of discussing evolution, you're just sat here providing problems with it, which is counter-productive given that you did have a claim, in the beginning.

My initial claim in the beginning was:
Most creationist models include some evolution.

Do you really dispute this, or are you referring to something else?

[Rampant.A.I.]

So, my opponent thinks that morphological and genetic analyses lead to the same evolutionary relationships, and this is further evidence that he's wrong.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that's what you accused your opponent of thinking, and he just didn't pick you up on your wording. Of course, he can speak for himself and, given that I disagree with the point you're attempting to disprove too, I don't see much point in bringing that up to me.

No, I did not find refinement, or results that aren't precisely the same. I found results which are totally inconsistent with the accepted classification. You think it seems about right, but the researcher said the results were stunningly different than what we anticipated.

As I said, genetic discoveries can and should supersede the earlier morphological ones where applicable; that's just a process of learning new things using all of our methods for doing so, rather than one at a time. Morphology is a good start, but as we've known for quite a while, the evolutionary lineages of various species aren't as clear as just what looks like what.

I'm presenting evidence, and you're denying it. Ironically that's what I'm being accused of.

Oh, not at all: I accept that the evidence is there, I just disagree the extent to which it reflects upon the rest of evolutionary biology. What you linked to is called learning, not some kind of invalidation of the fact that morphology and genetics show evidence consistent with current evolutionary theory.

Yes, this certainly is evidence supporting my claim that morphologic and genetic analyses indicate different evolutionary relationships, so different that they're called "totally inconsistent" and "stunningly different."

I know that cherry picking comes easily to you, but I did actually read the entire link, and not just the few words you want me to focus on. You're not going to convince anyone that morphology and genetics show completely different things just because some species of salamanders had to be redistributed along the branches of their corner of taxonomy.

Thank God we have Alpha Male to interpret the consensus, and let us know almost every scientist worldwide is wrong about evolution.

An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[3]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_..._evolution

Seems he'd better start emailing Nobel Prize winners and scientists to let them know his competing theory, if he has one other than "I don't get how your research is accurate"

---

I have a problem with people trying to poke holes in existing science, as though that validates some other thing.

I didn't claim that the error in his position validates some other thing. You're reading that into my posts.

A more direct route through this conversation would've just been to provide evidence for your initial claim.

That's what I'm saying: instead of discussing evolution, you're just sat here providing problems with it, which is counter-productive given that you did have a claim, in the beginning.

My initial claim in the beginning was:
Most creationist models include some evolution.

Do you really dispute this, or are you referring to something else?

And yet, you haven't presented a single theory for criticism and peer review, you just keep asking for proof of a negative, that ID is invalid.

Ship's already sailed on that one.

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[19][20][21][22][23] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[24] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[25] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[26][27]

Anyone actually involved in science seems to know ID is just creationist propaganda:

Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[28] pseudoscience,[29][30] or junk science.[31][32] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[33]

All you've done is repeatedly announce skepticism and display ignorance of basic biology, while reinforcing how evolutionary biology is constantly being tested and revised, yet remains the only valid theory.

[xr34p3rx]

why don't we do this. alpha male. you claimed that everything is designed but rephrased it. provide evidence that the world
is designed. you haven't proven anything but try to disprove our evidence that we have actually provided. so provide something. it's really a waste of time debating someone who doesn't stand by and defend their views without even trying to provide some evidence.

[John V]

why don't we do this. alpha male. you claimed that everything is designed but rephrased it. provide evidence that the world
is designed. you haven't proven anything but try to disprove our evidence that we have actually provided. so provide something. it's really a waste of time debating someone who doesn't stand by and defend their views without even trying to provide some evidence.

You asked for an alternative explanation and I gave a possibility. I don't consider ID or creationism to be provable. If you don't like the focus to be on your own claims, then go ahead and stop debating. Won't bother me at all.

[xr34p3rx]

why don't we do this. alpha male. you claimed that everything is designed but rephrased it. provide evidence that the world
is designed. you haven't proven anything but try to disprove our evidence that we have actually provided. so provide something. it's really a waste of time debating someone who doesn't stand by and defend their views without even trying to provide some evidence.

You asked for an alternative explanation and I gave a possibility. I don't consider ID or creationism to be provable. If you don't like the focus to be on your own claims, then go ahead and stop debating. Won't bother me at all.

i never asked for an alternative nor a possibility, my post was:

How do you account for the different races in humanity if your god created only 1 pair of humans in the beginning? wouldnt that require some evolution even if you dont agree with the theory completely?

saying god made it that way doesnt count, that is an assertion and you have to back it up anyway.

however you said:

Things that are designed and have similar appearance and functions will have similar blueprints.

you claimed that design took place, you havent mentioned anything regarding your claim after countless times i have asked you to do so. Along with not providing any argument other than wanting our evidence and you just sit back and deny all of it without making a constructive argument. And as i told you before, it seems like you dont have any argument, you are just another smug believer who thinks you have it right and your opinion is more important and more reliable than real evidence on the subject. You deny because our evidence doesnt match with what you think is evidence? When... WHEN did you ever explained what you find as evidence? you never defined what you believe is evidence. Youre just like ray comfort.

Show me design. until you do so, i wont bother replying...

[Rampant.A.I.]

why don't we do this. alpha male. you claimed that everything is designed but rephrased it. provide evidence that the world
is designed. you haven't proven anything but try to disprove our evidence that we have actually provided. so provide something. it's really a waste of time debating someone who doesn't stand by and defend their views without even trying to provide some evidence.

You asked for an alternative explanation and I gave a possibility. I don't consider ID or creationism to be provable. If you don't like the focus to be on your own claims, then go ahead and stop debating. Won't bother me at all.

So you actually offered nothing as an alternative. It's nice that you recognize ID is unscientific because it's untestable and unprovable, but you didn't even point to something you find compelling.

You have no evidence, no theory other than "man didn't evolve from a common ancestor of apes because I don't like it" and nothing to back up your assertions other than "I don't understand evolutionary biology, paleontology, or genetics: the scientists who do must be wrong, because I don't think we share a common ancestor with apes."

[New Latin Primates, from Latin, plural of primat-, primas] : any of an order (Primates) of mammals that are characterized especially by advanced development of binocular vision, specialization of the appendages for grasping, and enlargement of the cerebral hemispheres and that include humans, apes, monkeys, and related forms (as lemurs and tarsiers)

The only thing you've advanced is "everyone is wrong because I don't like their conclusions."

http://www.askmen.com/top_10/dating/top-...ale_6.html

[xr34p3rx]

You asked for an alternative explanation and I gave a possibility. I don't consider ID or creationism to be provable. If you don't like the focus to be on your own claims, then go ahead and stop debating. Won't bother me at all.

So you actually offered nothing as an alternative.

he claimed design if you look at my last post, but i guess you can say he only offers his infailable opinion... which he cant and doesnt bother to support

[John V]

i never asked for an alternative nor a possibility, my post was:

How do you account for the different races in humanity if your god created only 1 pair of humans in the beginning? wouldnt that require some evolution even if you dont agree with the theory completely?

saying god made it that way doesnt count, that is an assertion and you have to back it up anyway.

however you said:

Things that are designed and have similar appearance and functions will have similar blueprints.

No, I responded to that post by saying:

Yes. Most creationist models include some evolution.

It's in this post. Why are you misrepresenting the conversation?

you claimed that design took place, you havent mentioned anything regarding your claim after countless times i have asked you to do so. Along with not providing any argument other than wanting our evidence and you just sit back and deny all of it without making a constructive argument. And as i told you before, it seems like you dont have any argument, you are just another smug believer who thinks you have it right and your opinion is more important and more reliable than real evidence on the subject. You deny because our evidence doesnt match with what you think is evidence? When... WHEN did you ever explained what you find as evidence? you never defined what you believe is evidence. Youre just like ray comfort.

Show me design. until you do so, i wont bother replying...

In this post I specifically said that I don't accept creationism:

I don't think origins is a study that lends itself well to scientific study, i.e. I don't buy either side. They take the same observable facts and try to hammer them into their existing framework. Sometimes it's a good fit, sometimes not so much.

You're trying to force this into a discussion on creationism because you've failed miserably at supporting your evolution claims, but I've said straight out that I don't consider creationism to be provable.

---

Let me use another post just to make this clear: I do not consider ID or any other flavor of creationism to be provable. If I mention design it's as an opinion, not a scientifically provable fact. Got it?