Christian Evolutionist:

[Heneni]

Autodidact...im going to have to respond to your posts later. But i will, promise. I also have to respond to Penguins. Its rather late here so i have to dash of to bed. Its 1:19 and usually i can stay up much later, but tomorrow i need to go to home office.

Talk later!

Heneni

 

[Luminous]

Why cant you understand fly...that you dont have to know everything about a topic in science to question it.

And as for any scientific study you should first look at the basics. The scientific method used. And THAT is the problem with darwin's evolution theory.

Callupa...fruit flies are great arent they. But i dont think its enough evidence for evoltion per se. Its mutation sure, but not evolution.

Fruit flies of all sorts devolop. Some have a different colour, some have no eyes, some have different wing structures etc...etc...

They still remain a fruit fly. With variations. The fruit fly does not evolve into a mosquito...Its gene's are mutated but its still a fruit fly. Its a mutated fruit fly.

darwin says that we came from a blob of goo...and all of this including the fruit fly is still evolving and evolved from one central place He's wrong. If the fruit fly is the goo we started with...in essence darwin is saying that every specie of plant and animal evolved from a single organism, even more simple than a fruit fly.

Heneni

:yes: I guess the Study of Evolution is like the Study of History, both are NOT sciences. But are you going to believe in history what the evidence tells you or what will make you feel good?

 

[Magic Man]

Im not falling for you little game here.

And by "game" you mean "debate"?

As soon as you questioned my motives i was not willing to talk to you anymore because....this is a forum...not a trial.

No, as soon as someone brought up a point you couldn't counter, you decided to ignore them. Instead of responding to a question with an incriminating answer, you decided to ignore the question.

You're right, this is not a trial. It's a debate forum. In debate forums it's customary to go back and forth. If you bring up a point, support it. If someone else brings up a point, refute it with some kind of evidence. If you ask someone a question, they should answer it honestly. If someone asks you a question, you should answer honestly. It's all part of debating. Maybe the problem is that you need to start with a course in debate before you even work up to something like the subject matter here.

Your going to have to wonder about my motives for another good thousand threads. You were the one who ASSUMED you knew my motives...and now you think that asking me questions is going to mean that i feel compelled to answer you? Go ahead and assume some more then. I dont feel compelled to answer you...and your just gagging along here. If you know something about evolution say so. Im not going to play your little games of pshyco analyses.

Heneni[/quote]

 

[Autodidact]

There is nothing really interesting about evolution.

This is the most ignorant thing you have said in this thread. You don't know what's in evolution, but whatever it is, it's not interesting. I'm interested in the truth. I'm interested in life, how it came to be as it is. Evolution explains that. It's one of the most powerful advances in the history of science. But I guess if you don't understand it, it's not that interesting.

But..you are saying its evolution, because some guy called darwin said it was evolution. So that makes you a darwin disciple not a scientist.

It's evolution in the sense that new species evolved.

Also...i can make fire but i cant make the sun. If you can mutate things, you cant necessarily make them evolve.

Depends what you mean by "evolve." If you make something mutate, and it's no longer the same species, then yes, a new species has now evolved.

Scientifically you have to be able to reproduce the orginal conditions that darwin says was there when evolotion started to prove that its right.

Evolution is happening right now. You don't have to reproduce anything; it's all around us.

Evolutionists are suppose to be able to predict what we will evolve into next.

Says who?

They cant. You can mutate bacteria...mutate flies...mutate mutate..bla bla bla...

Don't worry about people for now. We can cover people later. First just grasp the general theory. So do you agree that new species, such as bacteria, can evolve from existing ones?

BUT you cannot show evolution in mankind can you?

Yes, we have a lot of evidence for that.

What are we evolving into? Can you tell me that?

No, no one knows this.

Can you tell me how we are seeing evolution right before our eyes, WITHOUT the interference of man, i.e mutations in a lab.

Yes, Heneni, quite far back in the thread I cited several instances of speciation observed in nature. Would you like me to repeat that information for you?

And also...evolution in mostly natural surroundings because there is more smog in london than there was billions of years ago...but we dont actually know what things were like billions of years ago do we? Its all a theory.

No, we don't. We have to use science to figure out to the best of our ability. But that's O.K., because evolution is going on right now, all around us.

 

[Sleepr]

No, as soon as someone brought up a point you couldn't counter, you decided to ignore them. Instead of responding to a question with an incriminating answer, you decided to ignore the question.

You're right, this is not a trial. It's a debate forum. In debate forums it's customary to go back and forth. If you bring up a point, support it. If someone else brings up a point, refute it with some kind of evidence. If you ask someone a question, they should answer it honestly. If someone asks you a question, you should answer honestly. It's all part of debating. Maybe the problem is that you need to start with a course in debate before you even work up to something like the subject matter here.

I've posted several that have been ignored. I thought maybe I was posting into a vacuum. :jester3:

 

[Jose Fly]

The very revealing thing here is how Heneni shows up and starts making all sorts of grand sweeping assertions about evolutionary biology, and in doing so reveals a pretty profound ignorance of the very subject.

So logically she is asked how she came to reach such a position given her demonstrated ignorance of the subject, and she immediately clams up and does everything in her power to avoid giving any hint of an answer. Dodge, evade, accuse, avoid....put up post after post....anything rather than explain how she came to be an evolution denier.

Put all that together and we get a good picture of what's behind the events in this thread. Heneni's position isn't about the data or the science of evolutionary biology. How can it be if she's completely ignorant of it? If her position really were based on the data, she would be at least somewhat familiar with it and her posts would reflect that. No, her position is based on something other than the data.

Therefore, it suddenly seems rather pointless to try and discuss the data with her, doesn't it? Why attempt to discuss the data with someone whose position isn't at all based on the data?

And thus we see the reason for the futility of much of this thread. Heneni doesn't "speak the same language" as those of us who know and understand the data. So if anyone is ever going to crack the defensive wall she's erected, it's going to have be with something else...something that she can actually understand.

 

[challupa]

The experiment didn't change me a bit.

That's nice...

 

[Autodidact]

The very revealing thing here is how Heneni shows up and starts making all sorts of grand sweeping assertions about evolutionary biology, and in doing so reveals a pretty profound ignorance of the very subject.

So logically she is asked how she came to reach such a position given her demonstrated ignorance of the subject, and she immediately clams up and does everything in her power to avoid giving any hint of an answer. Dodge, evade, accuse, avoid....put up post after post....anything rather than explain how she came to be an evolution denier.

Put all that together and we get a good picture of what's behind the events in this thread. Heneni's position isn't about the data or the science of evolutionary biology. How can it be if she's completely ignorant of it? If her position really were based on the data, she would be at least somewhat familiar with it and her posts would reflect that. No, her position is based on something other than the data.

Therefore, it suddenly seems rather pointless to try and discuss the data with her, doesn't it? Why attempt to discuss the data with someone whose position isn't at all based on the data?

And thus we see the reason for the futility of much of this thread. Heneni doesn't "speak the same language" as those of us who know and understand the data. So if anyone is ever going to crack the defensive wall she's erected, it's going to have be with something else...something that she can actually understand.

Yes it's interesting. Very few creationists know anything about evolution, yet they know they're against it. Why? I'm guessing that someone they trust, such as a preacher, told them that YEC = creationism, so that their immortal soul depended on not accepting ToE. Then they fed them a lot of lies about ToE, that's it's really atheism, that dinosaur and human footprints have been found together, that ToE depends on what color moths were pinned to some trees in England, or that Piltdown Man matters, etc., and all of those lies together fit into their religious opposition. It's curious that the less people know about evolution, they more likely they are to reject it, and vice versa.

 

[Heneni]

Still no conclusive answer to the following questions:

1. If evolution is still going on...what are humans currently evolving into?

2. If we have been around for millions of years (as humans) why have we only advanced to where we are today and have not advanced MUCH further?

You dont need to understand evolution fully to understand scientific method.

 

[challupa]

Still no conclusive answer to the following questions:

1. If evolution is still going on...what are humans currently evolving into?

2. If we have been around for millions of years (as humans) why have we only advanced to where we are today and have not advanced MUCH further?

You dont need to understand evolution fully to understand scientific method.

Have you seen pictures of our human ancestors? Have you seen pictures of Brad Pitt? Now that's an example of human evolution. :yes:

 

[Autodidact]

Still no conclusive answer to the following questions:

1. If evolution is still going on...what are humans currently evolving into?

No one knows.

2. If we have been around for millions of years (as humans) why have we only advanced to where we are today and have not advanced MUCH further?

This question doesn't make sense. It's like asking, why is the moon so far from the earth and not further. We have evolved the amount we have in the time we've had in which to evolve. There's a lot of math in this, but Biologists tell us that the diversity of life about matches the time there's been for it to have evolved.

I think you need to understand that evolution is about all life, not primarily human life. All life has been evolving for over 3 billion years.

You dont need to understand evolution fully to understand scientific method.

NO, but you need to understand the scientific method to understand evolution. Do you? Do you know what methodological naturalism means?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Still no conclusive answer to the following questions:

1. If evolution is still going on...what are humans currently evolving into?

You've got as conclusive an answer as you're going to get. Nobody knows for sure.

Nobody knows what the weather will be like on October 5 this year either. Does this negate the science of meterology?

2. If we have been around for millions of years (as humans) why have we only advanced to where we are today and have not advanced MUCH further?

Auto already answered this question well, IMO, but I think I should point out something else: I think you're working on a false assumption. Evolution isn't about "advancement" on any sort of objective scale you might have in mind. It's about adaptation to the immediate environment.

Evolution isn't some march to greater and greater progress; it's just about species becoming more suited to the circumstances they find themselves in... and that's it. In some cases (parasites, especially), organisms have actually evolved to be less complex than their ancestors.

Also, it's not like evolution continues at a uniform rate. In simplistic terms, evolution is a feedback system: large changes in species usually need large changes in their environment. Large, well-adapted populations in stable environments don't undergo evolutionary change at high rates; they still experience random mutation, but when the species is well-adapted to its environment begin with, those mutations are less likely to be advantageous.

 

[ThuggishSplicer]

You've got as conclusive an answer as you're going to get. Nobody knows for sure.

Nobody knows what the weather will be like on October 5 this year either. Does this negate the science of meterology?


Auto already answered this question well, IMO, but I think I should point out something else: I think you're working on a false assumption. Evolution isn't about "advancement" on any sort of objective scale you might have in mind. It's about adaptation to the immediate environment.

Evolution isn't some march to greater and greater progress; it's just about species becoming more suited to the circumstances they find themselves in... and that's it. In some cases (parasites, especially), organisms have actually evolved to be less complex than their ancestors.

Also, it's not like evolution continues at a uniform rate. In simplistic terms, evolution is a feedback system: large changes in species usually need large changes in their environment. Large, well-adapted populations in stable environments don't undergo evolutionary change at high rates; they still experience random mutation, but when the species is well-adapted to its environment begin with, those mutations are less likely to be advantageous.

:yes: Yes. Evolution occurs in very small ways, over an elongated period of time.

 

[painted wolf]

Clearly a master of the subject.

Humans around for millions of years. :biglaugh:

wa:do

 

[Jose Fly]

Heneni,

The bigger question is: Why are you asking questions about the data, when your views are based on something else entirely?

Aren't you kind of missing the root issue here?

 

[Renji]

So do you.



Sorry, my bad. You are indeed decendant from an ape. Forgive me, i did not mean to make you feel bad about it.



Yes, well...of course. If you decended from an ape, do you suppose youd be evolving into a alien after this? Just wondering..i mean evolution has the answers right? So what are the human race evolving into? And if evolution is an ongoing thing...it means your are right this moment evolving into something...what will that be then? Or do you get to pick. The rate at which we are destroying this planet..you might want to evolve into something that can survive in space...Not that you are going to evolve into an alien before you die of course...neither will your decendants..if you have any. But its good to dream.

Hello, Heneni. Let me ask you this question. In the Bible, it is said that we humans are created from soil or ash. Science say that we are from ancestral apes. Now, is there any difference from the two? Both the story of creation and evolution state that we, at first are from low- class things (whatever it is).But that doesn't mean that after we are "created" or "evolved", we are low class or low form of life! Instead,we are still superior to other living things (just like what the Bible say and as well as Science) because we have far intelligence from them and a lot more! See? The theory does not contradict the story of creation (which is anyway symbolical) at all.

 

[S-word]

You can be a Christian and believe in evolution. In fact, most pure creationists are dimwitted when I debate them and show how it is impossible to have no evolution. Even the smallest form. God created creatures, and they evolved over time.

I DO NOT believe that "earth is 6000 yrs old" crap due to the evidence in radiometric dating. I have studied evolutionary science, and radiometric systeming, along with ancient Greek, Latin, and Coptic manuscripts for the bible. I have also studied in the areas of historical and theological backgrounds of the bible.

I just noticed this thread and I haven't the time or the inclination to read the previous 300 odd comments that your thread has attracted and I suppose that I am repeating what others have already said, but here goes. "Mate, you're a dart board, waiting for the queue of players to start the game, get ready to duck."

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., Heneni, I'm ready to start presenting evidence. Just want to make sure that you're there and going to read it. Or, is there anyone else reading this thread who denies that ToE is correct? If so please raise your hand.

At this point, Heneni, I'm treating ToE as a hypothesis, and will present a bit of the evidence that persuaded Biology to accept it as a theory. I have a question for you. Remember that I'm stipulating, for the purpose of this thread, that God created every creature on earth. ToE is a hypothesis as to how He created them. What is your hypothesis as to how God created all living things? Would this be right: He magically poofed two of each species into existence around 6000 years ago. Since that time each species has reproduced essentially unchanged, no new species have come into existence since then. Is that right? I don't want to misstate your position, so if this is not right, please correct me. Thank you.

 

[Father Heathen]

Wow. 32 pages. Do you all realize that Heneni was never really interested in any facts or evidence, right? She is just blindly and zealously defending the biblical literalist standpoint. Perhaps her strategy was to hold out for as long as she can until everyone here somehow suffered some sort of severe brain trauma to where they could be coaxed into rejecting the ToE and accepting creationism with a candy bar bribe.

 

[Wandered Off]

1. If evolution is still going on...what are humans currently evolving into?

One answer might be, "creatures better adapted to our environment."