Evolution Vs. Creationism

[Gloone]

Post #247

That post was directed at you too. And again thanks for the laugh tumbleweed. When you are done willy waggin around the OP and want to debate the topic, let me know.

 

[Gloone]

Highlighted is the relevant statement that Outhouse quoted. And its still wrong.

Okay well provide evidence that evolution is there to prove the origins of life.

 

[McBell]

Okay well provide evidence that evolution is there to prove the origins of life.

nice try.
The fact is that evolution has nothing to say about how life began.
Evolution IS, regardless of your repeated claimed, about how life evolves.

 

[darkendless]

I was unaware Evolution now covers the origins of life and how it began

 

[Gloone]

nice try.
The fact is that evolution has nothing to say about how life began.
Evolution IS, regardless of your repeated claimed, about how life evolves.

I never made any such claims. While you are at tell me what EVOLUTION IS since you seem to know so much more about it than everyone else.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Most of what you said is totally incorrect.

Evolution is not about the origins of life

This is totally correct.

Evolution is not about....how they evolve.

This is totally incorrect. The very word means to evolve.

It is about a quirky little term called organism

Not really. Evolution is about change over time concerning that which is organic. While this isn't the only type of evolution this is the one we're talking about in this thread which centers around biology (the study of the living).

which can mean just about anything anyone wants it to be.

If it can't be studied in view of biology then it can't be what you want it to be.

For one a living thing such as an animal is something that has the ability to interact with the world independently. They have brains, they can do different tasks like build houses out of their environment to live in, gather food, etc.

OK...

Other organism such as plants can’t do that. They are pretty much stationary and rely on photosynthesis to grow. And require the interaction of other animals or the environment to spread seeds around so they can reproduce and re-grow in other places. That is nature not evolution.

Which further shows you truly know nothing about evolution what it says and how it works.

Plant Evolution
The above link will help you. Do you dare click the link to learn or will you pass it up to keep spreading ignorance? I could give you a plethora of information regarding the actual study of plants and how they evolve but the link above should be enough.

plants .....require the interaction of other animals or the environment to spread seeds around so they can reproduce and re-grow in other places.....

Not totally correct.

Cactus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Some species of cacti such as Toumaya Papyracantha (formerly Pediocactus Papyracantha -- found in the high mesas of New Mexico) are mycorhizzial symbiots with the roots of various species of grasses and grow underground on the roots of these wild grasses, only emerging above ground and initiating photosysthesis for sexual reproduction and flowering, forming deciduous cactus bodies that die back in winter or during droughts.

The very existence of plants is due to evolution at work......

 

[tumbleweed41]

That post was directed at you too. And again thanks for the laugh tumbleweed. When you are done willy waggin around the OP and want to debate the topic, let me know.

This from the guy who posts an article on over-generalization as related to biological evolution. An article that is counter to his own claim.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Okay craphouse,

BTW, resorting to childish name calling does nothing to endear anyone to your point of view.

 

[Gloone]

I see no similarities in something like a animal that I would consider to be living opposed to a plant, virus or bacteria. - They are non-living. … and that goes back to my repeated claim that evolutionist or people that follow evolution are stuck on generalizations and tend to overgeneralize everything.

 

[Gloone]

BTW, resorting to childish name calling does nothing to endear anyone to your point of view.

care to add anything else.

 

[tumbleweed41]

and.... care to add anything else.

Yes...

I see no similarities in something like a animal that I would consider to be living opposed to a plant, virus or bacteria. - They are non-living. …

Does your ignorance of biology hinder you in your day to day life?

 

[Gloone]

Yes...


Does your ignorance of biology hinder you in your day to day life?

No because I know enough about plants, and bacteria to know that they are to dependent on their natural surroundings to be consider living.

 

[tumbleweed41]

No because I know enough about plants, and bacteria to know that they are to dependent on their natural surroundings to be consider living.

And this, my friends, is why Gloone will never understand anything about evolutionary biology.

'Nuff said.

 

[Gloone]

And this, my friends, is why Gloone will never understand anything about evolutionary biology.

'Nuff said.

Have fun talking to your plants.

 

[outhouse]

evolutionist or people that follow evolution are stuck on generalizations and tend to overgeneralize everything.

you dug a deep hole and jumped in head first.

you mean people that believe in evolution tend to be highly educated individuals that understand reason, logic and common sense and explain this very well with patients to uneducated people who blindly follow myths and superstition and wallow in ignorance who cannot grasp reality?? :sleep:

 

[tumbleweed41]

I see no similarities in something like a animal that I would consider to be living opposed to a plant, virus or bacteria. - They are non-living. … and that goes back to my repeated claim that evolutionist or people that follow evolution are stuck on generalizations and tend to overgeneralize everything.

No because I know enough about plants, and bacteria to know that they are to dependent on their natural surroundings to be consider living.

Have fun talking to your plants.

 

[McBell]

Evolution is not about the origins of life or how they evolve.

nice try.
The fact is that evolution has nothing to say about how life began.
Evolution IS, regardless of your repeated claimed, about how life evolves.

I never made any such claims.

the hell you didn't:

Evolution is not about the origins of life or how they evolve.

Evolution is not about the origins of life or how they evolve.

There is TWICE, in two separate posts.

While you are at tell me what EVOLUTION IS since you seem to know so much more about it than everyone else.

Why should I bother?
I mean honestly, why should I?

You have been offered to be taught evolution one on one by Autodidact.
And she knows tons more about evolution than I do.
Yet you refuse to learn.

 

[McBell]

No because I know enough about plants, and bacteria to know that they are to dependent on their natural surroundings to be consider living.

 

[McBell]

And this, my friends, is why Gloone will never understand anything about evolutionary biology.

'Nuff said.

and to think, had I not removed him from ignore I would have missed hearing it from his mouth first...

 

[Gloone]

Why should I bother?
I mean honestly, why should I?

You have been offered to be taught evolution one on one by Autodidact.
And she knows tons more about evolution than I do.
Yet you refuse to learn.

You are backpedaling. Either you have something to add or you don't. It just that simple. It isn't like you have to decide between tying your shoes and walking outside.

and to think, had I not removed him from ignore I would have missed hearing it from his mouth first...

Put me back on your ignore list please. It will save you the trouble of trying to have an intelligent debate or discussion.