Octopus And Squid Evolution Is Officially Stranger Than We Could Have Ever Imagined

SoldierMan

Active Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2020
Messages
460
You are still using a single person's opinion as "proof". Facts do not work that way, SoldierBoy.

Ah.. now you are getting somewhere. Baby steps, but starting to think is a good start. Well done.


Abiogenesis is not necessary to prove evolution; evolution provides some insight into some theories of how life started but it does not rely on any of them in itself.

Of course, for you, abiogeneis must be linked to evolution in your strawman; because you rely on the goddunnit model of the start of life as your basis for arguing Intelligent Design (not that you have provided any evidence yet...)

Hahahaha and you are using YOUR opinion as fact :D Oh the hypocrisy!!!

Without abiogenesis evolution is dead in the water.

You are ASSUMING abiogenesis, that's not how science works. You are taking a SUPPOSED process, molecules to man creation, and removing the most important part, THE BEGINNING, and then just pointing to evolution to say look macro-evolution is true. Macro-evolution has never been observed, never been repeated, never been tested. It is a fantasy.

You always say prove God if you want to use ID.

Well the same applies for you, if you want to use macro-evolution then prove abiogenesis, otherwise all you are doing is pointing to a finished product, like the cell, the most complex thing in the universe nevermind earth, as evidence of evolution. It's nonsense. It can just as easily be held up as evidence of a creator.

 

scudsucker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
849
Without abiogenesis evolution is dead in the water.
No, your strawman is dead in the water. Evolution is fine, thanks for asking.
You are ASSUMING abiogenesis, that's not how science works.
No assumption necessary.
You are taking a SUPPOSED process, molecules to man creation, and removing the most important part, THE BEGINNING,
Important to your strawman, sure.
and then just pointing to evolution to say look macro-evolution is true.
I'd dispute your categorisations of "macro" and "micro" evolution. Both are the same process, which has been demonstrated to be true. Even you have admitted that your "micro" evolution can be observed. You are halfway to enlightenment.
Macro-evolution has never been observed, never been repeated, never been tested. It is a fantasy.
This is entirely your framing.
You always say prove God if you want to use ID.
I'm more than willing to listen to an argument for ID that does not include god, if you have anything.
Well the same applies for you, if you want to use macro-evolution then prove abiogenesis, otherwise all you are doing is pointing to a finished product, like the cell, the most complex thing in the universe nevermind earth, as evidence of evolution. It's nonsense. It can just as easily be held up as evidence of a creator.
Once again, your strawman.

Why are you so vociferously arguing about what you think I should prove, why don't you concentrate on providing evidence for what you think is true? Could it be because you have none?
 
Last edited:

Spizz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
2,676
Location
Her*anus
Calling it micro and macro evolution is the result of people not understanding just how long these processes take.

“Ah but macro evolution hasn’t been observed. “

Lol, obviously. Evolution has only been an actual idea for less than 200 years. And if that’s not enough time for people to evolve to stop believing in a god and climb out of their dark age beliefs, it’s certainly not enough time to observe the changes the ID lot all seemed want as proof.
 

Prom

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2020
Messages
82
So you think lying in court is not admirable? But then, you are supporting Mr. Ruse lying in court because he might otherwise receive a "backlash" for telling the "truth".

Poor guy, his fans might not like what he is telling the court, so better he perjure himself.

I'm not sure if you recall what happens in court, but this is where you religious dudes swear on a bible - make an oath - that you are telling the truth. I have no idea if Mr. Ruse used a bible, but he would have sworn a solemn oath that he was telling the truth.
Where do I support lying in court? Stop with making up stuff to suit your narrative.

I just don't understand you religious people. Your god says, "do not lie" but yet you lie and support lies. Yet you still think you are following the words of this god. There is a fundamental dichotomy here that you do not see.
Again stop making up shit. Also nice broad brush you are using there.
 

Prom

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2020
Messages
82
Calling it micro and macro evolution is the result of people not understanding just how long these processes take.

“Ah but macro evolution hasn’t been observed. “

Lol, obviously. Evolution has only been an actual idea for less than 200 years. And if that’s not enough time for people to evolve to stop believing in a god and climb out of their dark age beliefs, it’s certainly not enough time to observe the changes the ID lot all seemed want as proof.
 

Prom

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2020
Messages
82
Erm, yeah. Gotcha. Reading back the first paragraph is clumsy and doesn’t make much sense.

I meant, saying micro is real and macro is not is a typical Creationist argument. They are both part of the same process. It’s evolution.
But they are not the same process. It's not creationists which came up with the different concepts, and prominent evolutionists have admitted that micro is observed but macro is not.
 

scudsucker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
849
But they are not the same process.
Nonsense
It's not creationists which came up with the different concepts, and prominent evolutionists have admitted that micro is observed but macro is not.
It may be "prominent evolutionists" (by the way, can you name and cite one?) but it would also be prominent geologists, mathematicians, astrophysicists, reiki practitioners, adult masseurs... really, anyone who has any idea about how very long the timescales of evolution are.

(For you religious types, that is more than 6000 years, by the way)

If you think there are differences between "macro" and "micro" evolution, could you explain what they are? Can you please explain where the line gets drawn between "micro" evolution, which you appear to accept, and "macro" which you deny?
 

Prom

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2020
Messages
82
Says you again ignoring anything that's brought to the table.

It may be "prominent evolutionists" (by the way, can you name and cite one?) but it would also be prominent geologists, mathematicians, astrophysicists, reiki practitioners, adult masseurs... really, anyone who has any idea about how very long the timescales of evolution are.

(For you religious types, that is more than 6000 years, by the way)

If you think there are differences between "macro" and "micro" evolution, could you explain what they are? Can you please explain where the line gets drawn between "micro" evolution, which you appear to accept, and "macro" which you deny?
You'll just ignore it again. Like you ignore everything that doesn't fit with your narrow word view.
 

scudsucker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
849
Says you again ignoring anything that's brought to the table.


You'll just ignore it again. Like you ignore everything that doesn't fit with your narrow word view.
An impressively ironic post - well done.

Also, re "narrow world view" - Jumping Jimmy Jesus doesn't like liars & hypocrites.
 

scudsucker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
849
The Philosophy (NSFW) forum is still open.

We can ask questions like, "if God is an octopus, why can't we all change colours" or, "is an AK-47 functionally equivalent to an AR-15 and if not, why not" etc
 
Top