Summations Only

being unfalsifiable. Being mostly rehashed PRATTs of creationists that is no surprise.And welcome to the frayEnjoy

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Could you please learn to use the individual reply button for replying to individuals you quote?

That (1) makes your argument easier to follow and (2) LINKs the posts so you can review the previous one. It also sends an email to the person if they are set up that way.Thanks.

Several things.The most convincing is probably the fact that evolution occurs every day, in every species known, that there is no species on earth where evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - does not occur. It's possible you may also learn something about reality, what evolution really is and how we can apply it to the evidence of evolution in the past.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Welcome to the fray Beretta, Some hints to make your posts better:type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

also check out (help) links on formating questions when in the reply window.You can also use the {PEEK} function to see how any message is formated -- and the way this is done: This helps other follow your posts in a familiar way.... now for some comments: LOL. The problem is that what you think, what you personally understand, and who you feel makes more sense, all have absolutely no bearing on what is true.This is the basic problem with creationist thinking in general and teaching ID in specific ... just to use an example that takes a nod in the direction of the topic ... because they have nothing to add to what we know is real and true from science and the study of evidence. This too is going off-topic, but it is evident that you don't really understand evolution as a starting point, so what you question is very likely a false impression. For example this statement shows a false impression of what evolution is: SCREEEEAAATTTCH!!!That is the sound of moving goalposts. You asked for an example of evidence for evolution, not macroevolution. The problem you face now is defining macroevolution so that (a) we can talk about the same meaning and (b) we can see if you really understand evolution and what the science of evolution says about macroevolution.Ways to tell a creationist type posting include (1) post not on topic, (2) moving goalposts, and (3) using terms to mean something other than the way they are used in science, things like claiming that evolution is not evolution.Please go to MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?, read it first before adding to it (so you don't repeat errors already made by others). So far no creationist has managed to define macroevolution properly, so you could be a first.You may also want to visit Questioning The Evolutionary Process, read your way through it and see if you learn anything. Yes, but we kind of expect new-comers in general and creationists in specific to go off-topic based on general experience. This is a learning process. The basic reason is that staying on topic makes each thread focussed and usable as a reference for other discussions, and the secondary reason is that threads are limited to ~300 posts, so posts that are not on topic waste space for those people who do want to post on topic.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

... about teaching ID. Really? Perhaps you would like to test your hypothesis then. Let's use this as an example of how ID can be taught in public school science classes ... you know, something along the lines of the topic? Then why don't you substantiate this on your Your reason for accepting evolution where this (and the false dichotomy you are still repeating) are challenged? Why dodge back here where you are off topic? Such a red-herring logical fallacy argument as this is, does not refute the issue that creationists in general, and you in specific do not seem to understand evolution. If you do not understand evolution then you are not -- cannot be -- arguing about evolution.But the real issue on this thread is teaching ID, not creationism or the failure to understand evolution. Let us start with testing the truth of the evidence and see where it leads for ID and for science without ID. and Again this is something you should be discussing on your Your reason for accepting evolution and not here, as it has nothing to do with ID or teaching ID. This is the second time you mentioned brainwashing. Perhaps you would like to substantiate this assertion on How can Biologists believe in the ToE?? So far no creationist has substantiated this kind of claim. Certainly if you are talking about truth derived from evidence you have some, otherwise it is just self-delusion.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : reduced

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

But not here, do it on Your reason for accepting evolution that was started by Beretta, supposedly so he could discuss this where it isn't off topic.

A fuller reply is Message 18, where it is much more on topic.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Hi swensenpower and welcome to the fray. Except that scientists are investigating abiogenesis based on the knowledge we have, knowledge we have gained by doing science on early rock formations and bits of atmosphere trapped in rocks, by looking at the chemical compounds in rocks from those ages compared to those we see today.Scientists are also investigating the hypothesis of natural formation of life.See Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I)
and Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II).The number of scientists doing science on the beginning of life on earth is several orders of magnitude greater than the number of scientists doing science on ID. To make it into a science classroom you need to have scientific evidence and tested hypothesis that gave us new information through predictions of evidence that was then found. No, but belief is not a substitute for knowledge, especially knowledge based on evidence. Better tell the abiogenecists ... those who are doing experiments on determining what the conditions were like (the ones increasing our knowledge of what the early earth was like rather than just throwing up there hands and saying "we don't know") and those doing experiments on the feasible means for life to occur in those environmentss.Enough for now, as you are getting information from a lot of people that you need to assimilate.Enjoy.

Hi NoNukes Yep

quote:

---

The Law of Biogenesis:

​

Claim CB000: Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous generation and established the "law of biogenesis" -- that life comes only from previous life.

​

Source: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 38.

​

Response: The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.

---

One of the more simplistic PRATTs.Creationists and IDologists would be well served to study the PRATT list by Talk Origins
An Index to Creationist ClaimsAIG also maintains a PRATT list ... thought they call it "a list of arguments creationists should avoid" ... (unsaid: because you will get your head handed to you) at
Arguments to Avoid Topic | Answers in Genesis Enjoy.