Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

[justatruthseeker]

Apparently you're not really "just a truth seeker".

And yet you “still” haven’t shown one shred of evidence of any creature changing over time into another creature in my quest to seek truth….

So you are saying your no help at all…

 

[justatruthseeker]

Their game is to not address, and to try to shift attention away from their failure to address criticism of the irrational ways in which they are using their words. And, lo and behold! What's one way they love to try to silence said inconvenient criticism? Why, they love to reflexively throw at it the word, "semantics," hoping that so doing will somehow have a belittling effect against their critics. Over the years I've asked numerous people, in various contexts--people who have called my annoying questioning of certain ways in which they have chosen to use certain words they have chosen to use, and who then have tried to lash out at me for it by calling my questioning, "obsession with semantics," and such--I've asked them exactly why they imagine that the word, "semantics," has some sort of use as a pejorative. And, you know what? Not a one of them has ever even let on like they saw this question; much less has any of them ever tried to answer it.

Semantics, really, is just a concern with questions of meaning. Nothing wrong with that. When you say something, and someone asks you critical questions so as to try to find out just what (if anything) you mean by it, and you find yourself cornered into reacting to their questions by saying something like, "You're just obsessed with semantics!" you might want to pause to give some honest consideration as to which of you has the upper hand in the situation: you or your critic/questioner.

All fine except every single person on here understands quite well what I mean when I say there is exactly “zero” evidence of any creature in the fossil record changing over time.

So then trying to divert to semantics is just that… a diversion tactic to avoid discussing the fact that they can’t show one single creature in the fossil record who’s fossils show any change over time.

This has nothing to do with semantics, but avoidance as they have no evidence to submit and they know it…

 

[justatruthseeker]

There are plenty of other verses in the Bible to show what is written in that passage, enough that even if you exclude it, it's still more than enough to make a case.

But that's a topic for a different thread.

Agreed it’s a topic for a different thread…. But that’s about it…

 

[justatruthseeker]

We don't still have copies of the Bible older than the earliest record of the wording of 1 John 5:7. Besides, there were different versions of the Bible in the earliest centuries of the Church Age with some of the oldest versions or copies showing signs of some of the worst corruptions.

It doesn’t first appear until around 1515 and we have copies much older than that…

 

[7djengo7]

And yet you “still” haven’t shown one shred of evidence of any creature changing over time into another creature in my quest to seek truth….

No creature has ever changed into another creature. Your dog, Rosie, gave birth to a puppy, Rover. Rosie's one creature, and Rover's another creature. Rosie did not change into Rover. Rosie did not become Rover.

So, as long as Darwinists, by their "evolved into" lingo mean gave birth to descendants, they cannot possibly mean that the progenitors changed into their progeny.

 

[Derf]

And yet you “still” haven’t shown one shred of evidence of any creature changing over time into another creature in my quest to seek truth….

So you are saying your no help at all…

Butterflies and moths both change from one creature into another over time. Tadpoles change into frogs. The fossil record probably has examples of these changes, but I haven't looked, since we can observe the changes directly.

 

[Stripe]

Tadpoles change into frogs.

Over time?

 

[Derf]

Over time?

Sure. Haven't you ever seen a frog with a tail?

 

[7djengo7]

Butterflies and moths both change from one creature into another

But every butterfly is an individual, and it is the same individual emerging out of its chrysalis that it already was at the moment it had first hatched out of its egg; it's not now another individual than the individual that it was all along.

 

[Derf]

But every butterfly is an individual, and it is the same individual emerging out of its chrysalis that it already was at the moment it had first hatched out of its egg; it's not now another individual than the individual that it was all along.

Which is the exact criterion @justatruthseeker was requesting.

And yet you “still” haven’t shown one shred of evidence of any creature changing over time into another creature in my quest to seek truth….

"Any creature changing into another creature". Most evolutionists would deny that such would fit their definition of evolution, so it's of little use, but that's what he asked for.

 

[7djengo7]

Which is the exact criterion @justatruthseeker was requesting.

"Any creature changing into another creature". Most evolutionists would deny that such would fit their definition of evolution, so it's of little use, but that's what he asked for.

Is a creature not an individual? What would a creature be if not an individual?

I don't know that I have ever been given a definition by a Darwinist, of anything. Many times Darwinists have handed me some gobbledygook and erroneously called their gobbledygook, "definition". But what is not cognitively meaningful is no definition.

 

[Derf]

Is a creature not an individual? What would a creature be if not an individual?

I don't know that I have ever been given a definition by a Darwinist, of anything. Many times Darwinists have handed me some gobbledygook and erroneously called their gobbledygook, "definition". But what is not cognitively meaningful is no definition.

Agreed. That's why I think it's important to be as precise as possible in our challenges.

 

[justatruthseeker]

No creature has ever changed into another creature. Your dog, Rosie, gave birth to a puppy, Rover. Rosie's one creature, and Rover's another creature. Rosie did not change into Rover. Rosie did not become Rover.

So, as long as Darwinists, by their "evolved into" lingo mean gave birth to descendants, they cannot possibly mean that the progenitors changed into their progeny.

My dog and every other dog has always been a dog and will be dogs until the end of time…. It was never a fish at any point in history….

 

[justatruthseeker]

Butterflies and moths both change from one creature into another over time. Tadpoles change into frogs. The fossil record probably has examples of these changes, but I haven't looked, since we can observe the changes directly.

No they don’t. That caterpillar that becomes a butterfly is simply a baby butterfly. You confuse metamorphosis with evolution. Just as that tadpole is a baby frog…

 

[justatruthseeker]

Which is the exact criterion @justatruthseeker was requesting.

"Any creature changing into another creature". Most evolutionists would deny that such would fit their definition of evolution, so it's of little use, but that's what he asked for.

No it’s not…. Tadpoles to frogs is the lifecycle of the frog. The tadpole is a baby frog.

In order for evolution to be true one creature must become a totally different creature over time through mutation, of which no evidence exists.

Or are you going to argue that the apelike creature we are claimed to have evolved from was our baby selves and we metamorphosed into humans like a tadpole to a frog????

If so support your argument or was your tadpole to frog example just another avoidance?

 

[justatruthseeker]

Is a creature not an individual? What would a creature be if not an individual?

I don't know that I have ever been given a definition by a Darwinist, of anything. Many times Darwinists have handed me some gobbledygook and erroneously called their gobbledygook, "definition". But what is not cognitively meaningful is no definition.

It’s like species. Ask them to give a definition they’ll accept and in 10 seconds they’ll be running from their own definition as if it was burning them….

 

[justatruthseeker]

Which is the exact criterion @justatruthseeker was requesting.

"Any creature changing into another creature". Most evolutionists would deny that such would fit their definition of evolution, so it's of little use, but that's what he asked for.

Not one evolutionists would deny that an apelike creature evolved “changed” into humans…

And they’ll be happy to point you to all their imaginary missing common ancestors to prove it…

 

[Derf]

No they don’t. That caterpillar that becomes a butterfly is simply a baby butterfly. You confuse metamorphosis with evolution. Just as that tadpole is a baby frog…

Yes, but if we didn't have examples of Lepidoptera and frogs living today, one would be hard pressed to determine from the fossil record that they were the same kind of creature (caterpillar/moth or tadpole/frog). But even still, finding a tadpole and a frog in fossilized forms would not mean that the particular tadpole became the particular frog, even if they are of the same species. That particular tadpole did not become that particular frog, because we have two particular fossils (in my example).

 

[marke]

It doesn’t first appear until around 1515 and we have copies much older than that…

The wording appears in 1st century documents. Even some of the earliest records available prove some Bible translations were corrupt. Bible translators of the 15th or 16th century did not invent the phrase from nothing.

 

[marke]

Butterflies and moths both change from one creature into another over time. Tadpoles change into frogs. The fossil record probably has examples of these changes, but I haven't looked, since we can observe the changes directly.

Evolutionists believe birds turned into dinosaurs and fish grew legs and walked out onto dry land to start eating vegetables and insects. Evolution is a fictional children's fairy tale.