Originally posted by @lemon-lime
[b]Evolutionists WANT to know how life got here but that is a discipline not in their kit bag.
And yet, you are old enough to know that it was in their kit bag. Before it was called 'abiogenesis' the name for it was 'chemical evolution'. But this name change only came about after years of looking for proof (or any real evidence) of it happe ...[text shortened]... on, rather than allowing evidence to point them toward a (viable, workable, realistic) position.[/b]
Before it was called 'abiogenesis' the name for it was 'chemical evolution'.
No, 'abiogenesis' is stilled called 'abiogenesis'.
But this name change only came about after years of looking for proof (or any real evidence) ..
No, nobody has been looking for "years" for proof of abiogenesis; it has been for a long time self-evident that life must have had a beginning.
And equally amazing is how changing 'natural selection' to 'micro-evolution' has
No, 'natural selection' is still called 'natural selection' and 'micro-evolution' is still called 'micro-evolution' and the two are said to be totally different things, because, by definition, they are.
It's simply wordplay, and wordplay is the practice of politicians... not scientists.
No, this wordplay is only yours.
20 Aug 17
3 edits
Originally posted by @chaney3Why? What has that got to do with anything?
Can one of you 'brilliant' science guys please explain what happened before the big bang, and before evolution?
No scientist pretends or claims to know everything; if that is what you are implying?
Actually, it just so happens we can explain a great deal about before biological evolution, such as how the Earth and Sun formed. But if we hypothetically couldn't explain any of that, so what?
20 Aug 17
Originally posted by @chaney3Would chaney believe us if we answered these questions?
Can one of you 'brilliant' science guys please explain what happened before the big bang, and before evolution?
No, because chaney has already made up his mind. He doesn't want to learn. Because he think he doesn't need to.
Chaney chose to stay in ignorance.
20 Aug 17
Originally posted by @humyOuchBefore it was called 'abiogenesis' the name for it was 'chemical evolution'.
No, 'abiogenesis' is stilled called 'abiogenesis'.But this name change only came about after years of looking for proof (or any real evidence) ..
No, nobody has been looking for "years" for proof of abiogenesis; it has been for a long tim ...[text shortened]... y is the practice of politicians... not scientists. [/quote]
No, this wordplay is only yours.
20 Aug 17
Originally posted by @humythanks for the update
'abiogenesis' is stilled called 'abiogenesis'.
21 Aug 17
Originally posted by @lemon-limeNo, 'update' is still called 'update' and 'noun' is still called 'noun' and the two are said to be totally different things, because, by definition, they are.
[b]up•date
noun
(ˈəpˌdāt)
1. an act of bringing something or someone up to date, or an updated version of something.
"an update on recently published crime figures"[/b]
21 Aug 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @freakykbh*groan* Okay, ya got me there. Good catch.
No, 'update' is still called 'update' and 'noun' is still called 'noun' and the two are said to be totally different things, because, by definition, they are.
btw, do you think we might be enjoying all this a smidgen too much?
Yes, yes, I know... it goes without saying...
We can never have too much smidgen.
Originally posted by @lemon-limeCorrection: calling it a name change was wrong... I should have proof read that before posting it.
[b]Evolutionists WANT to know how life got here but that is a discipline not in their kit bag.
And yet, you are old enough to know that it was in their kit bag. Before it was called 'abiogenesis' the name for it was 'chemical evolution'. But this name change only came about after years of looking for proof (or any real evidence) of it happe ...[text shortened]... on, rather than allowing evidence to point them toward a (viable, workable, realistic) position.[/b]
The name 'abiogenesis' obviously came first, and at one time (circa 50s, 60s and perhaps 70s) was synonymous with 'chemical evolution'. But at some point I stopped seeing the term 'chemical evolution'... so calling it a name change was not accurate. The point I wanted to get across is how the term 'chemical evolution' somehow seemed to disappear around the same time 'abiogenesis' was being quietly shepherded out of the house of evolution.
As for my being told natural selection is not the same as micro-evolution, this is news to me. In every evolution debate I've seen and been a part of I've been told they are the same, and I'm frankly surprised to see a proponent of evolution telling me natural selection is not synonymous with micro-evolution.
21 Aug 17
Originally posted by @lemon-limeI'm guessing (again), but my hunch is that once they've identified a person, pegged their position on [whatever] topic, they operate from a position of contrarian: no matter what the person says, it will be wrong.
Correction: calling it a name change was wrong... I should have proof read that before posting it.
The name 'abiogenesis' obviously came first, and at one time (circa 50s, 60s and perhaps 70s) was synonymous with 'chemical evolution'. But at some point I stopped seeing the term 'chemical evolution'... so calling it a name change was not accurate. The ...[text shortened]... ee a proponent of evolution telling me natural selection is not synonymous with micro-evolution.
If the person makes a statement they cannot disagree with, they will 'congratulate' the person for finally getting something right.
Often times (as seen here), they will argue against a point they otherwise agree with--- and run with it hard--- simply because they were already heading that direction, i.e., to run the person into the ground with their hard, cold facts of knowledge nuggets, and their enthusiasm takes them right away with the stream.
Speaking truth is not an option for them, since their position is dictated by whatever the other is for, they must surely be against.
They cannot concede even blatant facts if it supports the other; they cannot acknowledge truth.
Not even a smidgen.
21 Aug 17
Originally posted by @lemon-limeTerminological evolution 😉
Correction: calling it a name change was wrong... I should have proof read that before posting it.
The name 'abiogenesis' obviously came first, and at one time (circa 50s, 60s and perhaps 70s) was synonymous with 'chemical evolution'. But at some point I stopped seeing the term 'chemical evolution'... so calling it a name change was not accurate. The ...[text shortened]... ee a proponent of evolution telling me natural selection is not synonymous with micro-evolution.
As scientists study and learn new things about the concepts they are studying, some terms get discarded or favored over others. Obviously this isn't a new phenomenon. I don't know much about the term "chemical evolution" per se, but it does seem to invoke a lot of confusion since most people are used to hearing about evolution in purely biological contexts. The proposed mechanisms for abiogenesis isn't even remotely the same as biological evolution. It appears the scientific community started using abiogenesis because it was simply more precise (and therefore preferred).
We used to say that 98% of the genome was "junk" because it didn't code for any mRNA. Now we don't say that anymore, because someone found out some of it does really important stuff. Now the correct term (for the same thing) is "non-coding"
21 Aug 17
Originally posted by @lemon-lime"Micro-evolution," when used by creationists, is an attempt to shift the goalposts in order to accept the existence of DNA and mutations but reject the theory of evolution.
Correction: calling it a name change was wrong... I should have proof read that before posting it.
The name 'abiogenesis' obviously came first, and at one time (circa 50s, 60s and perhaps 70s) was synonymous with 'chemical evolution'. But at some point I stopped seeing the term 'chemical evolution'... so calling it a name change was not accurate. The ...[text shortened]... ee a proponent of evolution telling me natural selection is not synonymous with micro-evolution.
Read more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution#Use_in_creationism
21 Aug 17
Originally posted by @freakykbhFor me it's more than a hunch, and there is no guess-work involved.
I'm guessing (again), but my hunch is that once they've identified a person, pegged their position on [whatever] topic, they operate from a position of contrarian: no matter what the person says, it will be wrong.
If the person makes a statement they cannot disagree with, they will 'congratulate' the person for finally getting something right.
Often tim ...[text shortened]... n blatant facts if it supports the other; they cannot acknowledge truth.
Not even a smidgen.
I first began talking to both creationists and evolutionists online in the late 90s, and was fired on by both sides (mostly evolutionists).
It was like stumbling into a war zone. And here I was thinking 'debate' meant conversation on subjects where people didn't necessarily agree with one another...
Good example of an understatement, eh?
21 Aug 17
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraAre you suggesting humy recently participated in shifting an evolutionary goal post? If you were paying attention you might have noticed we (seem to) agree that NS and micro-E are not the same thing.
"Micro-evolution," when used by creationists, is an attempt to shift the goalposts in order to accept the existence of DNA and mutations but reject the theory of evolution.
Read more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution#Use_in_creationism
21 Aug 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassEvolution of terminology is something I can agree with.
Terminological evolution 😉
As scientists study and learn new things about the concepts they are studying, some terms get discarded or favored over others. Obviously this isn't a new phenomenon. I don't know much about the term "chemical evolution" per se, but it does seem to invoke a lot of confusion since most people are used to hearing about evoluti ...[text shortened]... ome of it does really important stuff. Now the correct term (for the same thing) is "non-coding"
I began studying evolution in the early sixties. Was working and married (with children) in the late 70s so didn't have a lot of spare time to keep up with new developments. First got online mid-90s and was able to get back into it... so was out of the loop for about 20 years.
A lot can change in 20 years, but the info I'm able to get online more than makes up for it, and was able to catch up with little effort.
Anywho, this is a little background info about me personally. Have more to say but right now the eclipse is happening, and people are calling and texting me like crazy... why I don't know, it's not like no one saw this coming.