Notices
Results 1 to 52 of 52

Thread: To people against evolution

  1. #1 To people against evolution 
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    I'm just curious, but what makes YOU think that YOU are qualified to speak up against evolution and proclaim that its false when 98% of scientists say that evolution is a reality?


    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    I should also say that scientists are EXPERTS in the field who have studied evolution in a lab.


    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Since this is in the "scientific study of religion" section I must presume that you are addressing religions that have adopted an anti-scientific agenda.

    Clearly they have no say at all in the direction of scientific inquiry and thus they are properly ignored in the sciences as are all religious opinions.

    I think what archeologist has made clear with his dire warnings that we turn from our sinful ways is that he and perhaps the rest of his cult believe that their god has prohibited scientific inquiry into the questions of the origin of the species and the origin of life, just as they believe that their god has prohibited certain expressions of love and certain medical proceedures. In fact it seems clear that their god has prohibited the asking of certain questions, thinking of various thoughts and perhaps even feeling some kinds of emotion.

    If you think about the Amish and how much of modern life is prohibited to them and how narrowly their lives are restricted, then archeologist's sort of religion becomes a bit more understandable in that context, as another of these religious groups that think that the way of life in the middle ages is the way their god wants them to live. They just represent different degrees and aspects of the same thing.

    But we can tolerate and even admire the Amish because they mind their own business, and so how they live their own lives is nobody's business but their own. But add an aggressively evangelical aspect to these people and they are no longer tolerable let alone admirable. It is like the difference between a homosexual and a sexual predator.

    Therefore, I am not sure that such people (of this agressively evangelistic Amish sort) should not be forceably removed to some reservation in much the same way that troublemakers disrupting the proper educational function of a school are expelled from school. Let us not forget that it is undeniable that some religions (take the Aztec religion of human sacrifice, for example) are simply incompatable with a free society.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: To people against evolution 
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    I'm just curious, but what makes YOU think that YOU are qualified to speak up against evolution and proclaim that its false when 98% of scientists say that evolution is a reality?
    I'm not one of those people, but the argument from majority/authority is not compelling. Before evolution was introduced, the scientific consensus was against it. Ditto relativity. Science thrives on the notion that the consensus can be overturned with sufficiently compelling and well-tested evidence. The problem for creationists is that they've taken the tribulations of the other great theories as some sort of evidence that they themselves will usher a scientific revolution because they are now facing the ridicule and scepticism that were directed at Einstein or Darwin. What they haven't worked out is that the same ridicule and scepticism were also directed at the 99.999% of hypotheses that did not usher in a revolution, or even leave a mark in scientific history.

    They often say "All truth goes through three stages..." as if this is evidence that because they're at stages 1 or 2, they'll reach stage 3. But all lottery jackpot wins go through three stages too, unfortunately stage one is buying a lottery ticket.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: To people against evolution 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    I'm not one of those people, but the argument from majority/authority is not compelling. Before evolution was introduced, the scientific consensus was against it. Ditto relativity.
    To be fair, back when evolution was first proposed there wasn't that much evidence for it - it was merely a theory that seemed to make sense. For one thing, it required some mechanism for parents to pass traits on to their offspring, but also a mechanism for offspring to spontaneously develop new traits that weren't present in their parents. Although people had a vague idea that this appeared to happen, no specific mechanism for it had been discovered. Now, of course, we know it's all in the DNA.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: To people against evolution 
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    I'm not one of those people, but the argument from majority/authority is not compelling. Before evolution was introduced, the scientific consensus was against it. Ditto relativity.
    To be fair, back when evolution was first proposed there wasn't that much evidence for it - it was merely a theory that seemed to make sense. For one thing, it required some mechanism for parents to pass traits on to their offspring, but also a mechanism for offspring to spontaneously develop new traits that weren't present in their parents. Although people had a vague idea that this appeared to happen, no specific mechanism for it had been discovered. Now, of course, we know it's all in the DNA.
    Yes, but my point is that it's not particularly useful to argue in terms of majority or consensus. That brings us back to having people accept science on the basis of authority, which may be unavoidable in some complex cases but certainly not in the case of evolution. So far as I can gather, the one thing that sceptics of evolution seem to have in common is that they don't really understand the theory and are unaware of that reality. They're certainly not going to accept it on the basis of authority, so the best avenue is compelling evidence and correction of misconceptions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: To people against evolution 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    They're certainly not going to accept it on the basis of authority, so the best avenue is compelling evidence and correction of misconceptions.
    Willful ignorance is very hard to overcome, particularly when its roots were often planted well before the person reached an age of reason. Undoing those assumptions risk reexamination of a person's core assumptions about what they learned and who they trusted as a child--they become in essence who we are, the comforting soft bed we dare not look under.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: To people against evolution 
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    They're certainly not going to accept it on the basis of authority, so the best avenue is compelling evidence and correction of misconceptions.
    Willful ignorance is very hard to overcome, particularly when its roots were often planted well before the person reached an age of reason. Undoing those assumptions risk reexamination of a person's core assumptions about what they learned and who they trusted as a child--they become in essence who we are, the comforting soft bed we dare not look under.
    I agree, and I would hold that the last thing we'd want to do at that critical moment is substitute one form of authority for another. It is sensible to have faith in science itself, but not in scientists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    I should also say that scientists are EXPERTS in the field who have studied evolution in a lab.
    On the contrary, all that is observed in a physical environment over reasonable periods of time is small genetic shifts, like say a milky sapped plant giving rise to another milky sapped plant.

    extrapolating this to the wider claims of macro-evolution (like say a shift between genus) is simply that - an extrapolation

    compare this whole issue of the claims of evolution to some other aspect of science that has clearly moved byond the sphere of theory.

    For instance, if it was some how proved that the boiling point of water is not around 100 degrees Celsius, it would be difficult to understand how we achieve what we have in the field of metal smelting.

    Now suppose that it was proved that all that is claimed to take place in the name of evolution (like the shift between genus) is not a fact. What demonstrative phenomena are we at odds with?

    (IOW clearly most of the gambit of evolution is in the same category as the creation of the universe and other discourses that sit well outside the standard channels that empiricism can lend credibility to.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    punarmusiko please give us the definition of theory as used in the last post.

    Nevermind I reread and confirmed my suspicions.

    Theory as defined in Science is completely different from theory s defined in common usage

    The statement "beyond the sphere of theory" does not make scientific sense as Theory is as accepted as an idea can get.

    "Law" is at the same level as theory but only states that something happens. A theory does the same thing but with an included model covering the reasons why that thing happens.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    punarmusiko please give us the definition of theory as used in the last post.
    Philosophical theories deal with ideas, not empirical data.

    A good way to suggest that there isn't a lack of empirical data that surrounds the theory of evolution is to suggest precisely what we would be at odds with if it was proven to be defunct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    my posts are NOT off topic nor are they trolling. it is time for skinwalker's hatred and bias to be reeled in and i have filed another complaint against him and his abusive ways.

    evolution is wrong and untrue, that is what makes christians qualified to deal with evolution. also, the Op is veering towards elitism in his attitude and thinks only scientists know the answers.

    that is why God did not use science or evolution, for His work is accessible for all not a few who can manipulate it to fit their desires and control people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    evolution is wrong and untrue, that is what makes christians qualified to deal with evolution.
    Because you have an unfounded opinion? Ok I have one for you..


    God is WRONG and UNTRUE, that is what makes Atheists qualified to deal with God.

    the Op is veering towards elitism in his attitude and thinks only scientists know the answers.
    If you are being taught something by a teacher, shouldn't you assume that teacher knows more than you do? If a scientist has studied evolution for 30 years, isn't it assumed that the scientist knows more than you do? All you have done is study the bible which is worse than Grimm's Fairy Tales.
    Oh and I guess by saying that you are right and everyone else is wrong and only people who think like YOU do is going to paradise while everyone else is going to hell is not elitism am I right?

    that is why God did not use science or evolution, for His work is accessible for all not a few who can manipulate it to fit their desires and control people.
    So what you're saying is that so many of the religious people in this world are idiots and that God has to 'dumb down' his work so that people like you can understand it?
    Oh, and what does the bible do? Oh right, people use it to manipulate to fit their desires and control people.. oh wait.. kind of like you do, right?
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    ...evolution is wrong and untrue...
    Prove it.......
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    been there, done that
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Saying your wrong because the bible says otherwise isnt proof..
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    I think we can pretty much conclude that archaeologist is not going to fit in here at all. He constantly keeps trying to prove things with his opinion alone.

    If we are keeping score of evolution vs creationism I think it's clear who is winning so far. There is not a single experiment, test, computer model, graph, chart or theory that can be viewed, tested, or cross checked with creationism. It's an idea based on blind faith and nothing more. Evolution has countless physical hard pieces of evidence to support it along with biological experiments, computer models , etc I'm not an expert in the field however I know just from basic reading that evolution has real facts to help support it. What does creationism have, let me see....opinion based on the opinion of those who have long been dead and in some cases may not of even existed.
    Pleased to meet you. Hope you guess my name
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    punarmusiko please give us the definition of theory as used in the last post.

    Nevermind I reread and confirmed my suspicions.

    Theory as defined in Science is completely different from theory s defined in common usage

    The statement "beyond the sphere of theory" does not make scientific sense as Theory is as accepted as an idea can get.

    "Law" is at the same level as theory but only states that something happens. A theory does the same thing but with an included model covering the reasons why that thing happens.
    nevertheless there remains a (philosophical) distinction between hard and soft science ....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    nevertheless there remains a (philosophical) distinction between hard and soft science ....
    meaning what in reference ot evolution and it validity and acceptance by 99% of all researchers who work in the fields related to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    aww... poor archy, 1 Christian against a field a of atheist. i wonder the purpose of atheists in this sub-forum . ahhh, negative attiudes towards religion, very clasic of athesim.
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    aww... poor archy, 1 Christian against a field a of atheist. i wonder the purpose of atheists in this sub-forum . ahhh, negative attiudes towards religion, very clasic of athesim.
    A defining characteristic, I'd have thought?

    At any rate, why do you assume that all of Archie's critics are atheists? If I recall rightly, archie certainly has made that assumption incorrectly at least once, mocking a random user over on the Criminology forum as "proof that atheists are not smarter than religious people". What evidence did he have that the guy was an atheist?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    aww... poor archy, 1 Christian against a field a of atheist. i wonder the purpose of atheists in this sub-forum . ahhh, negative attiudes towards religion, very clasic of athesim.
    I am one of archie's biggest critics. I am not an atheist. I just don't like wooly, self righteous thinking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    true, not all critics are non-religious but your attiude towards him is extremly negative. i understand that some of his comments are well, opinion baised but why do you guys have to bas h on him as if you guy hated him and perhaps, hate religion. why don't you guys say positive things instead of negative things which insight hate. for example. GIAM, some guy with a snakke avatar in this forum , keeps posting threads like GOD is a genocidal maniac or God sleept with mary to give birth to j-man, which made me very angry but i answered his question positively or tried my best to respond positively.
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    Apparently the Pope believes in evolution and he represents the Greatest Christian authority on this planet.

    If we are going to use authority as an argument I would say that the pope supersedes archi-something.

    If the number one christian says evolution is ok, why even bother to pretend you know better than scientists?

    Or is he the wrong christian?

    And which model of creationism should supplant evolution?

    And why even bother to do research if that would happen. it is not as if any creationist model actually invites to ask questions about the world for which the answer can be found in the world.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Apparently the Pope believes in evolution and he represents the Greatest Christian authority on this planet.

    If we are going to use authority as an argument I would say that the pope supersedes archi-something.

    If the number one christian says evolution is ok, why even bother to pretend you know better than scientists?

    Or is he the wrong christian?

    And which model of creationism should supplant evolution?

    And why even bother to do research if that would happen. it is not as if any creationist model actually invites to ask questions about the world for which the answer can be found in the world.
    correction the the pope is the greatest catholic autority on this planet.

    flaws in evolution:
    evolution is not supported by an enormous body of evidence. In 1980 at the Macroevolution conference held in Chicago, the paleontologists told the biologists that there was zero support for evolution in the fossil record. Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard called this the “trade secret of paleontology.”25 So, the fossil record doesn’t support evolution — they never found the missing links. So scientists came up with punctuated equilibrium as new model. Since they couldn’t find any transitional forms, the conclusion was that the changes happened all at once. But again, they have no explanation of how that would happen.

    Let’s look at some of the evidence that has been used over the past 100 years:

    Finches — during the dry season, the finches’ beaks grew longer to enable them to dig deeper into the seeds to get at the food. This was heralded as proof of evolution. What’s not usually reported in biology textbooks is that the change in beak was only thickness of fingernail, and the beaks changed back when it started raining again. When it was all over, they were still finches.

    Moths — It’s probably true that the light colored moths got eaten by birds and so the dark ones had dark offspring. When the pollution went away, the light colored ones came back. But when it was all over, they were still moths. Both of these are illustrations of micro-evolution – which no one denies. But there are no examples of macro-evolution, so they keep using these examples.

    Haeckel’s Embryo chart — One of the early theories was that the embryo goes through the steps of evolution as it develops. In 1876 a German scientist named Haeckel drew a chart that showed how a fish, salamander, tortoise, chick, hog, calf, rabbit and man all looked the same in the early stages of development. His drawing showed how they all had gills and other similarities. A couple years later it was discovered that he made it all up. But even though it was known to be a fraud, it was still used in high school and college biology textbooks for the next hundred years.

    And in 1990 Carl Sagan wrote an article for Parade magazine justifying abortion based on this false information that a human fetus was not human until the very last stages of development. I seriously doubt that Sagan was unaware of the Haeckel Hoax and that the whole theory of “Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny,” (literally: Development is a replay of Ancestry) had been discarded long ago.26

    All the examples we’ve grown up with in high school text books are either of micro-evolution or have been proven to be fakes, but they continue to use them. Why? Because they don’t have anything else. Because they really aren’t concerned with the truth. They have their agenda and will do anything to promote it.

    If they don’t have any proof, and they still believe it, then one needs to recognize that their belief in evolution is really just faith. And it takes just as much faith, and one could argue that it takes more faith, to believe in evolution with all of its problems than to believe in the supernatural
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Gods servant, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that evolution is a possibility and probability. I'm not a biology major, but I look at people and other animals all the time and I only see evolution in action. It has been PROVEN that a species can mate with another species which can mate with another species with can mate with another species, but the last species can't mate with the first species. What do you call that? I'm really not sure you KNOW what speciation is.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    flaws in evolution:
    evolution is not supported by an enormous body of evidence. In 1980 at the Macroevolution conference held in Chicago, the paleontologists told the biologists that there was zero support for evolution in the fossil record. Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard called this the “trade secret of paleontology.”25 So, the fossil record doesn’t support evolution — they never found the missing links. So scientists came up with punctuated equilibrium as new model. Since they couldn’t find any transitional forms, the conclusion was that the changes happened all at once. But again, they have no explanation of how that would happen.
    1980 you say? And Stephen Jay Gould? A victim of continuous malicious quote-mining by creationists.

    Anyhow, good you are up to date...

    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    Let’s look at some of the evidence that has been used over the past 100 years:

    Finches — during the dry season, the finches’ beaks grew longer to enable them to dig deeper into the seeds to get at the food. This was heralded as proof of evolution. What’s not usually reported in biology textbooks is that the change in beak was only thickness of fingernail, and the beaks changed back when it started raining again. When it was all over, they were still finches.

    Moths — It’s probably true that the light colored moths got eaten by birds and so the dark ones had dark offspring. When the pollution went away, the light colored ones came back. But when it was all over, they were still moths. Both of these are illustrations of micro-evolution – which no one denies. But there are no examples of macro-evolution, so they keep using these examples.

    Haeckel’s Embryo chart — One of the early theories was that the embryo goes through the steps of evolution as it develops. In 1876 a German scientist named Haeckel drew a chart that showed how a fish, salamander, tortoise, chick, hog, calf, rabbit and man all looked the same in the early stages of development. His drawing showed how they all had gills and other similarities. A couple years later it was discovered that he made it all up. But even though it was known to be a fraud, it was still used in high school and college biology textbooks for the next hundred years.

    And in 1990 Carl Sagan wrote an article for Parade magazine justifying abortion based on this false information that a human fetus was not human until the very last stages of development. I seriously doubt that Sagan was unaware of the Haeckel Hoax and that the whole theory of “Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny,” (literally: Development is a replay of Ancestry) had been discarded long ago.26

    All the examples we’ve grown up with in high school text books are either of micro-evolution or have been proven to be fakes, but they continue to use them. Why? Because they don’t have anything else. Because they really aren’t concerned with the truth. They have their agenda and will do anything to promote it.
    So, you believe in squares, but you do not believe in rectangles? You believe a car can drive 5 miles, but couldn't possibly drive 50 miles? I dare say you're a disgrace to the human intellect. Small changes over small periods of time equals large changes over large periods of time, evidently so when it comes to genes. We can trace our ancestry through indentifying endogenous retroviruses, ancient viral infections, in the human genome and comparing it with the chimp genome. Talkorigins explains:

    Quote Originally Posted by Talkorigins
    Endogenous retroviruses provide yet another example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses (like the AIDS virus or HTLV1, which causes a form of leukemia) make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    If they don’t have any proof, and they still believe it, then one needs to recognize that their belief in evolution is really just faith. And it takes just as much faith, and one could argue that it takes more faith, to believe in evolution with all of its problems than to believe in the supernatural
    Also, try typing in "Observed instances of speciation" into google. Talkorigins comes up yet again (along with a whole bunch of other websites). Since Talkorigins are very thurough and include references, it would be natural to look into what they have to say:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

    So now that you've been proven wrong with irrefutable proof for [macro] evolution, what will you do? Attempt to refute it, ignore it, or simply claim (unjustly) expertise and dismiss the evidence presented? Perhaps you will fall back on the bible?

    I really hope you will try and educate yourself properly on evolution and not come with arguments fished from websites like answersingenesis or the discovery institute which have a track record of being plain wrong. Infamous for their deceitful tactics also, in fact. Remember that list of scientists who were sceptical of evolution? Watch how deceitful that list really is:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo...449&feature=iv Part 1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsiWf...e=channel_page Part 2

    Science is known for having done wrongs, but even more known for rectifying errors and progressing as new evidence becomes available. Scientists who have faked evidence have been exposed by other scientists and thrown out of the acadmic arena, never to return. And rightfully so. Funny how you fail to even mention that.

    Have you got the message yet? You are wrong. All that remains is to admit that [evident] fact.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    true, not all critics are non-religious but your attiude towards him is extremly negative.
    Good. I was afraid my disdain and distaste for the man might have failed to overcome my reserved nature.

    He is an extremely negative person, deserving of negative commentary. Attacking him is not an attack on religion, because the nonsense he spouts has nothing to do with any religion I am familiar with. An attack on archie is a just attack on wooly thinking, self delusion and snide arrogance.

    GIAM, some guy with a snakke avatar in this forum , keeps posting threads like GOD is a genocidal maniac or God sleept with mary to give birth to j-man
    As far as I can see GIAM has a screw or five loose. It is kindest to leave him alone.

    You seem to confuse the simple illustrations of evolution often used in textbooks with proper research on the subject. So, please give me the ISBN number, or title and author of any text book published in the last fifty years that promotes Haeckel's theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    nevertheless there remains a (philosophical) distinction between hard and soft science ....
    meaning what in reference ot evolution and it validity and acceptance by 99% of all researchers who work in the fields related to it.
    meaning that the moment a claim lifts the lid on conventional hard science is the moment that a consensus doesn't mean so much .... namely because it operates out of a different philosophical approach.

    A classic example to compare is how the consensus on the boiling point on water represents a more solid claim (and thus a more potent consensus) in the face of many "doable" practices (such as metal smelting). The consensus on evolution does not place any "doable" practices in jeopardy ... except the production of certain text books I guess .... (which is the standard jeopardy facing any philosophical consensus set to tumble)

    IOW evolution is simply an idea about how reality works.
    It isn't backed by any doable practices (outside of course things like milky sapped plants giving rise other milky sapped plants ..... which is kind of a small fry compared to the wider claims of macroevolution)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    one cannot have a decent discussion here as dissenting rguments are sent immediately to the trash. that proves that skinwalker and others do not want the truth and will do exactly what they accuse christians of doing--being closed minded and refusing to listen to other points of view.

    evolutionists here prove they are worse than christians.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    that proves that skinwalker and others do not want the truth
    No; only that he doesn not want any more of your opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    evolutionists here prove they are worse than christians.
    They are largely one and the same.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    let's look at evolution then:

    #1. no idea how it formed, or came into existence

    #2. can't put it into a test tube

    #3. do not know the exact combinations of contributing 'ingredients' whic compromises the 'process'.

    #4.do not know how it could get involved with life.

    #5. can't explain why it would get involved with life--no reason for it to do so.

    #6. can't explain how it works

    and so on

    let's see some credible, honest responses {with links} to celarly and concisely address those issues.

    now one argument against Go by secular scientists is that they 'cannot put God in a testube' why do they not reject evolution for the same reason? they answer-- we can study species and see evolution at work; but i would say-- we can do that with creation; and we can (hospitals, nurseries and animals all point to creation

    so if God is dimissed by such a flimsy excuse, so must evolution and natural selection.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    #1. no idea how it formed, or came into existence
    We have no idea how gravity came into existence either, yet it still exists.
    We have no idea how energy came into existence either, yet it still exists..
    Unless you want to say God created energy, than could it not be the same for the question on how evolution came into existence?
    #2. can't put it into a test tube
    It's observable though.. in E-Coli. E-Coli reproduces extremely quickly and we learn from seperating it and succumbing it to different environments that they change their direction of mutations depending on which environment they are in.

    #3. do not know the exact combinations of contributing 'ingredients' whic compromises the 'process'.
    We don't know what type of energy dark matter is exacly and yet.. *gasp* it still exists.. This is not evidence against evolution.

    #4.do not know how it could get involved with life.
    Um, what? Repeat your question in english please.

    #5. can't explain why it would get involved with life--no reason for it to do so.
    If evolution didn't exist.. neither would life.

    #6. can't explain how it works
    This is wrong!


    Ok, I wont play your games.. Read a biology text book some time. We can explain how it works.

    hospitals, nurseries and animals all point to creation
    Wait.. what?
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    evolutionists here prove they are worse than christians.
    Aha! So you admit Christians are bad. The sequence is bad, worse, worst. If you say evolutionists are worse (a comparative) then that requires that Christians be bad.

    Had you meant it differently you could have said evolutionists here prove that they are bad while Christians are good.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    evolutionists here prove they are worse than christians.
    Aha! So you admit Christians are bad. The sequence is bad, worse, worst. If you say evolutionists are worse (a comparative) then that requires that Christians be bad.

    Had you meant it differently you could have said evolutionists here prove that they are bad while Christians are good.
    If we go by his example we must conclude that what he means is that any objection or retaliation to the bad behavior on the part of what he calls a christian retroactively justifies that bad behavior and any further bad behavior on their part. We are all criminals and degenerates because we dare to do, think and feel things that he says his god forbids and therefore he apparently thinks that whatever he and his christians do to us is automatically justified.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I think you credit him with too much intellect. A simpler explanation is that his writing is as sloppy as his thinking. My English class was designed to point that out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    We have no idea how gravity came into existence either, yet it still exists.
    We have no idea how energy came into existence either, yet it still exists..
    sigh, i wish you would keep the unintelligent from the keyboard. not the same thing, energy and gravity are observable and felt by everyone. evolution takes an elite group to say it exists. it doesn't but that is beside the point.

    It's observable though.. in E-Coli. E-Coli reproduces extremely quickly
    if you can't comprehend what someone is saying don't respond. i am NOT talking about ecoli but the process of evolution itself. just like the secular scientist's God argument. please research before responding.

    We don't know what type of energy dark matter is exacly and yet.. *gasp* it still exists.. This is not evidence against evolution
    you obviously have NO clue what someone is talking about do you? stay away from my posts until you grow up. NOT talking about dark matter, try to read english correctly.

    Repeat your question in english please.
    it is in clear english, study the language a bit more before responding.

    If evolution didn't exist.. neither would life
    yet everyone else here and the evolutionary world says evolution has nothing to dowith life--just the changes. please make up your mnd as to the duty of the process. {you would be wrong of course}

    This is wrong
    obviously i am not because you could not explain it. youhave got to be the stupidest person on this forum do not respond to me again as i will put you on ignore so i do not have to read your crap.

    So you admit Christians are bad. The sequence is bad, worse, worst. If you say evolutionists are worse (a comparative) then that requires that Christians be bad.
    distortion. said no such thing. did your english class teach you to do that as well/ i am just writing very simply so you all will be able to understand it.

    mm is a heretic and his mopderating has left him with zero credibility and respect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    We have no idea how gravity came into existence either, yet it still exists.
    We have no idea how energy came into existence either, yet it still exists..
    energy and gravity are observable
    This being the point of the comparrison.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    evolution takes an elite group to say it exists. it doesn't but that is beside the point.
    It matters not how many advocate evolution. In the end, what metters is the evidence, and I'm afraid it is plentiful.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    It's observable though.. in E-Coli. E-Coli reproduces extremely quickly
    if you can't comprehend what someone is saying don't respond.
    hypocrit.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i am NOT talking about ecoli but the process of evolution itself.
    ....Which has been observed in E Coli. You break your own rule here;
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    if you can't comprehend what someone is saying don't respond.
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    just like the secular scientist's God argument.
    Oxymoron.

    Secular means unrelated to religion, so an arguement about god is not secular.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    please research before responding.
    Hypocrit.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    We don't know what type of energy dark matter is exacly and yet.. *gasp* it still exists.. This is not evidence against evolution
    you obviously have NO clue what someone is talking about do you? stay away from my posts until you grow up. NOT talking about dark matter, try to read english correctly.
    The technical term for this is an 'analogy'.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Repeat your question in english please.
    it is in clear english, study the language a bit more before responding.
    The point being, it is nonsensical.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    If evolution didn't exist.. neither would life
    yet everyone else here and the evolutionary world says evolution has nothing to dowith life--just the changes.
    OK, I'll rephrase on his behalf; no eukaryotic or even varied prokaryotic life would exist; only the first bacterium made (however that may have happened)

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    {you would be wrong of course}
    Naturally.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    This is wrong
    obviously i am not because you could not explain it.
    I'd like to call a logical fallacy on this one.

    You cannot explain how god made the earth, but does this make your belief invalid? (note: scientifically speaking it would)

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    youhave got to be the stupidest person on this forum do not respond to me again as i will put you on ignore so i do not have to read your crap.
    Kill the truth by shooting the messenger....

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    So you admit Christians are bad. The sequence is bad, worse, worst. If you say evolutionists are worse (a comparative) then that requires that Christians be bad.
    distortion. said no such thing.
    You'd know all about distorting what people say, though, wouldn't you?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    mm is a heretic and his mopderating has left him with zero credibility and respect.
    MM is the master of the universe, and is made of blue stilton cheese.

    There, two conflicting views. How would we come to decide which is correct?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    [
    So you admit Christians are bad. The sequence is bad, worse, worst. If you say evolutionists are worse (a comparative) then that requires that Christians be bad.
    distortion. said no such thing. did your english class teach you to do that as well/ i am just writing very simply so you all will be able to understand it.
    I can assure you of this archie, your English skills are average, but they lack the precision required for meaningful discussion.

    Are you unaware that adjectives come in three forms?
    • Basic
      Comparative
      Superlative

    Examples would include big, bigger, biggest. Mean, meaner, meanest.
    Where a distinct word does not exist for the comparative and superlative forms the words more (or less) and most (or least) are used. For example, gullible, more gullible, most gullible.

    The basic form of the adjective is used to describe a singular instance. It was a large house. It is a blue flower. I would like to go on a nice holiday. In these examples there is only one house, one flower and one potential holiday.

    The comparative form of the adjective requires at least two instances, though there could be more. It was a larger house than his brothers. (Comparison with one other house.) It was a bluer flower than the others in the border. (Comparison with several other flowers.) It was a nicer holiday than the one he took last year. (Comparison with one other holiday.)

    The superlative form of the adjective requires two or more instances. The described word possesses the decribed characteristic to a greater (or lesser) degree than any other. It was the largest house in the street. It was the bluest flower in the vase. It was the nicest holiday he could imagine.

    So, unless you are using the basic form of the adjective you are automatically making a comparison of the degree of the characteristic defined by the adjective. Your sentence was "evolutionists here prove they are worse than christians."

    To remind you, the adjective is bad and its comparative is worse.
    The comparative and superlative of bad are worse and worst respectively. For evolutionists to be worse than Christians, Christians must be bad. Otherwise there is nothing for the comparative to compare with within this sentence. Therefore, the meaning of your sentence is that Christians are bad (but evolutionists are worse.)

    This is not, as you claim, distorting your words, but reading them accurately as they have been written. Now I know you did not intend them the way you have written them. But that is my point. Your written English is substandard. Substandard writing skills are often associated with poorly formulated, illogical thought processes. Those, I suspect, lie at the heart of your problems.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    if you can't comprehend what someone is saying don't respond. i am NOT talking about ecoli but the process of evolution itself. just like the secular scientist's God argument. please research before responding.
    Yet verzen's reponse has everything to do with evolution. He's simply giving you an example of a species where evolution can be observed, which should be legitmate enough to qualify as an acceptable answer.

    you obviously have NO clue what someone is talking about do you? stay away from my posts until you grow up. NOT talking about dark matter, try to read english correctly.
    He's giving you a similar situation in science to the one you've described. Saying that we don't know something about evolution is not evidence against evolution; it's like saying heat does not exist because we can't calculate the exact motion of particles.

    Just as we don't know what type of energy dark matter embodies, we don't know the processes involved in evolution. However, not knowing doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That is basically the gist of verzen's argument.

    it is in clear english, study the language a bit more before responding
    I'll have to side with verzen here. We can't understand what you mean when you say we don't know how evolution can get involved with life. What are you trying to say here? Elaboration is much needed.

    yet everyone else here and the evolutionary world says evolution has nothing to dowith life--just the changes. please make up your mnd as to the duty of the process. {you would be wrong of course}
    Again, verzen is giving a legitimate answer. If evolution did not exist, we would not exist as we now do. It is unlikely Homo sapiens would ever have existed without evolving from primates. Likewise, none of the other species of humans i.e. Homo neanderthalis, Homo erectus, Homo australopithicus, etc. would ever have existed without evolution.

    If evolution did not exist, it is highly likely blue-green algae would not have developed, and the Earth would still be covered in a poisonous envelope of hydrogen sulphide. It would be hard to see how oxygen-breathing lifeforms could have existed, especially humans.

    So verzen is correct when he says that without evolution, life would not exist, except for the most primitive species, which can survive in hydrogen sulphide.

    obviously i am not because you could not explain it. youhave got to be the stupidest person on this forum do not respond to me again as i will put you on ignore so i do not have to read your crap.
    Listen closely: I am about to explain to you how evolution works. Bear with me, please, as I will refer frequently to some simple analogies to explain it, as well as give you some historical background on evolution.

    We know Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution soon after returning to England after four years on the HMS Beagle. In that time, he'd collected several specimens, and copious notes, from the numerous islands he visited. It is from this research that he eventually formed the idea of the process called evolution.

    According to Darwin, species change over time to adapt to the environment. This was further supplemented by an additional idea called natural selection. I can simplify natural selection to one line: survival of the fittest. Basically, the best adapted to the environment are the ones who ultimately survive. After all, a polar bear cannot survive in a desert, while a camel, who is the best adapted to the desert, can. Please note this part; it is important.

    However, this was not sufficient to produce a mechanism for evolution. That was left to Gregor Mendel to discover, and he did so because of his numerous botanical experiments. He counted, for example, the ratio of red to white petals in a certain species of flower, and examined the heights of various plants. He realised that the physical properties of the plants depended on the properties of their parents. e.g. the offspring of two tall plants will most likely be tall, while the offspring of two shot plants will probably be short.

    This is the beginning of gene theory, important to understanding evolution. Mendel proposed that all species have something called 'genes', which are passed on to the next generation and determine, in turn, their properties. Mendel realised that two kinds of genes existed: recessive and dominant. These, however, are not important to understanding evolution, so if you are interested in these, please read a textbook on them. Let us proceed.

    The keystone of Mendel's work was that genes can change; they can mutate. And that was all that was needed. The mechanism of evolution was established: random variations in genes. This I will explain:

    Random variaitons in the structure of genes are helpful for some and harmful in other situations. For example, a fish which was born with genes that cause the development of fins will be better placed to survive than other fish which do not have fins, because those fish will die more quickly than the fish best adapted to the environment. However, if these other fish die more quickly, that means that the fish best adapted to the environment has more time and less competition to mate, meaning it is his genes that will mainly be passed on. However, his genes are mutated genes, meaning it is changed genes that will pass on to the next generation, which, in turn, can further mutate into better genes or bad genes.

    It is in this way that evolution works: the one best adapted is the one most likely to mate and produce offspring, so that future generations are born with different characteristics than the previous one. In turn, the ones best adapted in the next generation will again mate, and so on, leading to more changes in species.

    So, you see, the mechanism for evolution has been known for quite some time, and works quite well. If you do not understand something, I invite you to ask.

    mm is a heretic and his mopderating has left him with zero credibility and respect.
    If he is a heretic, you've just elevated him to the ranks of Galileo and Joan d'Arc. Which is quite a compliment, methinks. :wink:
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    If he is a heretic, you've just elevated him to the ranks of Galileo and Joan d'Arc. Which is quite a compliment, methinks. :wink:
    I think Joan was better looking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    going to the personal attack is always a strategy of the evolutionist when they have been cornered and proven wrong.

    you can't defend your position so you go after the dissenter. shows you have nothing and believe a lie.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    going to the personal attack is always a strategy of the evolutionist when they have been cornered and proven wrong.

    you can't defend your position so you go after the dissenter. shows you have nothing and believe a lie.
    You genuinely have reading comprehension difficulties. I am very clearly 'attacking' Mitchell McKain, not you. Since I have never seen Mitchell, or Joan of Arc, I cannot know which is more beautiful (that's a comparative, by the way), which strongly implies a low key joke has been made at MMs expense. Nothing whatsoever to do with you.

    Now as to the main thrust of your point. How can you expect us to take you seriously when you reject virtually everything that science has delivered.

    The theory of evolution is based upon the studies of thousands of researchers, who have published tens of thousands of studies, based upon millions of hours of research in the fields of palaeontology, embryology, genetics, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy,ect. And you dismiss this on the basis that it fails to coincide with your twisted interpretation of an ancient document that you have not the intellect to understand, nor the desire to comprehend. Pathetic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    I said
    This is wrong
    Archaeologist said
    obviously i am not because you could not explain it. youhave got to be the stupidest person on this forum do not respond to me again as i will put you on ignore so i do not have to read your crap.

    Wow! I love it! Archaeologist Archaeologist.. Isn't this what you ALWAYS do to people though? The point was, is that you give no answer to some of the questions and you just say we are wrong. Isn't this the exact same thing? Yet you HATE IT when other people do it. Actually Arch, I gave my reasoning below the, "This is wrong" answer.. We KNOW how evolution works. It's in biology class.

    Edit: Oh and simply because ONE person cant explain it doesnt mean others cant as well..

    And thanks guys for sticking up for me on this.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    I wasn't satisfied with my previous answers and I do apologize Archaeologist. Let me correct myself.


    #1. no idea how it formed, or came into existence
    Darwin created evolution.. Not just the theory, but the process.

    #2. can't put it into a test tube
    You can put Darwin in a test tube, but he may not like it.

    #3. do not know the exact combinations of contributing 'ingredients' whic compromises the 'process'.
    Darwin created the combinations of contributing ingredients

    #4.do not know how it could get involved with life.
    Darwin caused it to get involved with life

    #5. can't explain why it would get involved with life--no reason for it to do so.
    Darwin commanded it to get involved with life. You see, his rules dictate that they must follow his logic.

    #6. can't explain how it works
    Darwin created it. It's real. Thus i'm right and you are wrong. Now stop de-evolving (sinning) and listen to the truth! Otherwise when you die, you may come back as a maggot. (hell)
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Yes. All the above is correct, and you are just scared to admit it.

    Stop hiding from the truth and accept it.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    Darwin created evolution.. Not just the theory, but the process.
    Darwin created the theory, Mendel the process. Sorry, but I'm a stickler for little details.

    You can put Darwin in a test tube, but he may not like it.


    I thought Darwin was dead and long since decomposed into bones...
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Lion - It was a joke.. And when I said process.. I meant he was the start to things evolving.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    Ah. I see.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    I should also say that scientists are EXPERTS in the field who have studied evolution in a lab.
    On the contrary, all that is observed in a physical environment over reasonable periods of time is small genetic shifts, like say a milky sapped plant giving rise to another milky sapped plant.

    extrapolating this to the wider claims of macro-evolution (like say a shift between genus) is simply that - an extrapolation

    compare this whole issue of the claims of evolution to some other aspect of science that has clearly moved byond the sphere of theory.

    For instance, if it was some how proved that the boiling point of water is not around 100 degrees Celsius, it would be difficult to understand how we achieve what we have in the field of metal smelting.

    Now suppose that it was proved that all that is claimed to take place in the name of evolution (like the shift between genus) is not a fact. What demonstrative phenomena are we at odds with?

    (IOW clearly most of the gambit of evolution is in the same category as the creation of the universe and other discourses that sit well outside the standard channels that empiricism can lend credibility to.)
    How about degrees of genetic difference correlate with geographic separation?

    Not to mention the fact that the entire theory is based on empirical evidence. This micro/macro debate displays a clear lack of knowledge of biology. Besides the fact that the definition of species and genus are largely arbitrary, you can track the shifts between genuses in the fossil record.

    Perhaps you are thinking of larger divisions like phylums or kingdoms.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    I should also say that scientists are EXPERTS in the field who have studied evolution in a lab.
    On the contrary, all that is observed in a physical environment over reasonable periods of time is small genetic shifts, like say a milky sapped plant giving rise to another milky sapped plant.

    extrapolating this to the wider claims of macro-evolution (like say a shift between genus) is simply that - an extrapolation

    compare this whole issue of the claims of evolution to some other aspect of science that has clearly moved byond the sphere of theory.

    For instance, if it was some how proved that the boiling point of water is not around 100 degrees Celsius, it would be difficult to understand how we achieve what we have in the field of metal smelting.

    Now suppose that it was proved that all that is claimed to take place in the name of evolution (like the shift between genus) is not a fact. What demonstrative phenomena are we at odds with?

    (IOW clearly most of the gambit of evolution is in the same category as the creation of the universe and other discourses that sit well outside the standard channels that empiricism can lend credibility to.)
    How about degrees of genetic difference correlate with geographic separation?
    Correlation does not equal causation in empiricism .... but tweak it with a bit of soft science philosophy and you have a good argument for extrapolation.

    Not to mention the fact that the entire theory is based on empirical evidence.
    That's fine

    The absence of any "doable" acts being put in jeopardy (aside from the afore mentioned text book production) indicates that the whole thing lies outside of direct empiricism.

    This micro/macro debate displays a clear lack of knowledge of biology.
    Actually suggesting that because something is a fact in the sphere of micro-evolution and therefore this same credibility holds for the claims in macroevolution indicates a clear lack of knowledge of biology. They both lay recourse to different methodologies.

    Besides the fact that the definition of species and genus are largely arbitrary, you can track the shifts between genuses in the fossil record.
    The more a claim is derived from issues of correlation alone, the more it removes itself from the channels of empiricism, and the less likely that it will be accompanied by any "doable" practices.

    Indicating that the problem begins at the genus level simply indicates where the claim leaves the field of direct perception and simply becomes an issue of correlation.


    Perhaps you are thinking of larger divisions like phylums or kingdoms.
    If you have a problem at the genus level it will certainly carry through to phylum and kingdom.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Actually suggesting that because something is a fact in the sphere of micro-evolution and therefore this same credibility holds for the claims in macroevolution indicates a clear lack of knowledge of biology. They both lay recourse to different methodologies.
    Oddly enough, the only people who ever make that claim seem to have no real understanding of evolution. Or have decided that an old book has a better claim on reality than observation.

    There is no macro/micro division. Both work by the exact same processes. The only conceivable difference is time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •