Evolution / creation

[the asinine cretin]

"What is "the theory of macroevolution," exactly? Evolution on the level of gene pools? Speciation? These are things based on observation and fact. I genuinely do not understand what you're saying."

 

lol ok sorry, umm the last few pages of this thread will have some interesting points between me and ringer (although there not to clear cut i guess) macro-evolution=molecule to man, matter to human being , piece of bacteria (i dont even know the official story lol) to a human being. micro-evolution (this is a shit name for it because it is confusing) =speciation, variation within a kind, CHANGE OF ALLELE FREQUENCY OVER TIME, mutations etc etc..these are standard things that we observe today and have absolutely nothing to do with the the MACRO-evolutionary theory (other than people like richard dawkins get on tv and confuse absolutely everyone that they ARE the same thing and that because we observe micro-evolution today well...that somehow PROVES that a cell (or something) once somehow turned into a human being...(so the macro-evolution part has never been observed and the official story from dakwins etc is it happened in the past unobserved-not science etc etc)...so yeh ..please ask more questions if you want... just a quote from richard dawkins too lol -(if you dont belive me please google it you will find it somewhere i guess)- evolution has been observed.....it just hasnt been observed while its happening......... OH OK THEN THANKS FOR THAT RICHARD! lol so this is the kind of deception/switching and swapping of terms etc etc that is necessary to get us people to believe it... thanks for your time

 

 

I. "macro-evolution = molecule to man, matter to human being , piece of bacteria to a human being."

 

 

1. Molecules to man: Again, the topic of abiogenesis is distinct from evolutionary theory. I must insist.

 

2. Bacteria to man: The origin of the eukaryotic cell is a fascinating discussion, as is the thread in the history of life that leads from primitive eukaryotes to Homo sapiens. Ironic that one of the few books I've read by Richard Dawkins is called The Ancestor's Tale, and I would recommend it if you hadn't just expressed your distaste for the man.

 

3. Macroevolution: While I don't really find myself using those terms, I think of macroevolution as having two senses (disclaimer: I'm not a scientist and have no training in this subject):

a. The first sense being paleontological and referring to evolution as it occurs over large timescales.

b. The second sense would be more in the context of something like population genetics; namely, evolutionary changes looked at between different populations.

 

In both senses I simply understand macroevolution to be microevolution at a bigger scale. It is a quantitative term, not qualitative; and I don't think it's rigorously defined. It's a loose term. And in my layman's experience it is most often encountered on the lips of creationists. Hopefully if I'm wrong a biologist will notice this and correct me.

 

 

II. "micro-evolution = speciation, variation within a kind, change in allele frequency over time, mutations etc etc.."

 

1. Speciation: If we must use the macro/micro prefixes I tend to see speciation as being on the side of macroevolution, but upon reflection I don't think this is necessarily so. I mean, a speciation event can occur on a short timescale and such events have been observed. Speciation is not the same as significant morphological change (what I suppose most creationists have in mind when they speak of "kinds" becoming other "kinds." No?)

 

(As a non-biologist here ranting and sharing my armchair ideas about biology I feel like kind of an ass - hence the screen name, I suppose. But anyway...)

 

2. Variation within a kind: What is a kind? I'd rather not comment until I'm clear on what you mean. I have an idea of what Kent Hovind means by "kind," but I don't want to assume you agree.

 

3. Change in allele frequencies in a population over time: Yes. This is a part of microevolution as I understand it. But I think one might drop the "micro-" and simply say evolution. Changes in allele frequencies in a population as a function of differential survival and reproduction. It's kind of a dry description of evolution, but I guess it's a good one. The shorthand might be evolution by natural selection.

 

 

III. "these [micro-evolution things] are standard things that we observe today and have absolutely nothing to do with the the MACRO-evolutionary theory."

 

Based on the above I think that you basically accept biological evolution. You seem to object to the plausibility of abiogenesis (which isn't evolutionary theory), and have questions about the history of life (i.e., bacteria to man). The things that you accept as "micro-evolution" are essentially the basic ingredients of evolution. What do you think?

 

....they both fall into the same category- in the past never observed-not science (see definition of science in the post 2 above) therefore if someone believes it, it is taken by faith that it happened....so evolutionism is a world religion just like all the others (obv they all have different beliefs though).....

 

I think what you're doing here is just evasive incredulity. I think if you apply your principles consistently you'll face a reductio ad absurdum. Rather than bicker with you I'd just presume to encourage you to think about this a little more deeply and honestly.

Edited May 19, 2012 by the asinine cretin

[sammy7]

hay thanks for the reply

 

just my point though-no matter how many details you fit into a story, it is still just that.. a story (abiogenesis,molecule to amphibian to reptile etc) no one has ever observed some helium or carbon atoms or whatever turning them selves into "life"...nor has any observation been made of MACRO-evolution (yes you are right i dont know how this would be defined exactly but an attempt at explaining something usually comes after it has actually been OBSERVED) therefore both of the above-have no place in science, they have never been observed so they are stories/speculations/belief systems/religions (like creation events in other religions wernt observed either so no one calls them science)

 

my distaste for richard dawkins comes from watching hours upon hours worth of interviews with him (maybe 9-10 total) and reading a number of his books (god delusion selfish gene some other one cant remember) and coming to the belief-he knows full well macro-evolution has never been observed and yet he INTENTIONALLY decieves people into believing that it is "scientific fact"...and a number of other comments he frequently makes (i will keep my calm here) like- "if you dont believe evolution you are either x or y or z" (he says it in such a matter of fact way) btw xyz is some random slandering term) it should also be noted imo i dont even know what his personal belief is, yes i know he says "im an atheist, agnostic, evolution is a scientific fact etc" BUT i dont even know if he believes what hes saying...ie he is the official spokesperson for the "theory of evolution" and everyone knows full well what hes going to talk about in interviews, when they read his book etc...so he has a "position" to fulfill if you will (this is my opinion obv)...

 

macro evolution is the story i guess (i guess it doesnt even have a proper definiton as its never been observed) that a fish became a reptile which became an amphibian which became a human being or something (this has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED, francis collins and dawkins both take this official stance ok? i have to take their word for it) so therefore this has no place in science/is speculation etc so it is a religious belief system like christianity is hindu is etc etc....

 

speciation is a cloudy area, it depends on how one individual would like to define it, nether the less they are micro-evolutionary changes (AS I UNDERSTAND IT RINGER MIGHT COMMENT MORE I WILL HAVE TO STUDY THIS MORE IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS, BECAUSE DAWKINS AND COLLINS SAY MACRO-EVOLUTION ISNT HAPPENING TODAY THEN I HAVE TO ASSUME SPECIATION=MICRO EVOLUTION) so there is mutation(s), natural selection kicks in, and although they might have come from the same "kind" if you will they may not be interfertile (PLEASE COMMENT ON THIS MORE SOMEONE) so therfore under some classifications a new "species" has been "made", note that this started with a DOWNWARD trend of options/genetic information though....so this wouldnt classify as a macro-evolutionary change...yes also as someone who does believe the bible IMO the word kind is far far superior to any classification system man has come up with..(imo)...

 

i will have to think about/read more about how to define the term "kind" though too...

 

 

Change in allele frequencies in a population over time-if i have a few kids i have satisfied this criteria no? if yes then this doesnt qualify for macro-evolutionary change...

 

 

Based on the above I think that you basically accept biological evolution. You seem to object to the plausibility of abiogenesis (which isn't evolutionary theory), and have questions about the history of life (i.e., bacteria to man). The things that you accept as "micro-evolution" are essentially the basic ingredients of evolution. What do you think?

 

yes we observe mutations/natural selection/adaption (darwins finches)/ all the time these are all considered micro evolution...(and darwin piggybacked his opinions/beliefs off of this real life observation...)

 

i accept micro-evolution (as a 5 year old child does when he says different coloured dogs etc) but i dont have any faith in macro-evolution (has never been observed therefore if someone wants to believe it it is taken by faith)... i also have no faith in matter turning itself into life/or cell or whatever (which has never been observed)..so if you wanted to know i was forced to believe by faith genesis 1.1 as for the origins of species/man lol

 

"I think what you're doing here is just evasive incredulity. I think if you apply your principles consistently you'll face a reductio ad absurdum. Rather than bicker with you I'd just presume to encourage you to think about this a little more deeply and honestly."

 

science by its very definiton (any dictionary i presume) observable/experimental etc etc how does any process that claims to have both started and stopped in the past, both without observation fit into this? a-it doesnt, it has no place in science (until man develops a time machine to go back in time and actually observe alleged process lol)...

[the asinine cretin]

just my point though-no matter how many details you fit into a story, it is still just that.. a story (abiogenesis,molecule to amphibian to reptile etc) no one has ever observed some helium or carbon atoms or whatever turning them selves into "life"...nor has any observation been made of MACRO-evolution (yes you are right i dont know how this would be defined exactly but an attempt at explaining something usually comes after it has actually been OBSERVED) therefore both of the above-have no place in science, they have never been observed so they are stories/speculations/belief systems/religions (like creation events in other religions wernt observed either so no one calls them science)

 

...

 

macro evolution is the story i guess (i guess it doesnt even have a proper definiton as its never been observed) that a fish became a reptile which became an amphibian which became a human being or something (this has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED, francis collins and dawkins both take this official stance ok? i have to take their word for it) so therefore this has no place in science/is speculation etc so it is a religious belief system like christianity is hindu is etc etc....

...

 

I must introduce a distinction: 1. Evolution in the sense of common descent; 2. The mechanism of evolution, e.g., natural selection. By "macro-evolution" I'll take you to simply mean common descent - for the sake of unmuddled discussion. So, the question is, what reason is there to think that common descent is a fact? How conclusive is the evidence?

 

Okay, so, your straw man is that immediate observation alone is what constitutes science and that anything else is mere "stories/speculations/belief systems/religions." First, you seem to be effectively admitting that religions are just stories and specious speculations. For an evidently religious person you seem to have little regard for faith. (I'm teasing btw.) Second, this is mere argument by definitions. Weak sauce.

 

Evolutionary theory is more than mere observation of facts; it is an explanatory framework. An explanation that brings together independent lines of evidence and that makes testable predictions is a true scientific theory.

 

What are the observations and how does evolutionary theory explain these data? The following pages contain a great deal of information along these lines.

 

1. Evidence of Common Descent

2. TalkOrigins Evidence Page

 

One could literally go on all day elucidating the data behind evolution ("macroevolution" if you prefer) and the myriad of things that are explained by common descent as well as natural selection. The record of biological history that we possess is an observational fact. Life is extant and evolving and we have made mountains of observations regarding it. The successful scientific theory that explains these data is evolution. This is putting it mildly.

 

So, do you not consider the data of DNA sequencing to be empirical? And if not evolution, what explains the many observations?

 

Some of the innumerable things that common descent helps to explain: Why does the mammalian recurrent laryngeal nerve take such an extreme detour? Why do hoofed animals have an extra toe that doesn't even reach the ground? Why do chickens have the ability to grow alligator-like teeth? Why can humans grow tails? And snakes limbs? Why do flightless birds have wings? Why do whales have pelvic girdles? Why does the human eye have a blind spot? Why does the vas deferens take such a circuitous route? What explains what we see in the genome (e.g., endogenous retroviruses)? And of course there are innumerable features of the paleontological record that evolution (i.e., "macroevolution," common descent, and the like) explains. E.g., Horse fossil series, flatfish, cetaceans, hominini, bats, sirenia, et cetera. And more encompassing questions such as the branching of life that we see in the phylogenies yielded by various independent means. Why is this so? Et cetera. Ad nauseum... The icing on the cake? Testable predictions. I think the old "God did it; end of discussion" approach isn't so robust.

 

macro evolution is the story i guess (i guess it doesnt even have a proper definiton as its never been observed) that a fish became a reptile which became an amphibian which became a human being or something (this has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED, francis collins and dawkins both take this official stance ok? i have to take their word for it) so therefore this has no place in science/is speculation etc so it is a religious belief system like christianity is hindu is etc etc....

What do you mean "a fish became a reptile.."? There is absolutely no reason, based on evolution, to suppose that we should ever observe a fish becoming a reptile, or any other such nonsense. When fish reproduce the offspring are more fish. Were a fish to bring forth a non-fish this would require an explanation that evolution cannot provide. Life forms descend with modification and diversify. As populations do their thing over time we end up with a branching bush of gene pools variously related by common ancestry. At no point along the way does one species suddenly "turn into" another species in some metamorphosis event that we could observe. Even the creationist's beloved Cambrian "explosion" was not something so dramatic but rather was a radiation that occurred over millions and tens of millions of years and there are fossils documenting the gradualism of this "event."

And again, macroevolution is the sense of common descent is based on mountains of empirical evidence. Macroevolution as in speciation has been observed both in the lab and in the wild. See the links posted above for more information.

[Moontanman]

i dont know how to say it more clearly... (i dont care what you believe) THE THEORY OF MACRO EVOLUTION ISNT SCIENCE. (unless you dont believe richard dawkins and francis collins statements/views on it) therefore because this "process" was never observed if one wants to believe it (and i coulndt care less what you believe) it has TO BE TAKEN BY FAITH that it happened. IT IS A RELIGION JUST LIKE HINDU BUDDHISM CHRISTIANITY ETC ETC... i dont know how to put it more clearly thanks for your time...

 

 

Sammy you have been given huge amounts of evidence for everything to keep claiming isn't true. You keep misrepresenting science and "what science says" you have used dishonest quote mining, a constant army of strawmen and out right deception to continue to argue things that are easily proven not to be true. You ignore anything you disagree with and you refuse to use the quote system I think to make your answers more confusing than they already are. I again suggest you give the 9th commandment a look....

 

Sammy you have been given huge amounts of evidence for everything to keep claiming isn't true. You keep misrepresenting science and "what science says" you have used dishonest quote mining, a constant army of strawmen and out right deception to continue to argue things that are easily proven not to be true. You ignore anything you disagree with and you refuse to use the quote system I think to make your answers more confusing than they already are. I again suggest you give the 9th commandment a look....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

 

Misuse

 

Main article: Objections to evolution

See also: Speciation

The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution").[1] Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.[12] The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community.

Such claims are rejected by the scientific community on the basis of ample evidence that macroevolution is an active process both presently and in the past.[5][13] The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place.[5][14] Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community.[15] While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".[16][17]

Nicholas Matzke and Paul R. Gross have accused creationists of using "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic.[1] The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species." Matzke and Gross state that many creationist critics define macroevolution as something that cannot be attained, as these critics describe any observed evolutionary change as "just microevolution".[1]

[sammy7]

"So, do you not consider the data of DNA sequencing to be empirical?"

 

why would anyone question DNA sequencing. It is here today, observable. just as ringer posted a question about atoms, obviously we cant "see' them but they are observable. If a dictionary definition of a word doesnt mean anything to someone...then.... i dont know what........i can determine anything i want to mean anything i want if thats the case....... (get a dictionary look at definition of the word "science") . ill just say it once more.....SCIENCE=OBSERVABLE PHENOMENA. NO A PROCESS THAT CLAIMS TO HAVE BOTH STARTED AND STOPPED IN THE PAST WITHOUT OBSERVATION IS NOT SCIENCE! wether it be the "general theory of evolution" "the big bang" "aliens did a poo and a human being came out and landed on earth" "in the beginning god created the heveans and the earth" or "allah created everything" THESE ARE OUTSIDE THE FREAKING REALM OF SCIENCE!! lol (please read dictionary definition of the word science again). SOMEONE CAN BELIEVE EITHER ONE OF THE ABOVE BUT THE BELIEF IS BASED ON FAITH-NO ONE WAS THERE TO OBSERVE IT!!!

.........

 

 

"And if not evolution, what explains the many observations?"

 

this starts with the presupposition the "general theory of evolution" is true then works backwards, anyone could say the same thing about there own beliefs and do the same....again NOT OBSERVABLE NOT SCIENCE...PLEASE WATCH RICHARD DAWKINS STUMPED ON YOUTUBE- I WILL STATE IN SIMPLE TERMS HIS ANSWER HERE- WE DONT OBSERVE IT TODAY BECAUSE IT HAPPENED A LONG TIME AGO IN THE PAST. THIS IS NOT FREAKING SCIENCE . IT IS A FAITH BASED BELIEF AS IS ALL OTHER CREATION STORIES/ ORIGIN STORIES. if someone starts catching on here i have another video of dawkins were he agrees with the guy that it is "faith" based. please someone ask me for this vid....

 

again i have my own personal beliefs that are FAITH based (no one was there, no one observed it) and evolutionists have theirs...so do hara krishnas i guess..and buddhists..and hindus....THEY ARE ALL FAITH BASED.

 

"Macroevolution as in speciation has been observed both in the lab and in the wild. See the links posted above for more information"

 

SPECIATION IS NOT MACRO EVOLUTION, THERE IS LIMITS TO HOW FAR WE HAVE OBSERVED THINGS GET. that talk origins page is thick thick evolutionary propoganda (no offense)

if you believe you have JUST ONE LITERATURE SHOWING SOMETHING THEN LINK IT PLEASE ( I WILL ONLY REVIEW ONE AND FAIL IT AS AM NOT GOING TO KEEP DOING IT TO ENDLESS LITERATURES). THATS THE THING WITH THAT TALK ORGINS PAGE PEOPLE JUST ASSUME BECAUSE OF ALL THE WRITING ETC THAT IT CONTAINS ACTUAL EVIDENCE! ( again i can be rebutted here by posting just ONE literature.....

 

THANKS FOR YOUR TIME PLEASE ASK ME ABOUT ANOTHER DAWKINS VIDEO AFTER YOU WATCH THE ONE ABOVE THANKS.

..

[Moontanman]

"So, do you not consider the data of DNA sequencing to be empirical?"

 

why would anyone question DNA sequencing. It is here today, observable. just as ringer posted a question about atoms, obviously we cant "see' them but they are observable. If a dictionary definition of a word doesnt mean anything to someone...then.... i dont know what........i can determine anything i want to mean anything i want if thats the case....... (get a dictionary look at definition of the word "science") . ill just say it once more.....SCIENCE=OBSERVABLE PHENOMENA. NO A PROCESS THAT CLAIMS TO HAVE BOTH STARTED AND STOPPED IN THE PAST WITHOUT OBSERVATION IS NOT SCIENCE! wether it be the "general theory of evolution" "the big bang" "aliens did a poo and a human being came out and landed on earth" "in the beginning god created the heveans and the earth" or "allah created everything" THESE ARE OUTSIDE THE FREAKING REALM OF SCIENCE!! lol (please read dictionary definition of the word science again). SOMEONE CAN BELIEVE EITHER ONE OF THE ABOVE BUT THE BELIEF IS BASED ON FAITH-NO ONE WAS THERE TO OBSERVE IT!!!

.........

 

 

"And if not evolution, what explains the many observations?"

 

this starts with the presupposition the "general theory of evolution" is true then works backwards, anyone could say the same thing about there own beliefs and do the same....again NOT OBSERVABLE NOT SCIENCE...PLEASE WATCH RICHARD DAWKINS STUMPED ON YOUTUBE- I WILL STATE IN SIMPLE TERMS HIS ANSWER HERE- WE DONT OBSERVE IT TODAY BECAUSE IT HAPPENED A LONG TIME AGO IN THE PAST. THIS IS NOT FREAKING SCIENCE . IT IS A FAITH BASED BELIEF AS IS ALL OTHER CREATION STORIES/ ORIGIN STORIES. if someone starts catching on here i have another video of dawkins were he agrees with the guy that it is "faith" based. please someone ask me for this vid....

 

again i have my own personal beliefs that are FAITH based (no one was there, no one observed it) and evolutionists have theirs...so do hara krishnas i guess..and buddhists..and hindus....THEY ARE ALL FAITH BASED.

 

"Macroevolution as in speciation has been observed both in the lab and in the wild. See the links posted above for more information"

 

SPECIATION IS NOT MACRO EVOLUTION, THERE IS LIMITS TO HOW FAR WE HAVE OBSERVED THINGS GET. that talk origins page is thick thick evolutionary propoganda (no offense)

if you believe you have JUST ONE LITERATURE SHOWING SOMETHING THEN LINK IT PLEASE ( I WILL ONLY REVIEW ONE AND FAIL IT AS AM NOT GOING TO KEEP DOING IT TO ENDLESS LITERATURES). THATS THE THING WITH THAT TALK ORGINS PAGE PEOPLE JUST ASSUME BECAUSE OF ALL THE WRITING ETC THAT IT CONTAINS ACTUAL EVIDENCE! ( again i can be rebutted here by posting just ONE literature.....

 

THANKS FOR YOUR TIME PLEASE ASK ME ABOUT ANOTHER DAWKINS VIDEO AFTER YOU WATCH THE ONE ABOVE THANKS.

..

 

What video above?

[sammy7]

What video above?

 

thanks for the enquiry , type in "richard dawkins stumped" on youtube...it is only over a minute long or so...i am trying to make a point with it (i also have another one but this one needs to be watched first)....

[the asinine cretin]

The video mentioned by sammy

 

 

A related video for context

 

 

A page of possible interest

 

http://www.skeptics....tion-challenge/

Edited May 19, 2012 by the asinine cretin

[Moontanman]

thanks for the enquiry , type in "richard dawkins stumped" on youtube...it is only over a minute long or so...i am trying to make a point with it (i also have another one but this one needs to be watched first)....

 

 

No, if you want me to watch a video put a link on here, so everyone else can see it. It's bad enough you ignore all the evidence presented to you and you spread outright lies about the subject we are discussing, i will not do the work for you, and i doubt others will either, I and everyone else provide links to information we want to present, you do the same...

[sammy7]

ok i will just ask once-are both you guys actually interested in where im going with this? if the answer is 'no' i will stop posting on this forum....

[the asinine cretin]

SPECIATION IS NOT MACRO EVOLUTION, THERE IS LIMITS TO HOW FAR WE HAVE OBSERVED THINGS GET. that talk origins page is thick thick evolutionary propoganda (no offense)

 

If (no offense) comments are allowed I've just got to say that your demonstrated level of expertise on the subject of evolutionary biology does not instill much confidence in your judgments about what is or isn't reliable science vs. propaganda. I'm sure an actual evolutionary biologist would be even more dazzled than I am.

 

ok i will just ask once-are both you guys actually interested in where im going with this? if the answer is 'no' i will stop posting on this forum....

 

As far as I'm concerned, post on. I'm interested in your sources as well. The E. coli claims you were making before were somewhat interesting.

[Moontanman]

 

 

Thanks, i am familiar with the video, i was trying to get sammy7 to show his dishonesty one more time. Dawkins wasn't stumped he was pissed off and I don't blame him... Creationist dishonesty knows no bounds...

[sammy7]

As far as I'm concerned, post on. I'm interested in your sources as well. The E. coli claims you were making before were somewhat interesting.

 

ok thank you lol. ok so im going to start with some presuppositions-life is real, we are living human beings, we have senses, we can interact with the world around us, we are not just a brain in a vat hooked up to a bunch of wires or something lol etc etc, also (me personally) - when i hear words come out of another human beings mouth-i have to believe the message they intended to convey is what they intended to convey? if that makes sense? ie-they said what they said ok? so.... please watch the following video

 

 

 

 

 

i will post again after i receive recognition that youve watched it... (i will ask i guess at the end/beginning of each post if you would like to keep going ok?

[Moontanman]

ok i will just ask once-are both you guys actually interested in where im going with this? if the answer is 'no' i will stop posting on this forum....

 

 

Well considering that so far your level of dishonesty seems to be limited only by typical creationist lies and so far you have failed to make even one point by honest debate or discussion and you have shown no honest evidence i suggest you continue on sammy7, continue to break every rule on the site, continue to be dishonest, i love it when a creationist violates the 9th commandment, I'm sure god gets kick out of it...

[the asinine cretin]

I've watched the video, sammy.

[Moontanman]

I watched it too sammy, did you watch the video posted by asinine cretin? it shows just how dishonest that creatard video was. Seriously sammy7 when are you going to learn that creationism is nothing but lies propped up by more lies? Believe what you want, even if it's lies but asserting it as the truth is yet another lie as well...

[sammy7]

I've watched the video, sammy.

 

ok so this is for asinine cretin, i will state how i interpret that (very very simplified down to the basics) if you concurr and would like to continue i will, if you disagree please say so, so-my interpretation- we dont observe it today because it both started and stopped happening in the past. i will add myself although he didnt say this but it needs to be pointed out -that both the start and stops of his story were both unobserved. (again i have left out the time he mentioned and the process etc etc.) if you find fault anywhere please say so... thank you. shall i continue lol?

[the asinine cretin]

ok so this is for asinine cretin, i will state how i interpret that (very very simplified down to the basics) if you concurr and would like to continue i will, if you disagree please say so, so-my interpretation- we dont observe it today because it both started and stopped happening in the past. i will add myself although he didnt say this but it needs to be pointed out -that both the start and stops of his story were both unobserved. (again i have left out the time he mentioned and the process etc etc.) if you find fault anywhere please say so... thank you. shall i continue lol?

 

 

What started and stopped happening in the past? Evolution? If so, what is the basis of this claim? If you invoke the shape of evolution, stasis, punctuated equilibrium, or any other such thing I will be forced to ironically remind you of your radical epistemology. But I should let you clarify and finish.

 

So, the start and stop of evolution were both unobserved? Who didn't say it? Dawkins? I'm a bit confused. Thanks.

Edited May 19, 2012 by the asinine cretin

[sammy7]

So, the start and stop of evolution were both unobserved? Who didn't say it? Dawkins? I'm a bit confused. Thanks.

 

again my simplified interpretation- we dont observe it today because it both started and stopped happening in the (unobserved) past. i added the "unobserved" part.....i have more...again will wait

[Moontanman]

So, the start and stop of evolution were both unobserved? Who didn't say it? Dawkins? I'm a bit confused. Thanks.

 

again my simplified interpretation- we dont observe it today because it both started and stopped happening in the (unobserved) past. i added the "unobserved" part.....i have more...again will wait

 

 

No one says it started and stopped in the past sammy7, in fact it is true that evolution is going on all around us all the time, you have been given many examples of this which you choose to ignore instead of addressing them. Again you make a claim which is not only not true but it is an intentional falsehood, I guess you didn't watch the foundational falsehoods of creationism video series i suggested....

[Ringer]

atoms are OBSERVABLE (we both know that m8) they are here right now today (NOTICE THE WORD OBSERVE NOT LIMITED TO JUST SEEING WITH EYES)) so they are observable..ie-science.... so the official story for macro evolution is...we dont observe it today (richard dawkins and francis collins both say this, im happy to take there word for it) because it both started and stopped happening long ago in the past WITHOUT OBSERVATION..so evolution=religion it is taken by faith that this process once happened (as is creation event of any other religion christianity hindu whatever other ones there are...) once the laymen understands this they realise why they had such a problem with such statements as "evolution is a scientific fact". please ask my anything you want about biblical creation if you want )i dont believe any of the other creation stories i take by faith genesis 1.1. is true (as evolutionists take by faith their "process" once happened) thanks for reading... (n.b. mods yes religion is mentioned in this post but as we know from dawkins and francis collins statements evolution is a religion so.....)

 

So do you agree that you have yet to read any of the links I have given and are not here for a reasonable debate? Because so far as I can tell your 'reasonable conversation' is going like this:

 

"Evolution isn't real! *insert generic anti-evolution 'argument'*"

"Evolution is real, and here is some evidence against your argument."

"Evolution isn't real! *insert generic anti-evolution 'argument*"

ad infinitum

 

In what why are atoms observable?

 

I don't see why anyone would ask you questions about Creation when I already did before and you flat out said it wasn't scientific and has no explanatory power.

[sammy7]

In what why are atoms observable?

 

yes we cant see them but we can image them,instruments etc...they are "observable"

 

I don't see why anyone would ask you questions about Creation when I already did before and you flat out said it wasn't scientific and has no explanatory power.

 

im not trying to promote it as a "scientific model" dude if you really really want to know the truth (yes it can be a bit frightening at first i was kinda a bit scared to) i can show you...

[Ringer]

In what why are atoms observable?

 

yes we cant see them but we can image them,instruments etc...they are "observable"

 

Cite your sources, because so far as I am aware an atom has never been 'imaged' (I assume that means an image made of them) other that drawing based on theories.

 

 

I don't see why anyone would ask you questions about Creation when I already did before and you flat out said it wasn't scientific and has no explanatory power.

 

im not trying to promote it as a "scientific model" dude if you really really want to know the truth (yes it can be a bit frightening at first i was kinda a bit scared to) i can show you...

 

So you want to preach?

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

I've split all of the above posts from another thread as it was getting off topic.

Sammy7, I have moved this whole thing to speculations as your own opinions on evolution do not belong in the mainstream science forums. Please be aware that we have rules against posting speculation in the main science forums. It falls under derailment and thread hijacking.

Now, as for this thread. You are required to back up all of your assertions with evidence and not be dishonest in your approach. This means that 'I don't know the official story' just ain't gonna cut it. If you're going to argue against something, you should probably go and find out what that something is actually about. Soap boxing isn't going to be tolerated.

I've also noticed a few remarks in here that are somewhat insulting (towards both camps). This is to stop.

Oh, and sammy7, I have one last request (although it's not really an official one); the constant use of 'lol' is frustrating to read. Do you really laugh that much when you're talking? Must be difficult.

Please do not respond directly to this mod note within this thread. You are welcome to use our report feature (located at the bottom left of this post) or our PM feature to contact staff with any queries regarding this action.

[sammy7]

Cite your sources, because so far as I am aware an atom has never been 'imaged' (I assume that means an image made of them) other that drawing based on theories.

 

hay im just reading about electron microscopy now... dont have any.

 

So you want to preach?

 

lol i figured this out a few days ago that IMO the whole thing is built on a house of cards/a mirage... if you would like to know more please watch the dawkins video i posted above and comment more... ( i have another video too but will wait...)