Alas, this is what happens when you pull two words out of a sentence and surround them by dots. I have no interest in what you might or might not hate - that was the very point of the earlier sentence. Might I suggest you go back and read it in full without thinking extracting two words is of any value.
But you have, all throughout this forum for as far back as I can remember you. Indeed even on this very thread several times, including:
"Macro evolution relies purely on conditional belief, based on complete denial of God".
So.. you see it that way, he sees it a different way. Now, back to the point, (that you always seem to miss).. His is backed up by evidence, so where is yours that it relies "purely" on conditional belief and that denial of god is of any relevance to it?
There you are demanding people supply evidence, (which they do), while you seem to think it's perfectly ok for you to fart arse around with pure assumption, unfounded allegation, and fantastical make believe - while, I hasten to add, spending a lot more time attacking the people than the argument itself. A tragically naive way of conducting a debate.
I'm asking for the reason macroevol is a SCIENTIFIC FACT.
First we must work through the basics. It's the same with anything you do. If you do not fully comprehend the basics, there is no chance anything further will be of value to you. The funny thing is you're getting all worked up, typing in caps, insulting the other forum users and so on without having even done the decency thus far of answering my question to you. I did state that we can move on once that question has been answered, kindly do so.
If you can be bothered to read the discourse, you will find this is the actual point of conflict, he cannot produce this scientific evidence which claims macroevol a scientific fact.
But how would you know? In your own words: "I cannot be bothered reading his post".
Perhaps a starting point for you would be:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
I must point out however, that it isn't specifically designed for the layman, and I fear you will struggle a great deal with it. However, that's what the learning process is all about - especially when someone is as bias against something, (with nothing to support that bias), as you clearly are. I don't see why you would take it as such a threat to your life and ideals, (as you seemingly do). You cannot just brush aside and ignore evidence and 'reality' because you want something better to be true. At the very least you can combine the two: god made the first life and the process of evolution.. what a glorious space fairy. See, that way you can accept and embrace reality while still clinging onto nonsensical fantasy.
What are you talking about? I have made no claim of fact.
You'd know what I was talking about if you took the time to read it. Kindly scroll back up and try again.
How did you arrive at this fact?
The 'fact' is before the: "These are the facts of the matter". Let me requote:
"his is backed up by the most upto date scientific evidence, yours is backed up by a book written by men that thought the world was flat. Kinda says it all really - whether you acknowledge it or not."
Understanding of evolution is backed up by the most upto date scientific evidence. Faith in gods are backed up by the words of ancient people that knew bugger all about anything.
Why would you consider subscribing to macroevol? Do you have possession of the scientific evidence which warrants this concept a fact? If yes, please provide. This is the point.
There is plenty of evidence, which you can happily view by clicking the earlier link, (as a starting place), and as I did state earlier I just follow the evidence. At the end of the day it's all about evidence - which is exactly why I am not religious. There is
nothing in the way of evidence to support belief in sky beings. Nothing at all. Given the choice I lend more support to the one with the greater amount of evidence. Of course things can change - such is life.. (except if you're religious in which case any old answer from 2000+ years ago is apparently good enough). Now.. to get to your 'point', please answer the return question I asked.
If something is regarded as a SCIENTIFIC FACT, and it is being taught as a truth, then a complete answer to my question should be forthcoming, or at least a credible explanation which blows all competing arguments and theories away.
Certainly a valid argument to get religious education out of our schools. I'll use it next time it comes up, thanks.
Schools do not generally have the time, resources or even education to really go into details concerning these things. They know that anyone really interested in a specific subject will go on to university education dedicated to study of that subject. They will as a result stick to the basics. Now, evolution is a fact - and it's about time you woke up that, and while we can all sit here and debate the ins and outs of it, nothing changes evolution from happening. Teachers in schools recognise that evolution is a fact and teach the basics of the theories and understandings behind it. While, once you have answered my question, I will do my utmost to help assist you with your learning, it can only go so far without you actually doing a degree in the subject. Having done that you will certainly understand a lot more than I do.
Of course we literally don't have the time to learn everything, and so we often have to apply common sense to our basic understanding and move on from there. Take for instance toothpaste. Science keeps telling me it makes my teeth strong, but I have no degree in the subject.. Is it faith? The answer is no, it's just common sense and following the evidence. When I brush my teeth they certainly feel stronger, and a look at all the gaps in the mouth of those who don't brush their teeth appeals to my common sense.
With regards to evolution you might aswell just look at dogs. We can see the vast differences that occur, and unless you can supply evidence of a specific mechanism that stops those changes from progressing, then common sense clearly dictates that those changes escalate until such time where the two things changing can no longer produce viable offspring - and get classified as different species.
It's like 10% study, 90% common sense.
As it stands, there isn't even a sound philosophical argument for this alleged fact. There is no comparison in nature that can be used as an analogy (to my knowledge).
Study Jan, study.
What are blithering on about?
Given time, and a little bit of common sense, and you'll work it out.
You're opinion is fair enough, but it has nothing to do with whether or not macroevol is a scientific fact.
No, it had nothing to do with macroevolution at all. I'm glad you're starting to pay attention. Alas we cannot really continue with the macroevolution discussion until you answer my question. As such I was concentrating on the worthlessness of someone demanding evidence while believing in sky fairies because some 'ancient halfwit' says so.
But I hear you, you are prepared to have faith in someone based on their proffession rather than the substance and validity of their claims, or in other words you have blind faith in modern-day scientists Thanks for being honest.
You know, if it makes you feel better in yourself to make believe fantasy answers from the people you're talking with then feel free. Who am I to object if it makes you feel better? It's extremely ignorant, but it's your right.
I'm sure this is very interesting, but what is your point?
The point is contained in the sentence. That's how it usually works. Try reading it again.
That is a blockheads understanding
Mark Twain was far far above what you could ever even dream of being.
It is a necessary part of their belief system.
Provide evidence of this.
And what is the scientific evidence which makes macroevol a SCIENTIFIC FACT?
Did I use the word 'fact' in my sentence? I said: "I follow the evidence". You can find some examples of that evidence on the link I provided. It certainly has more evidence than "god did it", and as such it gets more credibility in my books.
but does this mean we change into a completely different species? If you think it does, and you only follow scientific evidence to make your decisions, then please explain why you think it does.
I said we'd get to it once you answered my question, but oh look.. you couldn't even manage it. One simple little question and you ran away like a dog with it's tail between it's legs. Why expect me to answer your questions when you can't give the same courtesy in return? As you can see, I have answered near enough every question you've asked. I only asked you
one and you can't do it. I am truly disgusted.
So in a million years or whatever, women will have feet the size of ocean liners, but they will still be women won't they?
The question is: Is it just feet that change? If in a million years they have feet the size of ocean liners, pointy ears, no hair, 2 vaginas and retractable claws then no, they won't still be "women". They will be something so far removed from what we know as "women", that you'd be hard pressed to consider them as ever having been the same. But of course those changes don't just stop for the mere thrill of it. They continue along this process until they are unable to breed with their former selves and as such become classified as a new species.
Why do you demand an answer to this
You want me to help you, (seemingly), you make demands for this that and the other.. this question is an important part of stage 1. Now.. answer this: Why is it so hard just to fucking answer it and get it done with? Am I asking for you to lay your life on the line? Am I "demanding" that you chop your head off? No Jan, it's a simple bloody question. Why are you running? Be a man and answer it.
