*sighs* I see that Jan is still selling his snake oil, and ignoring any evidence which blows his assertions right out of the water.
Have you read that thread I linked you to many pages back, Jan? Or are you still 'too arsed to read it'?
That's rich, coming from someone who can't even comprehend the basics of evolution and the scientific method.
Go back to selling used cars, Jan.
You've worn out any credibility you may have initially had on this thread.
Time and time again you pop up like some sort of gram positive bacteria,
...spewing your ignorance on this forum,
..and then run away whenever someone points out your gross inaccuracies.
Jan said:Obviously you cannot answer the question "why is macroevol a scientific fact".
Mountainhare said:And Jan continues to stick and fingers in her ears and shout 'LA LA LA!!!'.
KennyJC said:Have we heard Jan's theory of how life and species came to be?Take a good look at the title of the thread.
Mountainhare said:GODDIDIT!
Better than….GODDIDIT BUT I’ll BE DAMNED IF I GIVE HIM THE CREDIT.
KennyJC said:Even if God did it, then evolution is 'his' way.
Before you bring God into it, you still need to explain how macroevol works, and why it is a scientific fact.
And don’t be fooled into thinking evolutionists accept the idea of God being behind any naturalistic process, as a possibility.
SnakeLord said:….and even though he claims to have read it all, has not mentioned any specific grievances.
That’s because I have no grievance, I just want you to explain why YOU accept it as a scientific fact.
But to be honest, I’m getting bored, because two things have become very obvious;
a) it is not a scientific fact (and you know it)
b) you accept it because you feel it is an alternative to God.
That would certainly help this go smoother, but he seems unwilling to do so. The information you require is all there Jan, you just need to make the effort.
Okay.. it is a fact because it says so on the tin….I concede…..you win….
Jan.
Jan Ardena said:But to be honest, I’m getting bored
hello sirjohn smith said:On Monday 21st November, this religious guy came in to talk about evoloution in my Religious Studies class. At the moment we are disscussing wheather or not science and religion are compatible...anyway he said he could disprove evoloution, he then showed us this video about certain animals, such as the grizzly bear;
The grizzly can feed its new-born cub for 5 months without moving, therefore without hunting, it feeds of its llarge fat supply, and also re-absorbs it urine. The religious nut on the video said that scientist could not explain this, especially through evolution, and so therefore (he coped out) and said that it was one of Gods intricut designes!!
Before this i took evoloution as a given fact, i am atheist, and i do not seek out a relgious answer, therefore evolution was the reasonable explanation.
I still belive evolution is the case, but i was wondering the views of you guys?
He gave us some more examples wich i would be happy to share, although i think that they were bollocks (only my view).
purple_hairstreak said:Here's a cure: go away and never return.
evolution said:hello sir
how are you though there are huge people how disagree with this opinion that evolution is not the case of human development.
it is said i quran that human are or living beging are created out form clay but there are huge number of muslims that deny evolution and simple says that it is against our religion i cannot understand those people. one should ask them that god would have made them with his hand. as it is said in quran and also in bible that god only thinks and that thing is done.
thanks
Jan Ardena said:Isn't that cute...life outside the cesspool.
That’s because I have no grievance
I just want you to explain why YOU accept it as a scientific fact.
a) it is not a scientific fact (and you know it)
b) you accept it because you feel it is an alternative to God.
Before you bring God into it, you still need to explain how macroevol works, and why it is a scientific fact.
And don’t be fooled into thinking evolutionists accept the idea of God being behind any naturalistic process, as a possibility.
Evolution does NOT explain the origin of life or the universe etc.Jan Ardena said:And don’t be fooled into thinking evolutionists accept the idea of God being behind any naturalistic process, as a possibility.
...
b) you accept it because you feel it is an alternative to God.
No it isn't. And merely labelling it as that will not make it so. When you demonstrate why it is 'childish nonsense', you might have a case. But until then, no dice, Snake woman.Your so-called evidence is childish nonsense,
Poor Jan. You still fail to grasp that scientists have never claimed that similarity by itself is evidence of evolution. Really, if you are going to argue against a fact and theory, you should understand a little about it.namely "similarity" or to give it some illusive cred, "homology". It does not state why macroevol is a scientific fact.
Yes, I'm receiving quite a bit of snake oil from you in this thread.Get yer snake oil....
WOW! Do you consider that a form of rebuttal, Jan? A measly sentence where you merely label my post and linked article 'jargon'? I guess you do that with anything which is a little over your intelligence level (pretty much everything)... just pass it off as goobledegook. Special theory of relativity? Why, I can't understand that, so it's jargon!Mountain Hare: Have you read that thread I linked you to many pages back, Jan? Or are you still 'too arsed to read it'? ”
Jan spouted: Yes, it is the same old bullshite jargon, nothing new.
There is nothing wrong with asking a question when you are genuinely interested in the answer. However, you do nothing of the sort. Instead, you do the following....spewing your ignorance on this forum, ”
Since when was asking question ignorant?
Thank you for demonstrating the intention behind your 'questions'. There is no honest enquiry involved... you are merely looking for a chance to protelyze and bitch.Oh...I know....since the questions reveal your idiotic belief system hoplessly masqureaded as fact with a thick vale of heavily financed bullshite jargon.
When you demonstrate why it is 'childish nonsense', you might have a case. But until then, no dice, Snake woman.
Poor Jan. You still fail to grasp that scientists have never claimed that similarity by itself is evidence of evolution. Really, if you are going to argue against a fact and theory, you should understand a little about it.
Yes, I'm receiving quite a bit of snake oil from you in this thread.
WOW! Do you consider that a form of rebuttal, Jan?
I guess you do that with anything which is a little over your intelligence level (pretty much everything)... just pass it off as goobledegook. Special theory of relativity?
In otherwords, you shouldn't have too much difficulty understanding the basics.
Here's an idea, Jan. Why don't you PROVE that you've read it?
You can do so by merely stating the evidence I put forward in my thread, including why I feel that it is strong evidence for evolution.
This will tell me that you are at least taking the effort to understand the opponent's position.
There is nothing wrong with asking a question when you are genuinely interested in the answer. However, you do nothing of the sort. Instead, you do the following.
1. Ask a question, where you make it clear that you already think that you 'know' the answer.
2. When someone politely responds, you adopt a glazed look, and ignore their wonderful response. And articles posted are labelled as 'jargon', 'bullshit', or 'not credible', without a valid explaination of why you think that they are so.
4. Eventually, your 'opponent' gives up and walks away.
I not only find this frustrating, I also find it highly dishonest.
The inability to absorb new information, even when it has been drilled into you time and time again, is the very definition of willful ignorance.
Thank you for demonstrating the intention behind your 'questions'. There is no honest enquiry involved... you are merely looking for a chance to protelyze and bitch.
but you need to explain the scientific evidence which makes it a scientific fact
"There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).
The idea that the origin of higher taxa, such as genera (canines versus felines, for example), requires something special is based on the misunderstanding of the way in which new phyla (lineages) arise."
but you need to explain the scientific evidence which makes it a scientific fact
And as I am telling you for the second time on this page of this thread, no scientist has ever fucking claimed that similarity by itself is evidence of evolution, any more than a forensic investigator claims that a hole in the wall is evidence that a bullet passed through it. Once again, who are you to challenge evolution when you don't have a fucking clue as to what it entails?I regard it as childish because of the reasoning of "similarity" to come to your conclusion, and nonsense because it does not make it a scientific fact but you still think it does.
It's already been answered at least a dozen times. For the argument to commence, you need to drop your rhetoric and stalling tactics, and actually read the MANY replies given to you in this thread.I'm asking a question, namely, why is macroevol a scientific fact, not arguing (as yet). For the argument to commence, you must first answer my question.
No, they aren't ad-homimen attacks. They are personal insults, which are well deserved. Not only are you ignorant of basic science, you also don't have a clue about logic fallacies. But don't feel bad, I won't hold it against you. You're pretty much living up to the standards I have set for you.Are you going to persist with ad-hominem attacks,
Once again, I've answered your question. My question regarding whether you have read another thread I posted is not pointless, because it is strong evidence for why evolution + common descent are fact. Ergo, it is exactly what you are demanding. Ergo, go read the fucking thread and comment on it if you want to put forward an image of actually being genuinely interested in why 99+% of life scientists accept evolution as a fact.Why don't you just answer my question, here and now?
Instead of asking pointless questions.
What has happened to Einstuck, by the way?
SnakeLord said:For the gazillionth time:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
Also worth taking note of:
Seriously, you ask for the evidence and then reject the evidence when we give it to you. There is no point writing all that evidence up from scratch just for you to then refer to it as "bullshite jargon", without being decent enough to explain what specific grievances you have with the evidence.
SnakeLord said:For the gazillionth time:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
Also worth taking note of:
Seriously, you ask for the evidence and then reject the evidence when we give it to you. There is no point writing all that evidence up from scratch just for you to then refer to it as "bullshite jargon", without being decent enough to explain what specific grievances you have with the evidence.