Evolution, not a fact??????

[glaucon]

Well, this thread is, oddly enough, in the Religion section so, I'm sure there are some addle-brained folk lurking hereabouts...

 

[davewhite04]

What was your question?

 

[mountainhare]

Jan Ardena:

You should ask yourself why you took macro-evolution as a given fact without trying to observe it. In essence it seems you are exhibiting blind-faith.

So we need to observe a murder to know that it occurred? We can't make reasonable inferences from the evidence left at the scene of the crime (fingerprints, DNA, firearm comparisons, blood types, etc.)?

You are aware that we can't see electrons?

Quite simply, you're talking trash, Jan. Direct observation of the event is not required to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that an event occured. This has been pointed out to you time and time again, but you still peddle the same old snake oil.

I;m glad you use the word "believe", it is most appropriate.

'Believe' has a number of different meanings, depending on the context. The definitions of believe in the following sentences are obviously quite different...
'I believe in almighty Ra.'
'I believe that gravity will cause me to go 'splat' when I jump off a cliff.'
'I do believe that I will have another tuna sandwich, thanks.'

It is most appropriate that a Creationut would equivocate the definition of 'believe' to make a weak argument demonstrating that evolution is a faith. Surely you can do better? Oh wait, there is not real scientific argument for Creationism, so semantics is what Creationuts and IDiots fall back on.

davewhite:

The only thing that has been observered is micro evolution, and to some degree speciation so why should I believe in macro evolution(billions or millions of years of speciation)?

All the evidence points to macroevolution and common descent. Once again, direct observation of an event is not required to know beyond all reasonable doubt that that event occured.

If 'direct observation' of an event was required, you would have to say goodbye to many important theories and facts in many fields of science, such as astronomy, particle physics, quantum mechanics, forensics, paleontology and geology.

 

[KennyJC]

Mountainhare: Nicely put.

It's like saying because you don't see mountains all at once being shaped by wind, rain and streams etc that you can not prove that mountains are shaped by the elements over millions of years. The Grand Canyon did not get like that over night y'know...

Although creationists that say the Earth is 6,000 years old, try to even get around this fact

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

I'm not sure it is common sense actually. I hear the DNA arguments and will remain close mouthed for now. I don't accept it because there isn't enough evidence, a bunch of fossils and peoples opinions isn't gonna change that.

have you ever read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html ?
no need to read the whole thing, just each of the evidences. You probably won't understand a word, but at least you can't say there isn't enough evidence.

 

[mountainhare]

TheAlphaWolf:

have you ever read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html ?
no need to read the whole thing, just each of the evidences. You probably won't understand a word, but at least you can't say there isn't enough evidence.

You expect Creationuts to read sentences longer than two words? ROFL! If it doesn't come from Apologetics Press, don't count on them doing so...

I posted the Chromosome Challenge in this forum.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50486

Watch as Creationuts ignore yet another powerful example of evidence for evolution. "OH NOES, IT CANTAINS SCIENCE, SUMTHING I CANT COMPRAHEND!111 HIT THE EMEERGINCY BUTTUN. 'THEIR'S A CUNSPIRACY AGINST CREATSIONISTS!!!1111OEONEONE"

Quite simply, Creationuts are like mushrooms. They pop up everywhere. They live in the dark, and are fed on shit. I have yet to see a Creationut who doesn't parrot a distorted definition of evolution which they obtained from Answers in Genesis, or the Institute for Creationist Research.

 

[SnakeLord]

and in the second instance I spit out the garbage. Basically I only digest the good stuff.

Strange method.. most people poop out the garbage.

2. nobody has proved that life comes from non life.

Tell me, at what precise moment does a puppy become a dog?

Once you answer it we can proceed..

 

[mountainhare]

Snakey:

Once you answer it we can proceed..

I think that he needs to submit his definition of 'life'. Is a virus alive? What about a prion?

 

[Deep_MindQuest]

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Index.htm CREATION-EVOLUTION ENCYCLOPEDIA-its huge great many links info !

 

[Deep_MindQuest]

http://www.trueorigin.org/ “Talk.Origins Archive” Rebuttals !

 

[mountainhare]

LOL, trueorigins. You've got to be kidding?

 

[Jan Ardena]

A religious nut is some crazy bastard of a christian who feels its his right to suggest that anyone who goes against his views are wrong, any situation he found mildly diifcult to explain, he stated was an act of God, he would not accept any arugment from anyone, however relavant, and buried his nose in quoteing biblical quotes, this, in my opinion, is a religious nut.

A religious nut?
Or a nut who is religious?

Mountainhare,

We can't make reasonable inferences from the evidence left at the scene of the crime (fingerprints, DNA, firearm comparisons, blood types, etc.)?

There is no evidence that one species changed into a completely different species.

You are aware that we can't see electrons?

And what does that have to do with a dog turning into a cat?

Quite simply, you're talking trash, Jan. Direct observation of the event is not required to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that an event occured.

Then don’t peddle such nonsense as scientific, keep it in the belief pile. Take a leaf out of johnsmiths book.

'Believe' has a number of different meanings, depending on the context. The definitions of believe in the following sentences are obviously quite different...
'I believe in almighty Ra.'
'I believe that gravity will cause me to go 'splat' when I jump off a cliff.'
'I do believe that I will have another tuna sandwich, thanks.'

So where are the “different meanings?”

It is most appropriate that a Creationut would equivocate the definition of 'believe' to make a weak argument demonstrating that evolution is a faith.

I’m not creating an argument, because there is no need of one. The concept of macro-evolution is a nonsense.

Surely you can do better?

I have better things to do, that’s for sure.
If you want to BELIEVE that nonsense, go right ahead. But if you’re going to pedal it as “science” then show the proof. I am not interested in your personal talk.

Oh wait, there is not real scientific argument for Creationism, so semantics is what Creationuts and IDiots fall back on.

There is no real stand-alone “scientific argument for anything so profound, because that is not the nature or purpose of modern-science. Only when you come to the conclusion, that everything is physical can you belief otherwise, but that conclusion cannot be based on the modern-scientific method, it has to be believed.
I try not to call people idiots on the strength of their beliefs alone, it shows weakness and ignorance, and does nothing to push foreword a good and productive discussion. For anyone who is seriously interested in understanding these matters, cancelling out an idea through denial, is simply not an option. If it can be shown that macro-evolution is responsible for the diversity of species available today, then I would most certainly embrace it, as it would be pointless not to. But to date, there is no empirical evidence which would suggest this idea, and as such I see no reason to embrace it. If I were to embrace it, I know it would be, because it acts as an argument against the creation of life, not because it holds any water. This I believe is your position.

If 'direct observation' of an event was required, you would have to say goodbye to many important theories and facts in many fields of science, such as astronomy, particle physics, quantum mechanics, forensics, paleontology and geology.

We can observe evolution easily enough, why is macro-evolution so unobservable?
There should be an abundance of evidence which leaves no doubt, not personalised inferences. Why isn’t there?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

KennyJC,

Nicely put.

It's like saying because you don't see mountains all at once being shaped by wind, rain and streams etc that you can not prove that mountains are shaped by the elements over millions of years. The Grand Canyon did not get like that over night y'know...

But if an explanation was given , and a simple experiment which shows how elements can shape clay, then it would be accepted. Your only explanation is similarity, and there is absolutely no experiment to back up this extraordinary claim. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you do have real explanations, and experiments which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that macro-evolution is the process. If you do, then please divulge.

Jan .

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

We can observe evolution easily enough, why is macro-evolution so unobservable?

Because it is the episodic unintended consequence of changes in allele frequency filtered by changes in ecology stretching over millennia. In your view, Jan, what is the mechanism that constrains descent with modification to "micro-evolution"?

There should be an abundance of evidence which leaves no doubt, not personalised inferences.

That is nonsense. IBE is perfectly sound scientific methodology so long as the evidence is intersubjectively verifiable and the resulting explanation of that evidence permits testable predictions.

 

[KennyJC]

KennyJC,



But if an explanation was given , and a simple experiment which shows how elements can shape clay, then it would be accepted. Your only explanation is similarity, and there is absolutely no experiment to back up this extraordinary claim. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you do have real explanations, and experiments which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that macro-evolution is the process. If you do, then please divulge.

Jan .

If you have read what credible 'facts' there are and still consider it all 'nonsense', then what is your theory on the existence of life? Do you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and that beings such as me and you appeared overnight thanks to God?

True much of macro evolution relies on common sense, but there is overwhelming evidence which backs up that common sense. You haven't been able to say why it is nonsense, you have just said it is that. Why?

If it can be shown that macro-evolution is responsible for the diversity of species available today, then I would most certainly embrace it

Doubtful... I'm sure you'd stick to Genesis.

 

[SnakeLord]

I think that he needs to submit his definition of 'life'. Is a virus alive? What about a prion?

I know, we're getting round to it The question itself will lead to that.

 

[Silas]

Irv whosit said:

Yet in the 500 years in which intelligent and committed men have worked with the dahlia, no change has occurred among the wild-species plants growing in the wild.

That's an amazing blanket statement. Does he mean that all the myriad species of dahlias were known and identified as of 500 years ago, and no new wild varieties have ever been identified?

Jan Ardena wrote:

We can't make reasonable inferences from the evidence left at the scene of the crime (fingerprints, DNA, firearm comparisons, blood types, etc.)?

There is no evidence that one species changed into a completely different species.

You are aware that we can't see electrons?

And what does that have to do with a dog turning into a cat?

Strangely enough I really thought that here on sciforums we dealt with at least a higher level than the old Creationist pamphlets as cited in Dawkins's The Blind Watchmaker: "According to Evolutionists, there should be a species midway between a frog and an elephant. But has anybody ever seen a Frelephant?" That's obviously an extreme parody (or maybe it isn't - maybe he really was quoting!) but the same thing applies here. Dogs don't turn into cats or vice versa. That the dog family and the cat family each evolved from a single common ancestor (that was neither a dog nor a cat) is not an assumption, but clearly defined in the fossil record. Probably this was from two different populations of the same species that became geographically separated. Meanwhile, the very existence of the dog family from the tiniest chihuahua to the most feral dingo or hyena is an illustration of the basic fact of evolution - that everything is related.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Jan Ardena wrote:Strangely enough I really thought that here on sciforums we dealt with at least a higher level than the old Creationist pamphlets as cited in Dawkins's The Blind Watchmaker: "According to Evolutionists, there should be a species midway between a frog and an elephant. But has anybody ever seen a Frelephant?" That's obviously an extreme parody (or maybe it isn't - maybe he really was quoting!) ...

Never underestimate the ignorance of the creationist. They scan the world, note the ubiquitous absence of Frelephants, and give all glory to God.

 

[Jan Ardena]

ConsequentAtheist,

We can observe evolution easily enough, why is macro-evolution so unobservable?

Because it is the episodic unintended consequence of changes in allele frequency filtered by changes in ecology stretching over millennia.

This is storytelling, and furthermore you have absolutely no way of proving this is what happens.

In your view, Jan, what is the mechanism that constrains descent with modification to "micro-evolution"?

All you need to know from me, for now, is that evolution takes place because we can observe it. And macro-evolution does not take place because we cannot observe it. The only way it does take place, is in your mind.

That is nonsense. IBE is perfectly sound scientific methodology so long as the evidence is intersubjectively verifiable and the resulting explanation of that evidence permits testable predictions.

IBE?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Irv whosit said:That's an amazing blanket statement. Does he mean that all the myriad species of dahlias were known and identified as of 500 years ago, and no new wild varieties have ever been identified?

Jan Ardena wrote:Strangely enough I really thought that here on sciforums we dealt with at least a higher level than the old Creationist pamphlets as cited in Dawkins's The Blind Watchmaker: "According to Evolutionists, there should be a species midway between a frog and an elephant. But has anybody ever seen a Frelephant?" That's obviously an extreme parody (or maybe it isn't - maybe he really was quoting!) but the same thing applies here. Dogs don't turn into cats or vice versa. That the dog family and the cat family each evolved from a single common ancestor (that was neither a dog nor a cat) is not an assumption, but clearly defined in the fossil record. Probably this was from two different populations of the same species that became geographically separated. Meanwhile, the very existence of the dog family from the tiniest chihuahua to the most feral dingo or hyena is an illustration of the basic fact of evolution - that everything is related.

I was being facetious Silas.

Jan Ardena.