Jan Ardena said:A religious nut?
Or a nut who is religious?
LOL , good point, probably both!
Jan Ardena said:A religious nut?
Or a nut who is religious?
mountainhare said:And you CONTINUE to equivocate the word 'belief'. Even after having your shit refuted, you continue to parrot the same arguments ad nauseum! Merely because your 'believe' in a fact, theory, or explaination does not somehow make that fact, theory or explaination unscientific.
mountainhare said:And by the way, macroevolution has been observed... in the fossil record, in molecular biology, in vestigal appendages, etc. Merely ignoring the facts does not cause them to disappear.
mountainhare said:Creationuts are like mushrooms. They live in the dark, and are fed solely on shit. And even when you eat them alive, they still somehow manage to reproduce.
Very well, Jan. I'll assume, pending your response, that you attribute what you call "micro-evolution" to "genetic variation". I'll also assume, pending your response, that you'll acknowledge the possibility (if not likelihood) of accumulated "genetic variation" over time. I am asking you to explain to me how, and to what extent, such variation is limited or constrained.Jan Ardena said:I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "evolutionary change", but there is room for genetic variation.
Res ipsa loquitur.Ophiolite said:Pompous. If you are going to praise me, learn to spell properly.Jan Ardena said:Very good Ophiolite, your not just a pompus twat, you do have some balls.
I don't give a flying Aardvark about moderne atheism, ancient athiesm, post-modern athiesm, stuck in the mud athiesm, athiesm with fries on the side. Athiesm has fuck all to do with evolution, whether it is micro, macro or any other variety.
From that site:TheAlphaWolf said: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.
There is no negligence. It was deliberate. Don't you even understand the use of irony?ConsequentAtheist said:Res ipsa loquitur.
Res ipsa loquitur, sed quid in infernos dicit?ConsequentAtheist said:stratographic ???!!
That's why you use sub-routines.Cyperium said:I'm a programmer, so I know that when I change one thing in the program that usually means I have to change alot of other things as well, now if the whole structure has changed (as there is in different species) then there must have been a crucial part that had been changed (seen from a programmers eyes).
Speciation has been observed time and time again.
Any rational individual who doesn't hold a literal interpretation of scripture infers common descent from the evidence and facts available.
You main argument against macroevolution is that we haven't observed it directly. But as all of my examples demonstrated, science does not necessarily rely on the direct observation of an event or object.
If you truly believe that it does, then you will have to say that quantum mechanics is not science, since much of what we know about quantum mechanics has been obtained from making INFERENCES from facts and evidence.
Also, I love how you blather about a dog turning into a cat. No evolutionist would claim such a thing, and it merely highlights your blatant ignorance of the very theory and fact that you feebly criticize.
Do you see this on your computer very often, Jan?
You can't understand the difference between blind religious belief, and a belief supported by facts and evidence?
"I believe that the accused is guilty based on the available evidence" and "I believe that Mars the God of War exists" are obviously very different statements, where 'believe' has a radically different meaning.
I guess your distorted version of macro-evolution IS nonsense.
Like attack a scientific fact and theory which you know diddly-squat about?
I call your bluff, Creationut. No matter how much evidence I show you, you will continue to parrot the same arguments and bullshit ad nauseum.
And by the way, macroevolution has been observed... in the fossil record, in molecular biology, in vestigal appendages, etc. Merely ignoring the facts does not cause them to disappear.
..........................................................Jan Ardena said:You say macro-evolution is a "fact" and there is an abundance of evidence.
..................
Where is the evidence?
............................
Then highlight some of the evidences, let us see why it you believe/know macro-evolution to be a scientific fact.
........................................
Please show the evidence, blockhead, then we will see. Won't we.
Ah, I see! Not only do you have your own custom definition for 'science' and 'belief', you also have a custom definition for species. Why am I not surprised?Mountain Hare: Speciation has been observed time and time again. ”
Jan: Of course it depends on what you class as speciation.
So you admit that when observing the evidence, you make the a priori assumption that what occurred in your scripture is literal and true? Ahh, I see, that explains why any evidence which implies common descent, and doesn't fit into your preconceived framework, is ignored or branded as a 'lie'.Any rational individual who doesn't hold a literal interpretation of scripture infers common descent from the evidence and facts available. ”
By that same logic it could be said, any rational individual who does hold a literal interpretation of scripture does not automatically infer common decent from the evidence and facts available. So what is your point?
No, I'm not doing that until you demonstrate that you actually have even basic knowledge of what the scientific method consists of.You main argument against macroevolution is that we haven't observed it directly. But as all of my examples demonstrated, science does not necessarily rely on the direct observation of an event or object. ”
You say macro-evolution is a "fact" and there is an abundance of evidence. Please demonstrate how you have come to this conclusion via the scientific method that is all i ask.
No, you haven't explained why you said that. You concocted a blatant strawman on what constituted as macroevolution, and are now attempting to deflect the audience's attention from your blunder.Mountain Hare:Also, I love how you blather about a dog turning into a cat. No evolutionist would claim such a thing, and it merely highlights your blatant ignorance of the very theory and fact that you feebly criticize. ”
Jan: I have already explained why I said that, and see no further reason to harp on it.
Multiple posters have spoon fed you evidence for evolution time and time again, but you continuously ignore them. I also posted my 'Chromosome Challenge for Creationuts', which you have failed to even acknowledge. What's wrong? Oh wait, I forgot, any evidence which blows your a priori assumption that 'common descent never occurred' out of the water.Then highlight some of the evidences, let us see why it you believe/know macro-evolution to be a scientific fact.
So you are claiming that evolution is not a scientific fact? I wait with bated breath for you to support that conjecture.I know enough to know macroevol is not a scientific fact, and you have yet to demonstrate how it is so.
...you also have a custom definition for species.
So you admit that when observing the evidence, you make the a priori assumption that what occurred in your scripture is literal and true?
Ahh, I see, that explains why any evidence which implies common descent, and doesn't fit into your preconceived framework, is ignored or branded as a 'lie'.
No, I'm not doing that until you demonstrate that you actually have even basic knowledge of what the scientific method consists of.
Once you say 'Yes', we can go further.
No, you haven't explained why you said that. You concocted a blatant strawman on what constituted as macroevolution, and are now attempting to deflect the audience's attention from your blunder.
Multiple posters have spoon fed you evidence for evolution time and time again, but you continuously ignore them.
I also posted my 'Chromosome Challenge for Creationuts', which you have failed to even acknowledge. What's wrong? Oh wait, I forgot, any evidence which blows your a priori assumption that 'common descent never occurred' out of the water.
So you are claiming that evolution is not a scientific fact? I wait with bated breath for you to support that conjecture.
Then I have no option but to assume you have nothing to offer, and your belief system is based on what is termed as "microevol", and wishful thinking.
GeoffP said:Macroevolution is as proven as it gets, frankly.
Let's evaluate Dave's little windmill from a different direction.
Early opponents of macroevolution demanded fossil series. We have located them. This is pretty surprising considering the total coverage of the fossil record thus far is abysmal. What more does one want? People do seem to be putting the evidence out well, including that site. Macroevolution is a reality.
Unless Dave's arguing that we can't prove hypotheses from inference? That would level not just scientific thought, frankly, but all thought, everywhere. What could we base our understanding of reality from? How can I be sure that the fridge is keeping my eggs at the appropriate temperature? I'm not actually sitting in the fridge to see. Should I just base my acceptance of this idea on sheer hope or could I conclude that the system might get by without me watching every step? Is the sun up? I can't see it right now - should I run and look? Should I invest in candles? Should I call my boss to tell him that I'm not sure I'm coming in, since I've no idea if the appropriate chemical reactions are occurring in my car? Or should I just turn the key and blame its failure to start the engine on "snow-demons"? I can't observe any of these events.
One could reduce Dave's argument into absurdity in a different way. We could theoretically make our temporal interval smaller and smaller and smaller until every specimen that ever existed was found. What, then, would be Dave's position? That the intervals were too small to constitute reproductively isolated units? I argue that the same rules that convince a jury ought to be good enough for a bloody theory. If macroevolution were OJ Simpson ("red in knife and golf club"), then Orenthal would be behind bars wondering what was so damn important about a pair of sunglasses anyway.
Macroevolution, as a hypothesis, has presented its evidence. It is strong. Unless one wishes to invoke multiple little creations of organisms here and there, then and now, to account for why we find Triceratops skeletons in the Cretaceous, but not the Permian, this effectively at the very least discounts special creation, which in the lack of any other presented thesis would appear to be Dave's argument - that is, biblical literalism.
Has creationist "science" another hypothesis to argue, rather than seeking absentee holes in the fossil record?
Geoff
PS: Guess I did comment after all.