| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Pastor Dave" |
| Date: |
31 Aug 2005 07:54:14 PM |
| Object: |
A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
Hi all,
Each time I RESPOND to a claim by someone
that macroevolution is a fact and is true, period,
they never seem to provide said proof. Rather...
1) They throw out insults.
2) They claim that I just don't understand science.
I am well educated in various branches of science.
They however, are not and it upsets them, that
the standard mantra and rhetoric doesn't work.
3) They repeat the claim that there is a "mountain
of evidence" for macroevolution and yet, still fail
to provide said proof.
4) They paste in web links and claim, "There is
your proof!". Yet, the link provides no such
thing and when I ask them to, in their own
words, discuss in detail how it is proof, the
silence is deafening.
5) They begin to insult religion and claim that
science has disproved our belief system. This
is done, after their repeated claim that science
has no interest in religion, nor in the supernatural.
6) They try to turn the tables, claiming that when
I respond to their positive claim that macroevolution
is a fact and is true, that it is up to me to disprove
their claim. In other words, they get to say whatever
they want we have to disprove it.
7) They seem to think that the lack of proof is proof.
It's a shame that the people don't know, that this
sort of nonsensical behavior would not be tolerated
in science. You claim macroevolution is science
and seem to think that providing zero proof, along
with insults, is proof.
Macroevolution is not science and associating with
science in a text book, or by speech, does not make
it science, any more than beer is athletic, simply
because it is sold at football games.
The fact is people, in no branch of science, is a
request for evidence met with insults and silence
regarding said proof. Only in evolution, do we
see this and that should tell us all we need to know.
If it were genuine science, the proof would have been
displayed for all to see and the opposition would have
been silenced, once and for all.
And while they try to blame religion for ignorance
of "real science", the fact is, that the inventor of
the scientific method was a Bible believing, six
day creationist and the inventors of many branches
of science were also. The greatest scientist who
ever existed, according to a poll of scientists, was
Sir Isaac Newton. He was a Bible believing, six day
creationist.
The fact is, that ignorance was found in atheistic
societies, who always tend to be far behind in
scientific advancement. It is the Christian nations
that brought science to where it is today and
the great learning institutions, such as Yale,
Harvard, etc., were established by Bible believing,
six day creationists, for the advancement of learning
and science. It is now, that they have become so
secularized, that the people are complaining about
how they have gone down in quality. Coincidence?
I think not.
And btw, don't ask me to prove any of this. By YOUR
OWN LOGIC, the burden of proof is on YOU.
I will show you what the greatest scientific
philosopher of all time said...
The greatest scientific philosopher of all time,
Dr. Karl Popper, said that evolution is not a law,
nor a theory and that it doesn't even rise to the
level of an hypothesis. He said it is nothing more
than a metaphysical research program.
So now I make a call to the evolutionists.
"Show me the money!"
Where is the proof of macroevolution?
And don't ask me about whether or not scientists
are lying, or to disprove it, or paste in web links,
etc., etc..
PROVE MACROEVOLUTION, OR HAVE THE
INTEGRITY TO ADMIT THAT YOU CAN'T!!!
And be ready to discuss, IN YOUR OWN WORDS,
HOW AND WHY what you provide proves what
you claim it does. Saying, "fossils prove it", is not
proof, unless you can show which exact fossils
and why and how they prove what you claim and
be able to respond to a rebuttal.
If you can't do that, then IT IS YOU who "DOESN'T
understand science".
Even Gould knew that the fossil evidence wasn't
there, to support a slow and gradual change and so,
he revived Goldschmidt's ridiculous and dead
"Hopeful Monsters" idea and repackaged it in
a toned down version, called, "Punctuated Equilibrium".
You have one camp of evolutionists who know that
slow and gradual macroevolutionary change did not
occur and another camp that knows that sudden
macroevolutionary changes did not occur. They
both disprove each other and yet, it never occurs
to them, that maybe they're both wrong. Maybe
neither happened.
So stop with the "what stops it from happening"
garbage and show the proof of macroevolution.
And don't bother me with the "science doesn't
work that way" garbage either. I know that, but
you don't, or you wouldn't be making the claims
you do. Thus, your approach is anti-science,
from go.
You claim it's true, without a doubt. This is
something that is not to be doubted and only
a fool would and so, it requires ABSOLUTE
PROOF THAT LEAVES ABSOLUTELY ZERO
ROOM FOR DOUBT!!!
So cough up the proof for macroevolution and
shut us all up. If you can, then I will throw my
Bible away and renounce my faith.
And don't tell me it has nothing to do with me
renouncing my faith, when we all know that you
spend your time trashing Christianity and claiming
that "the dead hand of religion" has hampered science.
So where is it? We're all waiting. And as I said,
make sure that you can back it up, with references
that you can defend, in detail, in your own words.
I will not entertain any sidetracking, nor any
questions. This is about answers. YOUR answers,
as evolutionists, PROVING BEYOND ANY DOUBT
that macroevolution is reality.
I am ready. Are you?
--
Pastor Dave
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
"The mark of a society that's on its last leg, is when
there is no fear of God." - Adrian Rogers
"Theology and ethics are inextricably bound together.
Yet under the supposed banner of unity, we have
harbored enemy ships - as long as they flew our flag.
That policy must change. Tolerating enemies of the
historic Christian faith as though they were our
brethren is not love, but adultery. The substance
of the faith is the only basis for unity."
- The Agony of Deceit, p23
.
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 02:56:28 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 19:05:06 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:56:39 -0400, Adam H.
<adam@mailinator.com> spake thusly:
Once again, you show what a liar you are.
You provide a web link with zero proof.
You did this thinking, in your stupidity,
that you could tie me up for a while.
It didn't work and there is zero proof
on that web page.
Huh. I posted at 9:18, you posted a minute later, and you think you
have the right to say that there's nothing there when you obviously
haven't even bothered to READ IT?
I know that you think that you are the optimum
evolutionist and that no one else could possibly have
ever seen that web site, before you pasted that link
in, but your ego has gotten the best of you.
You don't get to comment on that subject matter
And now I don't get to comment. How nice for you.
But of course, that isn't my job.
And don't bother asking me to disprove
anything. The onus of proof is on you,
not me. And don't forget these parts
that you snipped...
4) They paste in web links and claim, "There is
your proof!". Yet, the link provides no such
thing and when I ask them to, in their own
words, discuss in detail how it is proof, the
silence is deafening.
And be ready to discuss, IN YOUR OWN WORDS,
HOW AND WHY what you provide proves what
you claim it does.
You haven't done that.
Maybe if you actually read it, you could discuss it. You haven't done
so, you can't discuss it, and you certainly can't claim it proves
nothing.
It isn't my job to discuss a thing. It is your job,
to do the above.
Thanks for demonstrating that you don't understand how scientific
research works with that statement.
You weren't interested in the science. You made demands that are
utterly at odds with how scientific research is conducted. I suggest
you look that up, but first read the cites and point out where the
science falls down. If you can't show how the research is wrong, your
criticism of it means nothing.
(Hint: theories are NEVER absolutely proven, only disproven.
Evolutionary theory, including so-called 'macroevolution', has yet to
be disproven. If you think you can do so, there's probably a Nobel in
it for you).
But since you've demonstrated where your standards of evidence lie,
I'd like to see you PROVE that the Bible proves what you claim it
does.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
31 Aug 2005 09:43:24 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 01:19:15 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:18:03 -0400, Adam H.
<adam@mailinator.com> spake thusly:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 00:54:14 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Each time I RESPOND to a claim by someone
that macroevolution is a fact and is true, period,
they never seem to provide said proof. Rather...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
There you go. That should take you a while.
Once again, you show what a liar you are.
You provide a web link with zero proof.
You did this thinking, in your stupidity,
that you could tie me up for a while.
It didn't work and there is zero proof
on that web page.
And don't bother asking me to disprove
anything. The onus of proof is on you,
not me. And don't forget these parts
that you snipped...
4) They paste in web links and claim, "There is
your proof!". Yet, the link provides no such
thing and when I ask them to, in their own
words, discuss in detail how it is proof, the
silence is deafening.
And be ready to discuss, IN YOUR OWN WORDS,
HOW AND WHY what you provide proves what
you claim it does.
You haven't done that.
<sigh> I very, very rarely say this about a fellow human being, but
you truly disgust me.
<re-PLONK!>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas W. Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
31 Aug 2005 10:21:26 PM |
|
|
"John Baker" <nunya@biziniz.net> wrote in message
news:bfqch19ishkn19lrenv28775ob56phq1rr@4ax.com...
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 01:19:15 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:18:03 -0400, Adam H.
<adam@mailinator.com> spake thusly:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 00:54:14 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Each time I RESPOND to a claim by someone
that macroevolution is a fact and is true, period,
they never seem to provide said proof. Rather...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
There you go. That should take you a while.
Once again, you show what a liar you are.
You provide a web link with zero proof.
You did this thinking, in your stupidity,
that you could tie me up for a while.
It didn't work and there is zero proof
on that web page.
And don't bother asking me to disprove
anything. The onus of proof is on you,
not me. And don't forget these parts
that you snipped...
4) They paste in web links and claim, "There is
your proof!". Yet, the link provides no such
thing and when I ask them to, in their own
words, discuss in detail how it is proof, the
silence is deafening.
And be ready to discuss, IN YOUR OWN WORDS,
HOW AND WHY what you provide proves what
you claim it does.
You haven't done that.
<sigh> I very, very rarely say this about a fellow human being, but
you truly disgust me.
<re-PLONK!>
Actually...Pastor Dave is correct. The referenced web page is suggestive at
best. And even at that it's a long stretch to say it is even suggestive.
There is no hypothesis offered (it is offered as a case). There is no
accepted proofing method described, and no scientific test/measurement to
support a proof. All-in-all, it appears to be one mans observations with his
own conclusions. That is a far cry from "proof" by any acedemic standard.
Doug
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
31 Aug 2005 11:25:30 PM |
|
|
"Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:vYGdnZ2dnZ0SB1ixnZ2dnV3ui96dnZ2dRVn-zJ2dnZ0@comcast.com:
"John Baker" <nunya@biziniz.net> wrote in message
news:bfqch19ishkn19lrenv28775ob56phq1rr@4ax.com...
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 01:19:15 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:18:03 -0400, Adam H.
<adam@mailinator.com> spake thusly:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 00:54:14 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Each time I RESPOND to a claim by someone
that macroevolution is a fact and is true, period,
they never seem to provide said proof. Rather...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
There you go. That should take you a while.
Once again, you show what a liar you are.
You provide a web link with zero proof.
You did this thinking, in your stupidity,
that you could tie me up for a while.
It didn't work and there is zero proof
on that web page.
And don't bother asking me to disprove
anything. The onus of proof is on you,
not me. And don't forget these parts
that you snipped...
4) They paste in web links and claim, "There is
your proof!". Yet, the link provides no such
thing and when I ask them to, in their own
words, discuss in detail how it is proof, the
silence is deafening.
And be ready to discuss, IN YOUR OWN WORDS,
HOW AND WHY what you provide proves what
you claim it does.
You haven't done that.
<sigh> I very, very rarely say this about a fellow human being, but
you truly disgust me.
<re-PLONK!>
Actually...Pastor Dave is correct. The referenced web page is suggestive
at best. And even at that it's a long stretch to say it is even
suggestive. There is no hypothesis offered (it is offered as a case).
There is no accepted proofing method described, and no scientific
test/measurement to support a proof. All-in-all, it appears to be one
mans observations with his own conclusions. That is a far cry from
"proof" by any acedemic standard.
I begin to suspect you are either lying about reading the article. Or just
plain lying. Dr Theobold is presenting in a concise form a summary of the
scientific evidence for common descent. The evidence presented is
referenced to the peer reviewed scientific literature on the subject. If
you have any factual objections to anything in the article then let us
know. Put up or shut up.
Klazmon.
Doug
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas W. Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 12:02:28 AM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns96C4A715CEA79Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:vYGdnZ2dnZ0SB1ixnZ2dnV3ui96dnZ2dRVn-zJ2dnZ0@comcast.com:
"John Baker" <nunya@biziniz.net> wrote in message
news:bfqch19ishkn19lrenv28775ob56phq1rr@4ax.com...
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 01:19:15 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:18:03 -0400, Adam H.
<adam@mailinator.com> spake thusly:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 00:54:14 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Each time I RESPOND to a claim by someone
that macroevolution is a fact and is true, period,
they never seem to provide said proof. Rather...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
There you go. That should take you a while.
Once again, you show what a liar you are.
You provide a web link with zero proof.
You did this thinking, in your stupidity,
that you could tie me up for a while.
It didn't work and there is zero proof
on that web page.
And don't bother asking me to disprove
anything. The onus of proof is on you,
not me. And don't forget these parts
that you snipped...
4) They paste in web links and claim, "There is
your proof!". Yet, the link provides no such
thing and when I ask them to, in their own
words, discuss in detail how it is proof, the
silence is deafening.
And be ready to discuss, IN YOUR OWN WORDS,
HOW AND WHY what you provide proves what
you claim it does.
You haven't done that.
<sigh> I very, very rarely say this about a fellow human being, but
you truly disgust me.
<re-PLONK!>
Actually...Pastor Dave is correct. The referenced web page is suggestive
at best. And even at that it's a long stretch to say it is even
suggestive. There is no hypothesis offered (it is offered as a case).
There is no accepted proofing method described, and no scientific
test/measurement to support a proof. All-in-all, it appears to be one
mans observations with his own conclusions. That is a far cry from
"proof" by any acedemic standard.
I begin to suspect you are either lying about reading the article. Or just
plain lying. Dr Theobold is presenting in a concise form a summary of the
scientific evidence for common descent. The evidence presented is
referenced to the peer reviewed scientific literature on the subject. If
you have any factual objections to anything in the article then let us
know. Put up or shut up.
Klazmon.
Doug
I did read a significant portion of the document. What attracted my
attention the most was the usage of the
term "fact". Quite a different issue than "proof". Many scientists submit
cases with supporting "facts" to the appropriate community for evaluation.
And those communities evaluate the matter for validity (which may take years
if not decades). To suggest that a community has accepted the observed
"facts" as reported is merely the first step towards proofing of a
hypothesis, or otherwise failure to prove. Basicially, my understanding of
the writing is that he has submitted the matter to the referenced
academic/scientific community. Nothing more.
I did enjoy and concur with the writing offered on "Scientific Evidence". I
thought it to be most valid.
Many a beautiful theory have been rejected due to a single obscure fact.
Doug
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 05:29:30 PM |
|
|
"Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:RpKdnYc4kYPzFoveRVn-uw@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns96C4A715CEA79Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:vYGdnZ2dnZ0SB1ixnZ2dnV3ui96dnZ2dRVn-zJ2dnZ0@comcast.com:
<SNIP>
Actually...Pastor Dave is correct. The referenced web page is
suggestive at best. And even at that it's a long stretch to say it is
even suggestive. There is no hypothesis offered (it is offered as a
case). There is no accepted proofing method described, and no
scientific test/measurement to support a proof. All-in-all, it appears
to be one mans observations with his own conclusions. That is a far
cry from "proof" by any acedemic standard.
I begin to suspect you are either lying about reading the article. Or
just plain lying. Dr Theobold is presenting in a concise form a summary
of the scientific evidence for common descent. The evidence presented
is referenced to the peer reviewed scientific literature on the
subject. If you have any factual objections to anything in the article
then let us know. Put up or shut up.
Klazmon.
Doug
I did read a significant portion of the document. What attracted my
attention the most was the usage of the
term "fact". Quite a different issue than "proof".
That just shows your ignorance of science. Scientific theories can never be
proved. They are either supported by the available evidence or not. The
theory of Evolution is very well supported by a mountain of facts. A fact
is something about an observable phenomena. A theory in science is what is
used to explain facts. The theory of evolution could be shown to be flawed
by a fact but one fact does not make all the others go away. When Newton's
theory of gravity was shown to be flawed early last century, it didn't mean
that planets suddenly fell into the sun or started to travel in square
orbits.
<SNIP>
Many a beautiful theory have been rejected due to a single obscure fact.
See above with reference to Newton's theory of gravity.
Klazmon
Doug
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas W. Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 06:02:13 PM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns96C56ABA01F33Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:RpKdnYc4kYPzFoveRVn-uw@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns96C4A715CEA79Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:vYGdnZ2dnZ0SB1ixnZ2dnV3ui96dnZ2dRVn-zJ2dnZ0@comcast.com:
<SNIP>
Actually...Pastor Dave is correct. The referenced web page is
suggestive at best. And even at that it's a long stretch to say it is
even suggestive. There is no hypothesis offered (it is offered as a
case). There is no accepted proofing method described, and no
scientific test/measurement to support a proof. All-in-all, it appears
to be one mans observations with his own conclusions. That is a far
cry from "proof" by any acedemic standard.
I begin to suspect you are either lying about reading the article. Or
just plain lying. Dr Theobold is presenting in a concise form a summary
of the scientific evidence for common descent. The evidence presented
is referenced to the peer reviewed scientific literature on the
subject. If you have any factual objections to anything in the article
then let us know. Put up or shut up.
Klazmon.
Doug
I did read a significant portion of the document. What attracted my
attention the most was the usage of the
term "fact". Quite a different issue than "proof".
That just shows your ignorance of science. Scientific theories can never
be
proved. They are either supported by the available evidence or not. The
theory of Evolution is very well supported by a mountain of facts. A fact
is something about an observable phenomena. A theory in science is what is
used to explain facts. The theory of evolution could be shown to be flawed
by a fact but one fact does not make all the others go away. When Newton's
theory of gravity was shown to be flawed early last century, it didn't
mean
that planets suddenly fell into the sun or started to travel in square
orbits.
<SNIP>
Many a beautiful theory have been rejected due to a single obscure fact.
See above with reference to Newton's theory of gravity.
Klazmon
Doug
You really should keep up with the thread...rather that show you ignorance.
Doug
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 06:21:33 PM |
|
|
"Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:2sOdnU4ZjIQcFYreRVn-uA@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns96C56ABA01F33Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:RpKdnYc4kYPzFoveRVn-uw@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns96C4A715CEA79Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:vYGdnZ2dnZ0SB1ixnZ2dnV3ui96dnZ2dRVn-zJ2dnZ0@comcast.com:
<SNIP>
Actually...Pastor Dave is correct. The referenced web page is
suggestive at best. And even at that it's a long stretch to say it is
even suggestive. There is no hypothesis offered (it is offered as a
case). There is no accepted proofing method described, and no
scientific test/measurement to support a proof. All-in-all, it
appears
to be one mans observations with his own conclusions. That is a far
cry from "proof" by any acedemic standard.
I begin to suspect you are either lying about reading the article. Or
just plain lying. Dr Theobold is presenting in a concise form a
summary
of the scientific evidence for common descent. The evidence presented
is referenced to the peer reviewed scientific literature on the
subject. If you have any factual objections to anything in the article
then let us know. Put up or shut up.
Klazmon.
Doug
I did read a significant portion of the document. What attracted my
attention the most was the usage of the
term "fact". Quite a different issue than "proof".
That just shows your ignorance of science. Scientific theories can never
be
proved. They are either supported by the available evidence or not. The
theory of Evolution is very well supported by a mountain of facts. A
fact
is something about an observable phenomena. A theory in science is what
is
used to explain facts. The theory of evolution could be shown to be
flawed
by a fact but one fact does not make all the others go away. When
Newton's
theory of gravity was shown to be flawed early last century, it didn't
mean
that planets suddenly fell into the sun or started to travel in square
orbits.
<SNIP>
Many a beautiful theory have been rejected due to a single obscure
fact.
See above with reference to Newton's theory of gravity.
Klazmon
Doug
You really should keep up with the thread...rather that show you
ignorance.
Pot calling the kettle black. Noted your complete failure to address the
issue.
Klazmon.
Doug
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas W. Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 06:35:50 PM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns96C5738DE24B7Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:2sOdnU4ZjIQcFYreRVn-uA@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns96C56ABA01F33Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:RpKdnYc4kYPzFoveRVn-uw@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns96C4A715CEA79Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:vYGdnZ2dnZ0SB1ixnZ2dnV3ui96dnZ2dRVn-zJ2dnZ0@comcast.com:
<SNIP>
Actually...Pastor Dave is correct. The referenced web page is
suggestive at best. And even at that it's a long stretch to say it is
even suggestive. There is no hypothesis offered (it is offered as a
case). There is no accepted proofing method described, and no
scientific test/measurement to support a proof. All-in-all, it
appears
to be one mans observations with his own conclusions. That is a far
cry from "proof" by any acedemic standard.
I begin to suspect you are either lying about reading the article. Or
just plain lying. Dr Theobold is presenting in a concise form a
summary
of the scientific evidence for common descent. The evidence presented
is referenced to the peer reviewed scientific literature on the
subject. If you have any factual objections to anything in the article
then let us know. Put up or shut up.
Klazmon.
Doug
I did read a significant portion of the document. What attracted my
attention the most was the usage of the
term "fact". Quite a different issue than "proof".
That just shows your ignorance of science. Scientific theories can never
be
proved. They are either supported by the available evidence or not. The
theory of Evolution is very well supported by a mountain of facts. A
fact
is something about an observable phenomena. A theory in science is what
is
used to explain facts. The theory of evolution could be shown to be
flawed
by a fact but one fact does not make all the others go away. When
Newton's
theory of gravity was shown to be flawed early last century, it didn't
mean
that planets suddenly fell into the sun or started to travel in square
orbits.
<SNIP>
Many a beautiful theory have been rejected due to a single obscure
fact.
See above with reference to Newton's theory of gravity.
Klazmon
Doug
You really should keep up with the thread...rather that show you
ignorance.
Pot calling the kettle black. Noted your complete failure to address the
issue.
Klazmon.
Doug
Noticed your complete failure to ask a question.
Doug
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas W. Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 12:28:13 AM |
|
|
"Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:RpKdnYc4kYPzFoveRVn-uw@comcast.com...
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns96C4A715CEA79Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:vYGdnZ2dnZ0SB1ixnZ2dnV3ui96dnZ2dRVn-zJ2dnZ0@comcast.com:
"John Baker" <nunya@biziniz.net> wrote in message
news:bfqch19ishkn19lrenv28775ob56phq1rr@4ax.com...
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 01:19:15 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:18:03 -0400, Adam H.
<adam@mailinator.com> spake thusly:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 00:54:14 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Each time I RESPOND to a claim by someone
that macroevolution is a fact and is true, period,
they never seem to provide said proof. Rather...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
There you go. That should take you a while.
Once again, you show what a liar you are.
You provide a web link with zero proof.
You did this thinking, in your stupidity,
that you could tie me up for a while.
It didn't work and there is zero proof
on that web page.
And don't bother asking me to disprove
anything. The onus of proof is on you,
not me. And don't forget these parts
that you snipped...
4) They paste in web links and claim, "There is
your proof!". Yet, the link provides no such
thing and when I ask them to, in their own
words, discuss in detail how it is proof, the
silence is deafening.
And be ready to discuss, IN YOUR OWN WORDS,
HOW AND WHY what you provide proves what
you claim it does.
You haven't done that.
<sigh> I very, very rarely say this about a fellow human being, but
you truly disgust me.
<re-PLONK!>
Actually...Pastor Dave is correct. The referenced web page is suggestive
at best. And even at that it's a long stretch to say it is even
suggestive. There is no hypothesis offered (it is offered as a case).
There is no accepted proofing method described, and no scientific
test/measurement to support a proof. All-in-all, it appears to be one
mans observations with his own conclusions. That is a far cry from
"proof" by any acedemic standard.
I begin to suspect you are either lying about reading the article. Or
just
plain lying. Dr Theobold is presenting in a concise form a summary of the
scientific evidence for common descent. The evidence presented is
referenced to the peer reviewed scientific literature on the subject. If
you have any factual objections to anything in the article then let us
know. Put up or shut up.
Klazmon.
Doug
I did read a significant portion of the document. What attracted my
attention the most was the usage of the
term "fact". Quite a different issue than "proof". Many scientists submit
cases with supporting "facts" to the appropriate community for evaluation.
And those communities evaluate the matter for validity (which may take
years if not decades). To suggest that a community has accepted the
observed "facts" as reported is merely the first step towards proofing of
a hypothesis, or otherwise failure to prove. Basicially, my understanding
of the writing is that he has submitted the matter to the referenced
academic/scientific community. Nothing more.
I did enjoy and concur with the writing offered on "Scientific Evidence".
I thought it to be most valid.
Many a beautiful theory have been rejected due to a single obscure fact.
Doug
Might I offer the writers final disclamer, in the last statement under the
section of "Scientific Evidence".
Quote:
"The few examples given for each prediction are meant to represent general
trends. By no means do I purport to state all predictions or potential
falsifications; there are many more out there for the inquiring soul to
uncover".
Unquote:
Doug
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 05:31:33 PM |
|
|
"Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:2pidnfXLu8DqDIveRVn-rg@comcast.com:
"Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
message news:RpKdnYc4kYPzFoveRVn-uw@comcast.com...
<SNIP>
Might I offer the writers final disclamer, in the last statement under
the section of "Scientific Evidence".
Quote:
"The few examples given for each prediction are meant to represent
general trends. By no means do I purport to state all predictions or
potential falsifications; there are many more out there for the
inquiring soul to uncover".
Unquote:
And? You have any such falsifications? If I were you, I wouldn't hold your
breath waiting for them to show up.
Klazmon.
Doug
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 10:46:25 AM |
|
|
On 1 Sep 2005 16:25:30 +1200, Llanzlan Klazmon
<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> spake thusly:
If you have any factual objections to anything in
the article then let us know.
I hate that noise! It goes right through me!
You know, the noise that the legs of the
tables make against the floor, when
someone's trying to turn them.
Put up or shut up.
And interesting request, in a thread asking
those who claim macroevolution is true,
to provide proof and to be ready to discuss,
in their own words, in detail, how and why
some reference proves their claim. See
note above.
--
Pastor Dave
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
"The mark of a society that's on its last leg, is when
there is no fear of God." - Adrian Rogers
"Theology and ethics are inextricably bound together.
Yet under the supposed banner of unity, we have
harbored enemy ships - as long as they flew our flag.
That policy must change. Tolerating enemies of the
historic Christian faith as though they were our
brethren is not love, but adultery. The substance
of the faith is the only basis for unity."
- The Agony of Deceit, p23
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
13 Sep 2005 05:40:13 PM |
|
|
Let's just do some simple math:
Human and chimpanzee genomes are about 3 billion base pairs long, so
that 4% difference is 120,000,000 base pairs. If we split the
difference, this means that the chimpanzees had to change out
60,000,000 base pairs and humans the same number in the time since we
parted from our common ancestor.
According to Richard Dawkins in his recently published "The Ancestor's
Tale" humans and apes parted company some 6,000,000 years ago.
Evolution doesn't work in this orderly, simplified linear fashion, but
for the sake of argument, let's distribute the 60,000,000 base pairs
over the 6,000,000 years, giving us a requirement of 10 base pairs per
year to macro-evolve from a common ancestor into either a chimpanzee or
a human in 6 million years. What is there to prevent that? Why could
that not have happened?
In order to respond to this question you will need to define "kind" and
define the mechanism which you claim prevents one "kind" from changing
into another "kind". But of course, every time I ask you to do that
**YOU RUN AWAY**.
Since a gene contains some 100,000 base pairs on average, changing out
just one or two genes during that time period could have accomplished
it (although that's not what happened. It was a few more genes than
that).
There's your macroevolution. Care to discuss it?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 05:36:05 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:5e8eh1ppbqae3u9hl1gb40dmd7ur64kh7m@4ax.com:
On 1 Sep 2005 16:25:30 +1200, Llanzlan Klazmon
<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> spake thusly:
If you have any factual objections to anything in
the article then let us know.
I hate that noise! It goes right through me!
You know, the noise that the legs of the
tables make against the floor, when
someone's trying to turn them.
So you agree you can't refute anything in Dr Theobold's article.
Put up or shut up.
And interesting request, in a thread asking
those who claim macroevolution is true,
to provide proof and to be ready to discuss,
in their own words, in detail, how and why
some reference proves their claim.
Scientific theories are never proven. Dr Theobold gave an overview of the
evidence supporting the theory of common descent all of which was valid. In
science a well supported theory stands until it is refuted by evidence.
Bluster from an untutored idiot such as yourself doesn't cut the mustard.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas W. Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 06:03:15 PM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns96C56BD86EDFKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:5e8eh1ppbqae3u9hl1gb40dmd7ur64kh7m@4ax.com:
On 1 Sep 2005 16:25:30 +1200, Llanzlan Klazmon
<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> spake thusly:
If you have any factual objections to anything in
the article then let us know.
I hate that noise! It goes right through me!
You know, the noise that the legs of the
tables make against the floor, when
someone's trying to turn them.
So you agree you can't refute anything in Dr Theobold's article.
Put up or shut up.
And interesting request, in a thread asking
those who claim macroevolution is true,
to provide proof and to be ready to discuss,
in their own words, in detail, how and why
some reference proves their claim.
Scientific theories are never proven. Dr Theobold gave an overview of the
evidence supporting the theory of common descent all of which was valid.
In
science a well supported theory stands until it is refuted by evidence.
Bluster from an untutored idiot such as yourself doesn't cut the mustard.
Klazmon.
I concur...and have been making that point repeatedly.
Kep up and quit showing your ignorance.
Doug
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 06:22:33 PM |
|
|
"Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:CtednZ2dnZ1hfhuvnZ2dnSIVit6dnZ2dRVn-0J2dnZ0@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns96C56BD86EDFKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:5e8eh1ppbqae3u9hl1gb40dmd7ur64kh7m@4ax.com:
On 1 Sep 2005 16:25:30 +1200, Llanzlan Klazmon
<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> spake thusly:
If you have any factual objections to anything in
the article then let us know.
I hate that noise! It goes right through me!
You know, the noise that the legs of the
tables make against the floor, when
someone's trying to turn them.
So you agree you can't refute anything in Dr Theobold's article.
Put up or shut up.
And interesting request, in a thread asking
those who claim macroevolution is true,
to provide proof and to be ready to discuss,
in their own words, in detail, how and why
some reference proves their claim.
Scientific theories are never proven. Dr Theobold gave an overview of
the
evidence supporting the theory of common descent all of which was valid.
In
science a well supported theory stands until it is refuted by evidence.
Bluster from an untutored idiot such as yourself doesn't cut the
mustard.
Klazmon.
I concur...and have been making that point repeatedly.
Kep up and quit showing your ignorance.
Keep showing your taotal lack of comprehension.
klazmon.
Doug
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas W. Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 06:42:59 PM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns96C573B931F87Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:CtednZ2dnZ1hfhuvnZ2dnSIVit6dnZ2dRVn-0J2dnZ0@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns96C56BD86EDFKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:5e8eh1ppbqae3u9hl1gb40dmd7ur64kh7m@4ax.com:
On 1 Sep 2005 16:25:30 +1200, Llanzlan Klazmon
<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> spake thusly:
If you have any factual objections to anything in
the article then let us know.
I hate that noise! It goes right through me!
You know, the noise that the legs of the
tables make against the floor, when
someone's trying to turn them.
So you agree you can't refute anything in Dr Theobold's article.
Put up or shut up.
And interesting request, in a thread asking
those who claim macroevolution is true,
to provide proof and to be ready to discuss,
in their own words, in detail, how and why
some reference proves their claim.
Scientific theories are never proven. Dr Theobold gave an overview of
the
evidence supporting the theory of common descent all of which was valid.
In
science a well supported theory stands until it is refuted by evidence.
Bluster from an untutored idiot such as yourself doesn't cut the
mustard.
Klazmon.
I concur...and have been making that point repeatedly.
Kep up and quit showing your ignorance.
Keep showing your taotal lack of comprehension.
klazmon.
Doug
You really would'nt know my comprehension level, especially since none
of the revelant text of subject matter in this post is from me. You're
really showing your disregard for addressing the appropriate poster. I
really do think you are getting the text/poster confused. Check it
out.......
Doug
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
02 Sep 2005 02:55:59 AM |
|
|
On 2 Sep 2005 10:36:05 +1200, Llanzlan Klazmon
<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:5e8eh1ppbqae3u9hl1gb40dmd7ur64kh7m@4ax.com:
On 1 Sep 2005 16:25:30 +1200, Llanzlan Klazmon
<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> spake thusly:
If you have any factual objections to anything in
the article then let us know.
I hate that noise! It goes right through me!
You know, the noise that the legs of the
tables make against the floor, when
someone's trying to turn them.
So you agree you can't refute anything in Dr Theobold's article.
Put up or shut up.
And interesting request, in a thread asking
those who claim macroevolution is true,
to provide proof and to be ready to discuss,
in their own words, in detail, how and why
some reference proves their claim.
Scientific theories are never proven. Dr Theobold gave an overview of the
evidence supporting the theory of common descent all of which was valid. In
science a well supported theory stands until it is refuted by evidence.
Bluster from an untutored idiot such as yourself doesn't cut the mustard.
Thank you for proving beyond a doubt that
macroevolution happened! How could I
have ever doubted it!
--
Pastor Dave
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
"The mark of a society that's on its last leg, is when
there is no fear of God." - Adrian Rogers
"Theology and ethics are inextricably bound together.
Yet under the supposed banner of unity, we have
harbored enemy ships - as long as they flew our flag.
That policy must change. Tolerating enemies of the
historic Christian faith as though they were our
brethren is not love, but adultery. The substance
of the faith is the only basis for unity."
- The Agony of Deceit, p23
.
|
|
|
| User: "shrikeback" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
02 Sep 2005 04:15:24 AM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:na1gh1tpjagippd18sun90dpdtgv8lnsn9@4ax.com...
On 2 Sep 2005 10:36:05 +1200, Llanzlan Klazmon
<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> spake thusly:
Scientific theories are never proven. Dr Theobold gave an overview of the
evidence supporting the theory of common descent all of which was valid.
In
science a well supported theory stands until it is refuted by evidence.
Bluster from an untutored idiot such as yourself doesn't cut the mustard.
Thank you for proving beyond a doubt that
macroevolution happened! How could I
have ever doubted it!
You can't even prove you aren't a butterfly dreaming
you're a misguided flat-earther.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
13 Sep 2005 05:41:16 PM |
|
|
Let's just do some simple math:
Human and chimpanzee genomes are about 3 billion base pairs long, so
that 4% difference is 120,000,000 base pairs. If we split the
difference, this means that the chimpanzees had to change out
60,000,000 base pairs and humans the same number in the time since we
parted from our common ancestor.
According to Richard Dawkins in his recently published "The Ancestor's
Tale" humans and apes parted company some 6,000,000 years ago.
Evolution doesn't work in this orderly, simplified linear fashion, but
for the sake of argument, let's distribute the 60,000,000 base pairs
over the 6,000,000 years, giving us a requirement of 10 base pairs per
year to macro-evolve from a common ancestor into either a chimpanzee or
a human in 6 million years. What is there to prevent that? Why could
that not have happened?
In order to respond to this question you will need to define "kind" and
define the mechanism which you claim prevents one "kind" from changing
into another "kind". But of course, every time I ask you to do that
**YOU RUN AWAY**.
Since a gene contains some 100,000 base pairs on average, changing out
just one or two genes during that time period could have accomplished
it (although that's not what happened. It was a few more genes than
that).
There's your macroevolution. Care to discuss it?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
13 Sep 2005 07:25:36 PM |
|
|
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in news:1126651276.378131.152470
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Let's just do some simple math:
Human and chimpanzee genomes are about 3 billion base pairs long, so
that 4% difference is 120,000,000 base pairs. If we split the
difference, this means that the chimpanzees had to change out
60,000,000 base pairs and humans the same number in the time since we
parted from our common ancestor.
According to Richard Dawkins in his recently published "The Ancestor's
Tale" humans and apes parted company some 6,000,000 years ago.
Evolution doesn't work in this orderly, simplified linear fashion, but
for the sake of argument, let's distribute the 60,000,000 base pairs
over the 6,000,000 years, giving us a requirement of 10 base pairs per
year to macro-evolve from a common ancestor into either a chimpanzee or
a human in 6 million years. What is there to prevent that? Why could
that not have happened?
In order to respond to this question you will need to define "kind" and
define the mechanism which you claim prevents one "kind" from changing
into another "kind". But of course, every time I ask you to do that
**YOU RUN AWAY**.
Since a gene contains some 100,000 base pairs on average, changing out
just one or two genes during that time period could have accomplished
it (although that's not what happened. It was a few more genes than
that).
There's your macroevolution. Care to discuss it?
Budikka
Hi Budikka,
Also remember that most of the changes are in non coding regions of the
genome. These are not subject to selection. When you look at actual protein
coding regions, the differences are considerably less.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
12 Sep 2005 10:02:07 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
Thank you for proving beyond a doubt that
macroevolution happened! How could I
have ever doubted it!
I've repeatedly told you what the evidence is, and I've repeatedly
offered to discuss it with you. **YOU RAN AWAY EVERY SINGLE TIME**.
This proves how worthless you "offer" is.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
12 Sep 2005 10:01:04 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
And interesting request, in a thread asking
those who claim macroevolution is true,
to provide proof and to be ready to discuss,
in their own words, in detail, how and why
some reference proves their claim. See
note above.
I've repeatedly told you what the evidence is, and I've repeatedly
offered to discuss it with you. **YOU RAN AWAY EVERY SINGLE TIME**.
This proves how worthless you "offer" is.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Happy One" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
13 Sep 2005 12:03:07 PM |
|
|
budikka1@netscape.net says...
Pastor Dave wrote:
Having thoroughly ground up and eaten Pastor Dave for
lunch in this thread, just what is left of him?
Good job elucidating the scientific approach.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 05:48:09 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 1 Sep 2005 16:25:30 +1200, Llanzlan Klazmon
<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> spake thusly:
If you have any factual objections to anything in
the article then let us know.
I hate that noise! It goes right through me!
You know, the noise that the legs of the
tables make against the floor, when
someone's trying to turn them.
Put up or shut up.
And interesting request, in a thread asking
those who claim macroevolution is true,
to provide proof and to be ready to discuss,
in their own words, in detail, how and why
some reference proves their claim. See
note above.
Macroevolution is simply microevolution.
1. Take a penny. Now double your money. Microevolution.
2. Take your $0.02 and double your money. Microevolution.
3. Take your $0.04 and double your money. Microevolution.
....
29. Take your $2,684.354.56 and double your money. Microevolution.
30. Take your $5,368,709.12 and double your money. Microevolution.
See? From step 1 to step 2 is nothing. From step 1 to step 30,
however, is a ginormous jump. Microevolution creates Macroevolution.
Evidence of macroevolution? Fish to Man.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Icarus" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 06:49:16 PM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
Macroevolution is simply microevolution.
As far as I can tell, 'macroevolution' is a nonsense term invented by
cretinists - sorry, creationists - to try to draw a distinction
between the evolution which even they can't deny (i.e. what we can
observe happening today) and the evolution which happened before
humans were around to observe and record it, which they *do* attempt
to deny. In fact, there is no such distinction between 'micro' and
'macro', there is only evolution, and in accepting that what they call
'microevolution' actually occurs, the creationists are really
accepting that evolution occurs, with its consequences of common
descent for all organisms on Earth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseki" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 07:19:01 PM |
|
|
Icarus wrote:
As far as I can tell, 'macroevolution' is a nonsense term invented by
cretinists - sorry, creationists - to try to draw a distinction
between the evolution which even they can't deny (i.e. what we can
observe happening today) and the evolution which happened before
humans were around to observe and record it, which they *do* attempt
to deny.
I had also thought this was a creationist piece of jargon. However,
there is some history to the term see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html .
Which is where I have taken my definition from as our good "Pastor" is
above defining what he wants "proven".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
02 Sep 2005 03:02:27 AM |
|
|
On 1 Sep 2005 17:19:01 -0700, "Joseki"
<joseki.BX@gmail.com> spake thusly:
Icarus wrote:
As far as I can tell, 'macroevolution' is a nonsense term invented by
cretinists - sorry, creationists - to try to draw a distinction
between the evolution which even they can't deny (i.e. what we can
observe happening today) and the evolution which happened before
humans were around to observe and record it, which they *do* attempt
to deny.
I had also thought this was a creationist piece of jargon. However,
there is some history to the term see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html .
Which is where I have taken my definition from as our good "Pastor" is
above defining what he wants "proven".
Yea, now let's just claim as they do that big just
means small and pretend that if we call pile up
sand, that means goo to you, by way of the zoo,
like the rest have said.
--
Pastor Dave
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
"The mark of a society that's on its last leg, is when
there is no fear of God." - Adrian Rogers
"Theology and ethics are inextricably bound together.
Yet under the supposed banner of unity, we have
harbored enemy ships - as long as they flew our flag.
That policy must change. Tolerating enemies of the
historic Christian faith as though they were our
brethren is not love, but adultery. The substance
of the faith is the only basis for unity."
- The Agony of Deceit, p23
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
12 Sep 2005 10:56:59 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
Yea, now let's just claim as they do that big just
means small and pretend that if we call pile up
sand, that means goo to you, by way of the zoo,
like the rest have said.
As you've been repeatedly informed, macroevolution is just more of
microevolution.
If you disagree, then you need to explain the basis of your
disagreement because science can find no difference (other than passage
of time) between the two.
Can you prove what you claim on this matter, or is your demand for
proof only to apply to the evolution side of the issue?
Care to discuss it, or are you going to run away as you do every single
time I raise these issues with you?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
02 Sep 2005 03:30:32 PM |
|
|
Icarus wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Macroevolution is simply microevolution.
As far as I can tell, 'macroevolution' is a nonsense term invented by
cretinists - sorry, creationists - to try to draw a distinction
between the evolution which even they can't deny (i.e. what we can
observe happening today) and the evolution which happened before
humans were around to observe and record it, which they *do* attempt
to deny. In fact, there is no such distinction between 'micro' and
'macro', there is only evolution, and in accepting that what they call
'microevolution' actually occurs, the creationists are really
accepting that evolution occurs, with its consequences of common
descent for all organisms on Earth.
===>That is one of the most sensible comments.
You're absolutely right.
Evolution is a cosmic phenomenon that occurs
everywhere as the cosmic process eternally unfolds.
There's no more need for a "designer" to produce living
organisms than there is to produce a water molecule
or a snow flake. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
