| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
05 Jul 2007 05:56:05 PM |
| Object: |
Trying to Get Creationists to Define "Macroevolution" |
There's an interesting discussion hosted by Mike Dunford that I first
saw over at www.pandasthumb.org on "Microevolution, Macroevolution,
and our Species", which emanates from www.scienceblogs.com/authority.
http://tinyurl.com/2ft2k6
The comments at "authority" in particular highlight the complete
impotence of ID creationists to even define their terms when they
stand up and pronounce arrogantly that macroevolution cannot happen!
When you start out from the unsupported premise that some god made
special, immutable "kinds" or that the "kinds", whatever they are,
cannot change significantly without divine input, you ought to be able
to scientifically define these "kinds" pretty easily and pretty
rigidly.
There isn't a creationist or ID advocate who can. That's how truly
pathetic they are.
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "Egbert" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying to Get Creationists to Define "Macroevolution" |
06 Jul 2007 04:47:41 AM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1183676165.453666.185100@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
There's an interesting discussion hosted by Mike Dunford that I first
saw over at www.pandasthumb.org on "Microevolution, Macroevolution,
and our Species", which emanates from www.scienceblogs.com/authority.
http://tinyurl.com/2ft2k6
The comments at "authority" in particular highlight the complete
impotence of ID creationists to even define their terms when they
stand up and pronounce arrogantly that macroevolution cannot happen!
When you start out from the unsupported premise that some god made
special, immutable "kinds" or that the "kinds", whatever they are,
cannot change significantly without divine input, you ought to be able
to scientifically define these "kinds" pretty easily and pretty
rigidly.
There isn't a creationist or ID advocate who can. That's how truly
pathetic they are.
It is hypocrisy to ask others to define things that you can't define
yourselves.
As long as I never have seen LIVING proof of living beings that I can see
with my eyes that developed new organs or new qualities that they could not
have had before I cannot believe that the __theory__ of the so called
'scientific' theory of 'natural selection' is is true as long as it is
illustrated with samples of adaption instead of NEW organs/qualities, I must
conclude that your rants just hide your lack of knowledge.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smiler" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying to Get Creationists to Define "Macroevolution" |
06 Jul 2007 09:56:10 PM |
|
|
"Egbert" <egbert@mailingimpliesthatyouagreetopayme50bucks.invalid> wrote in
message news:1c125$468e0fb0$5435605e$26211@nf1.news-service.com...
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1183676165.453666.185100@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
There's an interesting discussion hosted by Mike Dunford that I first
saw over at www.pandasthumb.org on "Microevolution, Macroevolution,
and our Species", which emanates from www.scienceblogs.com/authority.
http://tinyurl.com/2ft2k6
The comments at "authority" in particular highlight the complete
impotence of ID creationists to even define their terms when they
stand up and pronounce arrogantly that macroevolution cannot happen!
When you start out from the unsupported premise that some god made
special, immutable "kinds" or that the "kinds", whatever they are,
cannot change significantly without divine input, you ought to be able
to scientifically define these "kinds" pretty easily and pretty
rigidly.
There isn't a creationist or ID advocate who can. That's how truly
pathetic they are.
It is hypocrisy to ask others to define things that you can't define
yourselves.
It's your dogma, so it's up to you to define it.
As long as I never have seen LIVING proof of living beings that I can see
with my eyes that developed new organs or new qualities that they could
not have had before I cannot believe that the __theory__ of the so called
'scientific' theory of 'natural selection' is is true as long as it is
illustrated with samples of adaption instead of NEW organs/qualities, I
must conclude that your rants just hide your lack of knowledge.
If you've got a couple of million years to spare, you'll be able to see
evolution working 'with your own eyes'.
Smiler,
The godless one
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying to Get Creationists to Define "Macroevolution" |
06 Jul 2007 08:06:51 PM |
|
|
"Egbert" <egbert@mailingimpliesthatyouagreetopayme50bucks.invalid> wrote in
message news:1c125$468e0fb0$5435605e$26211@nf1.news-service.com...
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1183676165.453666.185100@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
There's an interesting discussion hosted by Mike Dunford that I first
saw over at www.pandasthumb.org on "Microevolution, Macroevolution,
and our Species", which emanates from www.scienceblogs.com/authority.
http://tinyurl.com/2ft2k6
The comments at "authority" in particular highlight the complete
impotence of ID creationists to even define their terms when they
stand up and pronounce arrogantly that macroevolution cannot happen!
When you start out from the unsupported premise that some god made
special, immutable "kinds" or that the "kinds", whatever they are,
cannot change significantly without divine input, you ought to be able
to scientifically define these "kinds" pretty easily and pretty
rigidly.
There isn't a creationist or ID advocate who can. That's how truly
pathetic they are.
It is hypocrisy to ask others to define things that you can't define
yourselves.
As long as I never have seen LIVING proof of living beings that I can see
with my eyes that developed new organs or new qualities that they could
not have had before I cannot believe that the __theory__ of the so called
'scientific' theory of 'natural selection' is is true as long as it is
illustrated with samples of adaption instead of NEW organs/qualities, I
must conclude that your rants just hide your lack of knowledge.
Speaking of a lack of knowledge, what is your name?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying to Get Creationists to Define "Macroevolution" |
07 Jul 2007 05:01:35 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 21:06:51 -0400, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Refer: <JGBji.11392$K9.802@bignews6.bellsouth.net>
"Egbert" <egbert@mailingimpliesthatyouagreetopayme50bucks.invalid> wrote in
message news:1c125$468e0fb0$5435605e$26211@nf1.news-service.com...
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1183676165.453666.185100@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
There's an interesting discussion hosted by Mike Dunford that I first
saw over at www.pandasthumb.org on "Microevolution, Macroevolution,
and our Species", which emanates from www.scienceblogs.com/authority.
http://tinyurl.com/2ft2k6
The comments at "authority" in particular highlight the complete
impotence of ID creationists to even define their terms when they
stand up and pronounce arrogantly that macroevolution cannot happen!
When you start out from the unsupported premise that some god made
special, immutable "kinds" or that the "kinds", whatever they are,
cannot change significantly without divine input, you ought to be able
to scientifically define these "kinds" pretty easily and pretty
rigidly.
There isn't a creationist or ID advocate who can. That's how truly
pathetic they are.
It is hypocrisy to ask others to define things that you can't define
yourselves.
As long as I never have seen LIVING proof of living beings that I can see
with my eyes that developed new organs or new qualities that they could
not have had before I cannot believe that the __theory__ of the so called
'scientific' theory of 'natural selection' is is true as long as it is
illustrated with samples of adaption instead of NEW organs/qualities, I
must conclude that your rants just hide your lack of knowledge.
Speaking of a lack of knowledge, what is your name?
Antonio Santana.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying to Get Creationists to Define "Macroevolution" |
07 Jul 2007 08:09:04 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:d3pu83504ribglsphns2mcalqs5vs963t5@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 21:06:51 -0400, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Refer: <JGBji.11392$K9.802@bignews6.bellsouth.net>
"Egbert" <egbert@mailingimpliesthatyouagreetopayme50bucks.invalid> wrote
in
message news:1c125$468e0fb0$5435605e$26211@nf1.news-service.com...
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1183676165.453666.185100@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
There's an interesting discussion hosted by Mike Dunford that I first
saw over at www.pandasthumb.org on "Microevolution, Macroevolution,
and our Species", which emanates from www.scienceblogs.com/authority.
http://tinyurl.com/2ft2k6
The comments at "authority" in particular highlight the complete
impotence of ID creationists to even define their terms when they
stand up and pronounce arrogantly that macroevolution cannot happen!
When you start out from the unsupported premise that some god made
special, immutable "kinds" or that the "kinds", whatever they are,
cannot change significantly without divine input, you ought to be able
to scientifically define these "kinds" pretty easily and pretty
rigidly.
There isn't a creationist or ID advocate who can. That's how truly
pathetic they are.
It is hypocrisy to ask others to define things that you can't define
yourselves.
As long as I never have seen LIVING proof of living beings that I can
see
with my eyes that developed new organs or new qualities that they could
not have had before I cannot believe that the __theory__ of the so
called
'scientific' theory of 'natural selection' is is true as long as it is
illustrated with samples of adaption instead of NEW organs/qualities, I
must conclude that your rants just hide your lack of knowledge.
Speaking of a lack of knowledge, what is your name?
Antonio Santana.
Thanks, I thought it might be Jabbers.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Trying to Get Creationists to Define "Macroevolution" |
06 Jul 2007 09:39:07 PM |
|
|
Egbert wrote:
As long as I never have seen LIVING proof of living beings
that I can see with my eyes that developed new organs or new
qualities that they could not have had before I cannot believe
that the __theory__ of the so called 'scientific' theory of
'natural selection' is is true as long as it is illustrated
with samples of adaption instead of NEW organs/qualities, I
must conclude that your rants just hide your lack of
knowledge.
It's fascinating that you actually believe that is a valid
argument. I fault our school systems for producing ill educated
people like little egbert here. It is painfully that this idiot,
and other like him, know absolutely nothing about basic science
and even less about biology. It's no wonder they can't understand
the simple facts behind evolution.
--
Dave
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying to Get Creationists to Define "Macroevolution" |
06 Jul 2007 07:58:14 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:47:41 +0200, "Egbert"
<egbert@mailingimpliesthatyouagreetopayme50bucks.invalid> wrote:
- Refer: <1c125$468e0fb0$5435605e$26211@nf1.news-service.com>
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1183676165.453666.185100@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
There's an interesting discussion hosted by Mike Dunford that I first
saw over at www.pandasthumb.org on "Microevolution, Macroevolution,
and our Species", which emanates from www.scienceblogs.com/authority.
http://tinyurl.com/2ft2k6
The comments at "authority" in particular highlight the complete
impotence of ID creationists to even define their terms when they
stand up and pronounce arrogantly that macroevolution cannot happen!
When you start out from the unsupported premise that some god made
special, immutable "kinds" or that the "kinds", whatever they are,
cannot change significantly without divine input, you ought to be able
to scientifically define these "kinds" pretty easily and pretty
rigidly.
There isn't a creationist or ID advocate who can. That's how truly
pathetic they are.
It is hypocrisy to ask others to define things that you can't define
yourselves.
Utter *****.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying to Get Creationists to Define "Macroevolution" |
06 Jul 2007 12:43:52 AM |
|
|
In article <1183676165.453666.185100@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
There's an interesting discussion hosted by Mike Dunford that I first
saw over at www.pandasthumb.org on "Microevolution, Macroevolution,
and our Species", which emanates from www.scienceblogs.com/authority.
http://tinyurl.com/2ft2k6
The comments at "authority" in particular highlight the complete
impotence of ID creationists to even define their terms when they
stand up and pronounce arrogantly that macroevolution cannot happen!
When you start out from the unsupported premise that some god made
special, immutable "kinds" or that the "kinds", whatever they are,
cannot change significantly without divine input, you ought to be able
to scientifically define these "kinds" pretty easily and pretty
rigidly.
There isn't a creationist or ID advocate who can. That's how truly
pathetic they are.
Indeed they are. This whole micro-macro-kind "controversy" is just
another batallion of strawmen recruited from their infertile
imaginations.
Budikka
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lorentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying to Get Creationists to Define "Macroevolution" |
05 Jul 2007 06:57:06 PM |
|
|
On Jul 5, 6:56 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
When you start out from the unsupported premise that some god made
special, immutable "kinds" or that the "kinds", whatever they are,
cannot change significantly without divine input, you ought to be able
to scientifically define these "kinds" pretty easily and pretty
rigidly.
Budikka
They are not really starting from an unsupported hypothesis so
much as using a biological law past its range of validity. Scientists
hundreds of years ago established laws that living things can not
arise from inanimate objects, and that one a member of one species can
not give birth to a member of another species. Neither of these laws
was self evident. It was commonly believed that maggots were generated
by dead meat, or even from soil. Women were burned at the stake with
their birth defective offspring, on the grounds that they mated with
cattle. Stories are still going around about people giving birth to
puppies. So scientists ended up stating flat out that it was wrong.
And over short time spans, a species is immutable. Although organic
chemistry occurs in nonbiological systems, one can define life in a
broad enough way to say that it doesn't spontaneously appear over the
course of hundreds of generations. Although variation can happen in
one generation, one can define species in a broad enough way so that
one can say that species are immutable over the course of centuries.
Exceptions may be found in the future, where life appears in a day,
but they will be under exotic conditions which are irrelevant to
everyday experience. Serious discrepancies have been found, so far,
only on the time scale of thousands of generations.
Speaking of flat, there were people who believed the earth was on
average flat. Although most ancient peoples for the past 2500 years
figured it out, it is apparent from reading the Bible that many people
preferred to think of it that way. And it looks flat, especially if
you live in a desert or river plain. Of course, mountains exist. Hills
exist. Sand dunes exist. But one can make a broad enough definition of
surface that includes this topography as a deviation from flatness.
Horizon? Hills and sand dunes get in the way, so most people don't see
the horizon. Serious discrepancies to the flat earth model are only
found over distance scales of hundreds of miles.
I think part of the Genesis problem is that the Hebrews were not
serious sea travelers. The first serious "round earthers" were the sea
going peoples, like the Greeks. I suspect if the Philistines and
Canaanites (sea going enemies of the land lubber Hebrews) had left a
scripture, it would have a much more realistic Creation story
(geographically). The creation of different types of animals was
apparently made up to fit this unrealistic geography. Remember, the
creation of the plants is balanced by the creation of the stars, the
creation of land animals is balanced by the creation of flying
animals, etc. The geography is driving the biology at least in
Genesis. Living things are created to fill an empty region of
geography.
In any case, the Creationists are not making up the fact that
species are somewhat conservative. They are imposing a special case of
biological law onto a rather unrealistic geography. However, an attack
on the special case of biology can be made to sound stupid. The kinds
are real over short periods of time, they just are poorly defined over
tlong periods of time.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying to Get Creationists to Define "Macroevolution" |
05 Jul 2007 11:08:08 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 15:56:05 -0700, Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <1183676165.453666.185100@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
There's an interesting discussion hosted by Mike Dunford that I first
saw over at www.pandasthumb.org on "Microevolution, Macroevolution,
and our Species", which emanates from www.scienceblogs.com/authority.
http://tinyurl.com/2ft2k6
The comments at "authority" in particular highlight the complete
impotence of ID creationists to even define their terms when they
stand up and pronounce arrogantly that macroevolution cannot happen!
When you start out from the unsupported premise that some god made
special, immutable "kinds" or that the "kinds", whatever they are,
cannot change significantly without divine input, you ought to be able
to scientifically define these "kinds" pretty easily and pretty
rigidly.
There isn't a creationist or ID advocate who can. That's how truly
pathetic they are.
Budikka
They are not interested in doing so.
Al they are interested in is peddling their vicious fraud.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
