|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 04/11/2004 : 14:57:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I think it's difficult to speculate with any accuracy on the motives of drive-by posters. Although, as I just noticed, verlch did this before, about 11 months ago. There appears to be nothing new in the argument this time around (except the verses about women - what the heck?), it's just the same old incredulity coupled with bad logic and a refusal to examine the evidence. And verlch called it "reason" in the prior posts.
In half the posts he wasn't coherent to begin with. The idea of putting him back on his meds is a good one. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2004 : 16:51:02 [Permalink]
|
| "Macroevolution" is also a moving target. If a creationist claims it means the difference between two species, and is shown the number of speciation events which have indeed been observed, they'll bump it up to the genus-level or higher. Some have gone so far to say that "macroevolution" means a change from one phylum to another. In other words, since they invented the term, they feel it's okay to change its meaning when necessary to "disprove" evolution. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2004 : 18:12:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Ricky wrote:
I looked up macroevolution on dictionary.com and it said:
"Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups."
So that definition seems to be very vauge. Is it correct?
IMO definitions of scientific terms in dictionaries for popular use are often too vague if you really want them to be of any use in a scientific discussion.
But then again, as far as I know, macroevolution is not a term which is used in scientific discussions. As Dave W. already pointed out, the problem is in defining where microevolution would stop and macroevolution would begin. Macroevolution is a lot of microevolution, so the point where they could be distinguished is always arbitrary.
Maybe the best way to tackle your problem would be to let your opponent define macroevolution precisely (for example, does macroevolution mean change of taxa or of phylum) and then start attacking that definition. If he moves up the line, confront him with the fact that he changed the definition he gave (and maybe start attacking the next one). If he defines macroevolution as changes between 'kinds', let him define 'kinds'. This seems to me the most viable way to go at it (and letting him search for a definition could prove a lot of fun). But maybe some of the more seasoned debaters here have some other ideas which might help.
edited to correct grammar. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 04/11/2004 18:14:29 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2004 : 19:33:34 [Permalink]
|
Well, shoot. Here's what I get for not earlier checking a good reference:In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa. I read somewhere else fairly recently, however, that the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are used far more often by creationists today than by evolutionary biologists. Creationists do, however, often change its meaning mid-stream.
Oh, and no creationist has ever defined the term "kind" in a way which has withstood scrutiny. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2004 : 23:38:01 [Permalink]
|
You seem to have forgotten your medication.
Take your pills (or what ever you use) and then try to write coherent.
There are a lot of people here that can help you when you are ready to formulate questions.
Take care,
Thank you 20 year old mortal....Your a genuis!!!! |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2004 : 23:40:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Greetings verlch, and welcome to SFN.
I'm not sure of what you're trying to say, so I'll simply address a single statement; the one about more questions than answers.
This is true. There are more questions, many more, than answers and as more answers are found, more questions arise to be addressed. That's the way science progresses and, I think, the reason why most scientists are so dedicated. They are insatably curious.
It would be nice to have it all laid out, sure and certain, but that has yet to happen and never will in our species' lifetime. But, we'll learn a goodish part of it.
Of course, there are some questions that may never be answered; 'what existed before the Big Bang (or the Creation, if you must)?', for example.
But we will never stop asking.
Edited to inquire; what is your problem with women that you are laying all of that old, bibical, semi-slavery booshwah on them?
And, Piltdown Man was suspect from the beginning, but it spent most of it's years locked away in the London Museum of Natural History and unexamined. And, I must remind: it was secular science and scientists that debunked it for a fraud, not any religious organization. I think Piltdown was one of the best April Fools jokes ever, and I wish I'd done it! 
I'm pretty tired, now. I'll get back and give your statments better attention, if someone doesn't beat me to it.
DaveW would you kindly blow off the repeat post?
You know how can you explain that if humans reproduced to infinity and beyond, we would all be different!!!! How can you look at yourself in a mirror and think, "Gee whiz, I evolved from nothing into a human, with no visible proof of evolution in the trillions of living species on earth and in the millions of fossils in the ground!!!"
Why, you are worth more than that!!!!! More than some cosmic accident!!! |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2004 : 11:08:06 [Permalink]
|
verlch wrote:quote:
Why, you are worth more than that!!!!! More than some cosmic accident!!!
Aside from the incorrect numbers, you've got nothing more than an "I want to be really special" argument here. I feel bad that you're not content with being a unique member of a unique species among millions of other unique species, and that you find a need to desperately grasp for transcendance from this state by denying the evidence which does indeed exist. "No visible proof" is simply wrong, and I don't know how you can look at yourself in the mirror without feeling the least bit guilty about such a falsehood.
If I can indulge my ego for a moment, I am a fan-freakin'-tastic cosmic accident, and the world is lucky to have me around. As such, even implying that I should waste my precious time worshipping a being for which there is no visible proof is an insult more grave than doubting my special place in the universe. I am worth very much more than a "specially-created," Divine-ego-stroking prayer puppet. Ha!
It doesn't make sense to me that my "worth" somehow increases if I've been created to devout myself to God. Seems to me that being subservient like that cheapens life and the reasons for living it. If someone can explain it to me, please do. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2004 : 15:52:38 [Permalink]
|
yeah we are Unique, all of us. Just Evolutionists seem to want the glory for Mother Nature and not God.
Thats why the bible is full of 'By faith' verses. Earth is a mini-universe, this is what the universe would have been like if the Devil had controlled it, as he wished he had!!!!! God has a deeper purpuse and meaning than you, a 20 to 70 year old mortal could ever understand. Lucifer was in heaven with God and he rejected Him. Isreal was God's choosen people and the rejected Him, even when God lead them in a cloud throughout the desert!
You guys remind me of the story in the bible about Noah. God told Noah he was going to destroy man by water, and instructed Noah to build a boat. God said any who wishes to enter the boat will be saved from death. You know what they mocked Noah for 120 years as he built the boat. There wasn't any large lakes or seas to sail, it was all land as I remember the story. These human beings mocked Noah day and night. Finally God told Noah to enter the ark, as he did the door shut. There was silence amoung the group. Everyone waited and nothing happened!!! Guess what they mocked him even more for seven days! Until the flood waters swept them away, after cries of mercy came from the people they begged to get into the Ark!
I liken that to Christians and Jews and God loving people, all of which you seem to delight at mocking them.
The Bible says every knee will one day bow to the maker of the universe, anyways all of you. "prepare to worship your maker." Someday of course, (the dead already know) |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2004 : 15:58:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
"Macroevolution" is also a moving target. If a creationist claims it means the difference between two species, and is shown the number of speciation events which have indeed been observed, they'll bump it up to the genus-level or higher. Some have gone so far to say that "macroevolution" means a change from one phylum to another. In other words, since they invented the term, they feel it's okay to change its meaning when necessary to "disprove" evolution.
Perhaps maybe someday we can view this macro evolution!!!!
Along with all your fossils of 2000 year old trees of stone. They dated the rings of stoned fossilized trees and found that petrified trees only had a lifespan of 2000 years when they lived. In a planet of billions of years you would think we could find a tree that lived over that amount of time, maybe a petrified tree in the earth that lived for 3000-4000 years!!!!
I belive the earth was covered by a flood sent by God to destroy man, that had become way to destructive!!! That would explain the buried trees, upside down no less and roots intact. Petrified at 2000 years of age (judging by the tree rings). Fish fossilized gasping for air as their backs are broken and they are twisted by some global force!!!! Strata broken and smashed in every direction. Oh learned men of the wind, rain, snow and sleet, what is the meaning of this? |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2004 : 16:47:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
"Macroevolution" is also a moving target. If a creationist claims it means the difference between two species, and is shown the number of speciation events which have indeed been observed, they'll bump it up to the genus-level or higher. Some have gone so far to say that "macroevolution" means a change from one phylum to another. In other words, since they invented the term, they feel it's okay to change its meaning when necessary to "disprove" evolution.
[quote]Perhaps maybe someday we can view this macro evolution!!!!
Along with all your fossils of 2000 year old trees of stone. They dated the rings of stoned fossilized trees and found that petrified trees only had a lifespan of 2000 years when they lived. In a planet of billions of years you would think we could find a tree that lived over that amount of time, maybe a petrified tree in the earth that lived for 3000-4000 years!!!!
I belive the earth was covered by a flood sent by God to destroy man, that had become way to destructive!!! That would explain the buried trees, upside down no less and roots intact. Petrified at 2000 years of age (judging by the tree rings). Fish fossilized gasping for air as their backs are broken and they are twisted by some global force!!!! Strata broken and smashed in every direction. Oh learned men of the wind, rain, snow and sleet, what is the meaning of this?
Ah, at last we're getting somewhere! I was afraid it would never happen. And then again, maybe it ain't.
Oviously, you have not opened a single link, not studied a single reference you've been given. And I really don't think I should be called upon to repeat myself when the information remains in this thread for the taking.
So, we'll try something else; please put forth your independant evidence in support of your claims.
What geologic evidence do you have in support of a global flood?
Why can't an ancient tree live longer than 2,000 years when a modern, living species, the bristlcone, has been reliably dated to 4,500?
Please explane why you use as an example the possibility of a tree being 4.5 billion years old -- I didn't quite grasp that one.
I would like to know the difference between micro and macro evolution. Is it not merely a difference in degree? How many micros would it take to make a macro? And whilst on the subject, please define 'kind'.
If the fossil record world wide was formed all at once during a flood, why then are the fossils arrainged in an order predicted by the ToE; why are there not mammal fossils associated with those from the Devonian, dinosaurs bones tangled with human?
Do enlighten me.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2004 : 16:53:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Verlch:
Petrified at 2000 years of age (judging by the tree rings). Fish fossilized gasping for air as their backs are broken and they are twisted by some global force!!!! Strata broken and smashed in every direction. Oh learned men of the wind, rain, snow and sleet, what is the meaning of this?
There is no geological record of a world wide flood. Plain and simple. The meaning I find in this is that some people prefer to get their information from creationist literature and not from peer reviewed scientific sources... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2004 : 09:51:19 [Permalink]
|
verlch wrote:quote:
Perhaps maybe someday we can view this macro evolution!!!!
Perhaps we already have.quote:
Along with all your fossils of 2000 year old trees of stone. They dated the rings of stoned fossilized trees and found that petrified trees only had a lifespan of 2000 years when they lived. In a planet of billions of years you would think we could find a tree that lived over that amount of time, maybe a petrified tree in the earth that lived for 3000-4000 years!!!!
Filthy has already noted your lack of interest in compelling evidence contrary to your position. I won't bother to lump on more.quote:
I belive the earth was covered by a flood sent by God to destroy man, that had become way to destructive!!! That would explain the buried trees, upside down no less and roots intact. Petrified at 2000 years of age (judging by the tree rings).
Oooooooops! Sorry! Trees pertrified at 2,000 years of age cannot possibly be due to the Flood described in Genesis, since it happened only 1,614 years after the Earth was created. Such trees would therefore be 125% of the age of the universe. God wouldn't screw up like that, would He?quote:
Fish fossilized gasping for air as their backs are broken and they are twisted by some global force!!!! Strata broken and smashed in every direction. Oh learned men of the wind, rain, snow and sleet, what is the meaning of this?
Demonstrate that it is as you describe, and we will tell you the meaning. Until then, your question puts the cart before the horse. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
