Fossil Record Shows Complete Record of MACROevolution (if you want to use that word)

PostmodernProphet said:
because they, like you, don't study incidents that don't fit into their religious choices......
Click to expand...
I see, and please explain to me, in scientific terms, why would a scientist do this? I'm sorry PiMP, you started out so well. You corrected IB1 on his mistake concering macroevolution but it's gone badly down hill from there. I have to draw the conclusion here that you are poorly informed on science, biology and evolutionary theory.
 
ib1yysguy said:
If he doesn't run away, I'd be surprised.

But remember that in another thread he called evolution "a joke." If that doesn't invest you in this argument, nothing will. He's at least a good sport about it so far, even if he does ignore questions.
Click to expand...
Well he may think evolutionary theory is a joke and even though he got off toe a good start I think it's become resoundingly clear that he doesn't really understand what evolutionary theory is. At least he hasn't demonstrated an understanding of it yet.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
a common claim among seculars.....not very accurate, but a common claim....generally made by those who TREAT science as a religion.....
Click to expand...

no...sorry, science is not a religion. nor do I treat it as such. This is something theists usually say to bring smart thoughful people down to their retarded level of thinking. sorry :/
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That one cannot have secular or scientific views that contradict yours and not be a person of faith.
Click to expand...

then you misunderstand my point....since I have stated it repeatedly it must be intentional.....I specifically ACCUSE people that have views that contradict mine of BEING persons of faith, even though they deny it.....

And just who and what exaclty is the "Secular" bogey man you keep talking about? How are they relevent to this discussion on macroevolution?
Click to expand...
it's what we've been discussing.....macro evolution is relevant to the issue we are debating.....are you trying to play whacka-mole?....

You simply don't know what you're talking about. Common descent is an established and accepted fact and the fact of it is not even really debated in science. It's really only debated by those with a reliqeous agenda.
Click to expand...
commonality is a fact, descent is your interpretation....it isn't debated simply among those who share your faith....

I have just provided you easily testable
Click to expand...

really?....describe such a test....

Please defend that argument scientifically. I've provided compelling scientific evidence that it does not.
Click to expand...
as I stated earlier, do the similarities that remain between Windows 3.1 and Vista make it more or less likely that they had a common designer.....

You're changing the subject. I've not even discussed the origins of life and you've failed to address the problem of identifying who and what this Intelligent Designer is. Until that is done, ID will always remain a psuedoscience.
Click to expand...
no more so than abiogenesis....

You're quite wrong. I can go into voluminous detail scientifically demonstrating the evidence for macroevolution. As I said previously, how big a glutton for punishment are you?
Click to expand...
...verifiable test.....you've made that claim at least three times, thus showing you are at least aware of what is required by science.....are you prepared to admit that macro evolution can never meet that requirement?.....
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Well please do so, so far you haven't shown us anything at all the verifies your claim. As for my claims. I've risen to that challenge all ready and have provided that evidence. You've provided none.
Click to expand...
do those who do not believe in a creator reject evidence or argument that does not fit their mind set as "unscientific", regardless of whether they have spent any time looking at the data scientifically?......your posts and those of the others like you have affirmed my thesis.....
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I see, and please explain to me, in scientific terms, why would a scientist do this? I'm sorry PiMP, you started out so well. You corrected IB1 on his mistake concering macroevolution but it's gone badly down hill from there. I have to draw the conclusion here that you are poorly informed on science, biology and evolutionary theory.
Click to expand...

well, you have certainly made that conclusion without examining the evidence....is that because I do not fit within your religious preconceptions?......
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's truely funny Dixie, I've been recieving tons of PM's to the affect of "Dude, you've crushed PiMP on this debate almost as badly as you crushed Dixie!" LOL
Click to expand...

folks....that settles it....people who believe like mott say he is right and pwning and in PM's no less....why bother debating....he is kicking your ass, just ask the lord of the PM's

you're a champ!
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Now, now, don't change the subject. He's actually got you here Ib1, lol, take it in good grace. PiMP is right, Dr. Dawkins demonstration was not evidence of macroevolution but of microevolution. Just goes to show you that you have to be careful. Even someone who understands this topic as well as you do.
Click to expand...

LOL
IBpwned
 
Yurt said:
folks....that settles it....people who believe like mott say he is right and pwning and in PM's no less....why bother debating....he is kicking your ass, just ask the lord of the PM's

you're a champ!
Click to expand...
Hey, the facts I've listed speak for themselves. PiMP doesn't understand the topic. I'd wager you don't either.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Hey, the facts I've listed speak for themselves. PiMP doesn't understand the topic. I'd wager you don't either.
Click to expand...

???....I understand it quite well thank you.....I haven't even seen a response from you regarding my points...ignoring debate is no way to win.....all you've done is claim superiority and give your opinion......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
homologies simply ARE....like fossils, they do not provide evidence of transition....they could as easily have been separately formed creatures....it is the faith structure of the secularist that provides the transition, not evidence....
Really, they why do they share these homologies. Please provide me a naturalistic model that would explain why these homologies exist?

the point I have been trying to make.....and I see no reason to suspect you treat the issue any differently, is that there are those who begin with the assumption that God does not exist and did not, even MUST NOT, be involved in the origins of the universe, of life and of the various species.....
Click to expand...
There you go again changing the subject. Were not talking about God or abiogenisis. We're talking about science and macroevolution. Please try to concentrate and stay on topic.

when someone of that mindset comes up against an anomaly, it is immediately rejected.....hoax, bad science, etc, etc.......but it is certainly never studied.....thousands upon thousands of unconsidered data that is never considered scientifically....because you have already reached your conclusions.....(that was the theme of Forbidden Archeology, and you can and likely will, reject everything about it, thus affirming my point).....
Click to expand...
Well fine then, we keep asking you to show us these anomolies at the best you've done is a link to some fringe crank who's provided nothing. Show us this unconsidered data. Line it up for us and explain to us how it falsifies macroevolution. I'm all eyes and ears. You need to put up or shut up.

so homologies exist.....are there a variety of explanations for WHY homologies exist?.....of course.....will you consider any of them other than evolution?......no....because you have already made your faith choices.....
Click to expand...
There are many explanations to explain homologies but the one that provides the best fit, the best explanation, that is emprically observable, which is naturalistic, which is supported by vast volumes of examples is common descent. If there is another explanation that does a better job, then please put it up here in the market place of ideas and let us test it by the standards and methods of science and not your standard of empty rhetoric.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Really, they why do they share these homologies. Please provide me a naturalistic model that would explain why these homologies exist?
Click to expand...
quite simply, they were created that way....

There you go again changing the subject. Were not talking about God or abiogenisis. We're talking about science and macroevolution. Please try to concentrate and stay on topic.
Click to expand...
??...I am on topic....read my posts on this thread, from the first to the last....I haven't changed anything....we are talking about seculars rejecting evidence which doesn't comply with their beliefs.....

the best you've done is a link to some fringe crank who's provided nothing
Click to expand...

thank you for proving my point.....

There are many explanations to explain homologies but the one that provides the best fit, the best explanation, that is emprically observable, which is naturalistic, which is supported by vast volumes of examples is common descent.
Click to expand...
I am glad you have made your faith choice....but since you cannot provide a method of testing, you should at least have the grace to admit it isn't science....what you are observing empirically is the commonality, the "descent" is your faith choice.....I had expected you to be more familiar with the principles of science.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
then you misunderstand my point....since I have stated it repeatedly it must be intentional.....I specifically ACCUSE people that have views that contradict mine of BEING persons of faith, even though they deny it.....
Click to expand...
No, you are accusing those who use reason and critical thought and analytical skills of depending are relying on some mystical faith. You're just plain wrong.


it's what we've been discussing.....macro evolution is relevant to the issue we are debating.....are you trying to play whacka-mole?....
Click to expand...
Nope, I'm providing evidence of a well recognized natural phenomena using well reasoned presentation of the facts to refute your point while demonstrating the factual basis for macroevolution, you keep straying off topic and have provided......nothing.


commonality is a fact, descent is your interpretation....it isn't debated simply among those who share your faith....
Click to expand...
Nice paradox PiMP, that's just more evidence that you do not understand what science is or how it works. How can you have biological commonality with out descent? Again, please explain this. You've made a half a dozen claims so far and you've defended none of them. You're arguments are so empty that they border on a waste of my time.



really?....describe such a test....
Click to expand...
I just did! Haven't you been reading? Don't you understand what I've been saying? Evolutionary theory would make the very useful prediction that common descent would be indicated if you were to compare organisms of divergent phylogonies anatomical features and physiological processes. Homologies between these divergent phylogonies would be strong evidence of both common descent and macroevolution. How many times do I have to repeat this?


as I stated earlier, do the similarities that remain between Windows 3.1 and Vista make it more or less likely that they had a common designer.....
Click to expand...
certainly and if you could identify whom this biological intelligent designer is then you could provide evidence that common descent was designed but you can't do that, can you?


no more so than abiogenesis....


...verifiable test.....you've made that claim at least three times, thus showing you are at least aware of what is required by science.....are you prepared to admit that macro evolution can never meet that requirement?.....
Click to expand...
Good God Almighty! I've just presented you evidence and explained it to you three or four times now that macroevolution does meet that requirement. Now your just either being purposefully obtuse or you are profoundly ignorant about the scientific method.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top