lol.....

PostmodernProphet said:
because it isn't all the evidence required...they could just have easily been created that way to serve a purpose of their own existence.....the presence of a bone in a whale's flipper isn't proof that it used to be a leg.....a bone could simply be an excellent way to provide rigidity to a a flipper......

and does this mean you're finally ready to engage in the discussion you've been hiding from since 2009?......
Click to expand...
Hiding? I proved my argument based on the facts. You're still talking in circles saying nonsense. Homologies create phylogonies. That's a fact. Deal with it.

As for species having been "created" fine. Show me this creator. Show me specifically how he created. Please do.
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
lol.....pretending its been refuted is a cop out....
Click to expand...
Prove me wrong then. Who or what is this creator? Introduce me to him. Show me exactly his design and how it works. Replace our model which is incredibly useful, has tremendous predicitive value, has stood the test of time for nearly 200 years and is the foundation upon which most of theoretical and all of applied biology are based upon with your model then show us what predictions it makes that model speciation and how we can test those prediction. Please do.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no you simpleton.....I did NOT say it required speciation within single generations....would you learn to fucking read!......I have stated what I believe often enough you ought to have it memorized by now.....
Click to expand...

Yeah, you did. You claimed that was the idea behind evolutionary theory. You have claimed it is really just simple adaptation. Don't blame me because you have presented a half assed and ignorant argument.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You can't cherry pick this and that part of a theory as you do. You either reject a theory based on the evidence and you replace it with a model that provide predictive values that are testable and independently verifiable . That is how science works. You seem oblivious to this fact.

You can't say you believe in evolutionary theory yet reject "macroevolution" without rejecting biological evolutionary theory as a whole and replacing it with another valid model for speciation. The design argument hardly meets that threshold and is easily rejected based on the facts.
Click to expand...

lol..no, that isn't how it works.....science observes data.....one can accept the data and still reject the ridiculous claims some people make about it......macro-evolution is not science...its an atheist's fantasy......its never been observed, its never been experimented on, its never been tested........its an assumption......

micro-evolution is science.......I can accept science and still reject the atheist's fantasy......
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I proved my argument based on the facts
Click to expand...

lol.... no.....you said I didn't know enough about biology and you refused to debate with me....

Homologies create phylogonies. That's a fact.
Click to expand...

/grins.....show me a homology that created a phylogony. Show me specifically how it did it. Please do. If its a scientific fact it must have been tested, experimented, or at least observed, right?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol..no, that isn't how it works.....science observes data.....one can accept the data and still reject the ridiculous claims some people make about it......macro-evolution is not science...its an atheist's fantasy......its never been observed, its never been experimented on, its never been tested........its an assumption......

micro-evolution is science.......I can accept science and still reject the atheist's fantasy......
Click to expand...

Can you define macroevolution in specific terms? There was no macroevolution when tigers, snow leopards and house cats came from Noah's feline?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Prove me wrong then. Who or what is this creator?
Click to expand...

you claim that I don't understand how science works, but obviously you don't understand how debate works.....you claim that the idea of a designer has been refuted......doesn't that imply its already been accomplished?......it should be easy for you to prove your claim simply by copying the work of those who came before.....demonstrate the refutation......
 
Professor Baxter said:
Can you define macroevolution in specific terms? There was no macroevolution when tigers, snow leopards and house cats came from Noah's feline?
Click to expand...

precisely.......macro-evolution would have meant Noah only needed an amoeba and an pair of floaties.....macro-evolution is the hypothesis that all known life evolved from that original life which first crawled out of the primordial slime......(and it can only be termed an hypothesis if you use the scientific term loosely).......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
precisely.......macro-evolution would have meant Noah only needed an amoeba and an pair of floaties.....macro-evolution is the hypothesis that all known life evolved from that original life which first crawled out of the primordial slime......(and it can only be termed an hypothesis if you use the scientific term loosely).......
Click to expand...
There you go again, showing your scientific illiteracy. You don't even know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Wow....serious comedy here PiMP. LOL
 
Mott the Hoople said:
There you go again, showing your scientific illiteracy. You don't even know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Wow....serious comedy here PiMP. LOL
Click to expand...

I know the difference well.......and I know that it would be laughable to pretend macro-evolution is a theory......it doesn't even qualify as an hypothesis, to be honest.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I know the difference well.......and I know that it would be laughable to pretend macro-evolution is a theory......it doesn't even qualify as an hypothesis, to be honest.....
Click to expand...
Hell PiMP....you don't even know what macroevolution is. Macorevolution is the aspect of evolutionary THEORY that models biological evolution at and above the taxonomic level of species. I mean for christ sakes this is high school shit and you don't even know it.

You're spouting some absolute nonsense you've read from some idiotic creationist site or worse, The Discovery Institute, that you can't even begin to defend in a honest, scientific discussion. You're just making an idiotic argument from authority that you can't defedt. In fact I defy you too without stooping to circular arguments and the intellectual dishonesty you are renound for.

Please, oh please, Mr. Layperson, please explain to those of us who have actually studied the life sciences at accredited Universities and graduate programs how macroevolution isn't even a hypothesis. It's been a boring day and I could use a good laugh! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top