lol.....

PostmodernProphet said:
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
and if you had gotten beyond 9th grade you might have learned more....




as pointed out, neither homologies nor "transitional" species can be taken as evidence of macro-evolution....they can as easily be understood as separately created individual creatures.....



nothing on that list except for genetic change can be tested at all, and that is merely micro-evolution.....
Click to expand...
But they have been tested and independently verified. What proof do you have that these are not? You're just making another circular argument and are stating an opinion. I've provided you with peer reviewed documentation to the empirical facts I listed. Where are yours? You're just stating an unfounded opinion otherwise.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I just listed nearly thirty of them. Can't you read?
Click to expand...

I can read opinion.......no evidence of MACRO-evolution has ever been tested, nor can it be......you assume that since micro-evolution occurs that given enough million years it COULD have accomplished macro-evolution but that assumption is not experimentation or evidence.....

how many fossils do we have to observe.....a million?.....ten million......so, out of the billions of creatures that existed at any given point in time over a span of millions of years we have a trail of what......one one thousandth of a percent?....one one thousandth of a thousandth?........and from that you believe you have created a credible evidentiary trail?.....

macro-evolution isn't science....its your faith statement....
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Indeed we have. PiMP's fallacy, which is a creationist fallacy, is to try to divide biological evolution into two different theories. It's not only fallacious it's intellectually dishonest as micro and marco evolution describe the same process (biological evolution), the only difference being one of scale.
Click to expand...

Yeah, while redefining macroevolution as evolution above a level of "kind" which is some made up term on which they will equivocate when it becomes too tough to categorize something.

He kept his points extremely vague, a clear sign of his intellectual dishonesty and cowardice, and I really had no idea what he was suggesting until I found a source explaining the answersingenesis argument complete with their bs on "cat" kind.

They seem to think the taxonomic structure plays a real role in controlling the process of evolution, which is just absurd.


http://dogmadebate.blogspot.com/2013/01/macroevolution-using-modern-animals-and.html
 
Professor Baxter said:
Yeah, while redefining macroevolution as evolution above a level of "kind" which is some made up term on which they will equivocate when it becomes too tough to categorize something.

He kept his points extremely vague, a clear sign of his intellectual dishonesty and cowardice, and I really had no idea what he was suggesting until I found a source explaining the answersingenesis argument complete with their bs on "cat" kind.

They seem to think the taxonomic structure plays a real role in controlling the process of evolution, which is just absurd.


http://dogmadebate.blogspot.com/2013/01/macroevolution-using-modern-animals-and.html
Click to expand...
It is absurd and did you see how he called the evidince I provided "opinions"? LOL More intellectual dishonesty. He'll keep arguing in circles like that and then accuse you or funning away when he won't address the evidence provided to him.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I can read opinion.......no evidence of MACRO-evolution has ever been tested, nor can it be......you assume that since micro-evolution occurs that given enough million years it COULD have accomplished macro-evolution but that assumption is not experimentation or evidence.....

how many fossils do we have to observe.....a million?.....ten million......so, out of the billions of creatures that existed at any given point in time over a span of millions of years we have a trail of what......one one thousandth of a percent?....one one thousandth of a thousandth?........and from that you believe you have created a credible evidentiary trail?.....

macro-evolution isn't science....its your faith statement....
Click to expand...
It is a fact, you can rationalize or ignore the empirical data all you want. You're still factually wrong util you can address the actual data I provided instead of making unintelligable comments about fossils. It's not like fossils of transitional species are the only evidence, which you keep running away from, of macroevolution.

Now please, address of the empirical, testable, observations supporting macroevolution that I provided you. The ball is in your court. Show use your data.
 
by the way, Mott......from your "9th grade" definition of theory above you left out some telling statements from the link.....like....
The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions.
Click to expand...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I can read opinion.......no evidence of MACRO-evolution has ever been tested, nor can it be......you assume that since micro-evolution occurs that given enough million years it COULD have accomplished macro-evolution but that assumption is not experimentation or evidence.....

how many fossils do we have to observe.....a million?.....ten million......so, out of the billions of creatures that existed at any given point in time over a span of millions of years we have a trail of what......one one thousandth of a percent?....one one thousandth of a thousandth?........and from that you believe you have created a credible evidentiary trail?.....

macro-evolution isn't science....its your faith statement....
Click to expand...

It's not a statement of faith. It's based on evidence. Your belief in God is based on faith and, underneath it all, is supported by nothing but the way it makes you feel.
 
Professor Baxter said:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/index.html#evidence
Click to expand...

the argument is that macro-evolution doesn't need to be "science" because there is no other scientific theory to explain the observed phenomena......but if macro-evolution doesn't need to be scientifically valid, why do other explanations have to be scientifically valid....everything about "common descent" can be understood as a result of an intended act by a creator....that is just as "scientifically valid" (or to be precise, not "scientifically valid") as macro-evolution.......
 
Mott the Hoople said:
It's not like fossils of transitional species are the only evidence, which you keep running away from, of macroevolution.
Click to expand...

the other "evidence" of macro evolution is equally not evidence.......DNA, molecular similarites, redundancies......all are again as much evidence of an intended design as they are of macro-evolution.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the argument is that macro-evolution doesn't need to be "science" because there is no other scientific theory to explain the observed phenomena......but if macro-evolution doesn't need to be scientifically valid, why do other explanations have to be scientifically valid....everything about "common descent" can be understood as a result of an intended act by a creator....that is just as "scientifically valid" (or to be precise, not "scientifically valid") as macro-evolution.......
Click to expand...

That (it does not need to be science) is not the argument for macroevolution or common descent. We can test theories concerning both against the available data and evidence. We cannot test creationist ideas. If we just believe, everything about everything can be understood as a result of an intended act by a creator. But there can be no valid science if we believe the laws of nature are the mere whims of a creator. You are a denier of science and attempting to suppress it for faith.

The entire reason for redefining macroevolution and introducing the meaningless idea of "kind" is to move the goalpost back to a shifting definition. Speciation/macroevolution has been directly observed so creationists moved back to demanding proof of evolution above kind, but there is tons of evidence showing descent above a level such as felidae and so you move it again to demanding proof for the division between snails and humans. You prove you are a fraud with your methods and tactics. You are not referencing science. You are debating and rejecting it with vulgar sophistry.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
by the way, Mott......from your "9th grade" definition of theory above you left out some telling statements from the link.....like....
Click to expand...
Why do you think I posted the link? Duh! That doesn't change the fact that your definition of a scientific theory is incorrect. You are limiting the defintion of a scientific theory to just one aspect of a scientific theory and that is incorrect and if you understood what a theory was you would know this.

Now back to my point. Are you going to refute with verifiable data/evidence/emipirical observations, the facts I listed supporting macroevolution? Hmm?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the other "evidence" of macro evolution is equally not evidence.......DNA, molecular similarites, redundancies......all are again as much evidence of an intended design as they are of macro-evolution.....
Click to expand...
LOL What complete nonsense. In fact the argument I made using homologies savages the argument for design and leaves it dead on the floor. The fact that my cells use the same method of cellular respiration as an earthworm or a blue whale completely discredits the design inference. Would you desing the power plant for a microchip or a jet aircraft using a steam engine? That violates the very fundamental principles of design.

Your argument shows you know as little about engineering as you do biology. LOL

Now back to my point you keep running away from. Where is the data and empirical observation that refute the facts I presented to you that support macroevolution?
 
Professor Baxter said:
That (it does not need to be science) is not the argument for macroevolution or common descent. We can test theories concerning both against the available data and evidence. We cannot test creationist ideas. If we just believe, everything about everything can be understood as a result of an intended act by a creator. But there can be no valid science if we believe the laws of nature are the mere whims of a creator. You are a denier of science and attempting to suppress it for faith.

The entire reason for redefining macroevolution and introducing the meaningless idea of "kind" is to move the goalpost back to a shifting definition. Speciation/macroevolution has been directly observed so creationists moved back to demanding proof of evolution above kind, but there is tons of evidence showing descent above a level such as felidae and so you move it again to demanding proof for the division between snails and humans. You prove you are a fraud with your methods and tactics. You are not referencing science. You are debating and rejecting it with vulgar sophistry.
Click to expand...
LOL Ask him to provide proof of this design/designer. Go ahead ask him! LOL

More comedy will ensue. I promise you! :)
 
PostmodernProphet said:
as is your belief in macro-evolution.....
Click to expand...

Again, macro evolution has been observed.

When have you observed God and what proof do you have of it? From my experience, the answer to this is almost always about observations on how contemplating a creator can make one feel. This fits with the idea of revelation as explained in most religions.

Scientific understanding can produce the same sense of awe, but that is never a reason to accept it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top