|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4305 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can I disprove Macro-Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2105 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I have no problem with your non breeding mice being a different species of mice. But they are still mice. Wrong! Absolutely wrong! "Mouse" and "mice" are generic terms, not scientific ones. In a scientific argument they mean nothing! I've told you this before, but you seem to be totally unwilling to listen to anything which, for religious reasons, you might disagree with. If that's the case you have absolutely no business discussing science, or presenting opinions dealing with science. You are simply not qualified. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I don't see how the big stallion and the little mare in my avatar can breed and produce an offspring. They are both classified as horses. So where is the difference other than size? The difference other than the very obvious difference? Well, if they can't breed, the other difference is species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ken Fabos Member (Idle past 1240 days) Posts: 51 From: Australia Joined: |
JRTjr, you seem to be making far too much of the popular terminology rather than the actual processes; 'blueprint' and 'set of instructions' are a kind of shorthand for something entirely different to a set of instructions or a blueprint. The actual processes are biochemical reactions that don't need or embody any intelligence to occur and DNA doesn't actually code information - 'coding information' being a human constructed analogy for processes that have nothing to do with codes or information. Arguments based on such a fundamental misunderstanding of terminology won't prove anything, least of all that evolution can't result in speciation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Actually knowing each and every step would be science. Anything else is either religion or belief in some system. What a wonderful answer! Thank you. Now, give me one example of any area of science where they have all the answers. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Not one verifiable instance of 'Macro-Evolution' has not been shown to have occured. In fact no good argumentation has been presented to support such a position. Circumstantial evidence along with assertions and bull headed conclusions has been presented in this thread as evidence of verifiable instances of 'Macro-Evolution' having occured. The problem is none of those are verifiable instances of'Macro-Evolution'. God Bless, I have read the entire thread up to 184, excellent display of logic, ICANT, you can see them squirming. Outstanding. I know we have our disagreements on Baptism, but you are an outstanding debater. Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I have read the entire thread up to 184, excellent display of logic, ICANT, you can see them squirming. You guys should really learn the difference between things you can see and things that you can imagine.
Outstanding. I know we have our disagreements on Baptism, but you are an outstanding debater. I guess your rival sects agree on one error. And apparently you're willing to applaud anyone who commits it. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
I have read the entire thread up to 184, excellent display of logic, ICANT, you can see them squirming. Outstanding. I know we have our disagreements on Baptism, but you are an outstanding debater. Yea the 2 mice are a different species but they are still mice. They are no longer House mice, they look diferent, act different, their gens are diferent they are now called Xxx yyyy, and no ammount of change will ever make them cese to be mice. Ift hey grow horns they will be mice whit horns, if they grow a rabbits tail they will be mice whit horns and rabbids tails, if they start eating bark, they will be horned mice whit rabbits tails that eat bark, If they evolve shorter mouths and a diferent digestive syistem because they are eating bark, they will be horned mice whit rabbit tails that eat bark have different jaws and different digestive syistems, If they evolve ........ No amount of change would convince him that they are no longer mice AN exelent display of logic that disproves macro evolution no matter what happens just denie that macro has ever happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Actually knowing each and every step would be science. Anything else is either religion or belief in some system. No, it's more science. Suppose you see two guys tossing a ball back and forth, only most of the flightpath of the ball is blocked from your view by a screen. Now, if you wanted, there is nothing in your observations as such that would lead you to discount the hypothesis that as it passes behind the screen, an angel makes it vanish, waits an appropriate length of time, and then poofs into existence a different but identical ball traveling with just the speed and direction that it would have if it had in fact continued in its parabolic arc. But science tells us that in the absence of evidence for angels, the default explanation for why it looks like the laws of physics continued trundling along behind the screen as normal is that they did; and obliges us to deduce that the ball really did move in a parabola.
Science requires us to accept this, at least until and unless there is contrary evidence; and does so even though you couldn't see most or even all of the flight of the ball.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
olivortex Member (Idle past 4778 days) Posts: 70 From: versailles, france Joined: |
In other words, we can't know everything right away. This wouldn't be science.
It seems strange to me that some people demand that science brings all the answers. Actually it's the difference between, for instance, a holy scripture and science. One is supposed to contain everything needed, while the other is continuously unfolding mysteries. No science manual is holy. Sometimes I wonder if lack of self-confidence is not the main reason why creationists won't open their minds. We have to trust our own intelligence, without overestimating it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
In other words, we can't know everything right away. This wouldn't be science. No, that's really my point. My point is that sciece often tells us, very insistently, how we ought to fill in the gaps where there are things that we don't directly observe. To do so is scientific. To ignore this insistence is possible, but it is unscientific. To take another example, if I see an apple in a supermarket, science insists that I conclude that it grew on an apple tree, since our accumulated experience of how the world works tells us that that's how apples happen. Now, since I didn't watch it all the way from the flower to the supermarket shelf, it is possible for me to believe that God created it on the shelf ex nihilo when no-one was looking. It is theoretically possible that this is the right explanation. But it would be unscientific to conclude that that was what happened. And in the absence of any contrary evidence, we are obliged to go with the scientific explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You guys should really learn the difference between things you can see and things that you can imagine. While I could argue the silliness of your above point very easily,my intention here was not t enter the discussion, I think ICANT is doing a wonderful job. I was simply pointing out that he displays a level of knowledge and the logical ability to employ it to the point that it is very impressive I think I read in the rules or preface somewhere on this site that some things get published. IMV, this should be one of them ICANT is both an enigma and paradox at times. Sometimes he doesnt seem to understand the simplest points, at others times he displays an understanding that is simply impressive. His participation here is one of those excellent displays of knowledge I think it is worthy of publication. Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zubbbra25 Junior Member (Idle past 4105 days) Posts: 22 Joined: |
I was simply pointing out that he displays a level of knowledge and the logical ability to employ it to the point that it is very impressive By continually denying the evidence presented to him and by ignoring a vitally important question that has been posited 5 or 6 times now doesn't display, to me, a level of logical ability that is truly noteworthy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
While I could argue the silliness of your above point very easily ... If, on another thread, you would like to argue that you shouldn't learn the difference between things you can see and things that you can imagine, then I for one could use the laugh. I can well believe that such an argument would come very easily to you.
... my intention here was not t enter the discussion ... Then your ability to not enter discussions apears to be on a par with your other talents.
I think ICANT is doing a wonderful job. I was simply pointing out that he displays a level of knowledge and the logical ability to employ it to the point that it is very impressive Which is like one tone-deaf man admiring the singing voice of another. I will do him the justice to admit that he's better at it than you are. But then, so is yeast.
ICANT is both an enigma and paradox at times. Sometimes he doesnt seem to understand the simplest points, at others times he displays an understanding that is simply impressive. Let me guess. He "doesn't understand the simplest points" when he's disagreeing with one of your religious dogmas, and his understanding is "simply impressive" when he's concurring with your doctrine. Am I close?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
If, on another thread, you would like to argue that you shouldn't learn the difference between things you can see and things that you can imagine, then I for one could use the laugh. I can well believe that such an argument would come very easily to you. Ive already demonstrated to many times now, it is actually you that does not understand the difference between the two, as your inability to reason correctly, usually demonstrates. Its why why when you and I are discussing points, you choose to bow out and have nothing really to offer but jibes and insults You aggravation is being displayed now because ICANT has taken you to task on the subject and you have no way to demonstrate what you claim happened, Macro Evo Feel free to clown around, I would however, suggest that you spend your time meeting his demand, which you have to this point NOT demonstrated All you need is the evidence, that should be simple enough Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Let me guess. He "doesn't understand the simplest points" when he's disagreeing with one of your religious dogmas, and his understanding is "simply impressive" when he's concurring with your doctrine. Am I close? It really bothers you when someone disagrees with A position, even when you are not being addressed directly, doesnt it? Beign wrong on any position is really not an option for you is it? Perhaps some anger management classes or courses would be appropriate for such tantrums Just a suggestion however Better let you get back to your task, have fun Dawn Bertot
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024