Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,584 Year: 4,841/9,624 Month: 189/427 Week: 102/85 Day: 7/2 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Great Debate Challenge to DarkStar
DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 15 (161307)
11-18-2004 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MrHambre
11-06-2004 7:29 AM


Opinion formed in advance of adequate knowledge or experience.
I had a few minutes before I had to leave so I have chosen to respond in a small way. One of the major problems I see in a debate of this sort is actually one of an extremely limited perception coupled with preconceptional bias that favors a personal opinion and belief rather than an established fact. IMO, what you may perceive and accept as evidence of macroevolution is in actuality a personal opinion that must be based upon your own personal beliefs and preconceptions.
While we are able to see microevolutionary changes within a single lifetime, visual observance of macroevolutionary changes is not possible. Even proponents of macroevolution will admit this. Therefore, macroevolutionists must rely upon interpretations, perceptions, and preconceptions of the so-called available evidence. Preconceptions and perceptions aside, their interpretations of the evidence may be totally erroneous and due to the lack of any actual visual confirmation of the macroevolutionary transformation itself, cannot be accepted as true and undeniable evidence.
I have seen nothing to date that would convince me that macroevolution is not a myth. One analogy that I can give would be the christian myth of noah's ark. Were we to actually find this ark, this would still not be concrete evidence of the story as told in the blble. We may have the visual evidence that the ark actually existed but this would not be enough to confirm the biblical account of noah and the ark beyond any and all reasonable doubt.
Were simple visual samples enough to fully confirm any myth or story was actual truth then the simple fact that Israel was born in a day would be enough proof of the authenticity of the biblical account that says this would happen. I see no macroevolutionists proclaiming the truth of the bible, or even the truth of this particular prophecy simply based upon this visible and verifiable historical truth. We are still left with a personal interpretation of what we believe we see, and it remains a belief that is based heavily upon personal bias.
There may be many myths that will some day be proven to be fact but I truly doubt that the myth of macroevolution will ever be included in that group short of actual visual observance of macroevolutionary change, which any macroevolutionist will admit is not possible given the immense lengths of time required and the infinitesimal level of change over a given period of time much longer than the human lifespan.
Because of this reality, the need for interpretation is required and as I have already stated, interpretation of evidence is not enough. If it were, none of us could, in all honesty, doubt the validity of much of the bible, many of its myths and legends, or the existance of the one true god these christians proclaim.
One could read Fox's book of martyrs, a book that is filled with historically accurate and verifiable accounts of the persecution of early christians and reach the conclusion that these people were undeniably convinced of what they believed. Would their belief, their willingness to suffer what they suffered be enough to convince you of the reality of their god? I doubt it, but they believed and were willing to die proclaiming that belief.
Somehow I doubt any that macroevolutionist will ever have that level of commitment to their own beliefs. I am quite sure that they would be willing to deny their belief in macroevolution and do it in a New York minute. There is a drastic difference between someone who simply accepts something and someone who not only believes but is willing to remain faithful to that belief even under penalty of torture and death.
While one may not believe what these christians believe, one cannot deny that their commitment to their belief is based upon something far greater than mere visual evidence. Would that we all could acheive that level of commitment to our own personal beliefs.

The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MrHambre, posted 11-06-2004 7:29 AM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 11-18-2004 11:02 PM DarkStar has replied
 Message 6 by arachnophilia, posted 11-19-2004 12:27 AM DarkStar has not replied
 Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 11-19-2004 12:52 AM DarkStar has replied

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 15 (161326)
11-18-2004 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
11-18-2004 11:02 PM


NOT GOOD ENOUGH
Using your method of what I consider to be flawed reasoning coupled with illogical assumption, one might just as easily consider a tadpole transforming into a frog or a caterpillar transforming into a butterfly as undeniable visual evidence of macroevolutionary change. They most surely are not.
EnchantedLearning.com | Worksheets, Activities, Crafts & More
BTW, you did not reference the source of your quote. Was it from http://www.carm.org/evolution_archive/kinds.htm ?
This message has been edited by DarkStar, 11-18-2004 11:47 PM
Edited by AdminHambre to restore page width
This message has been edited by AdminHambre, 11-19-2004 08:35 AM

The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 11-18-2004 11:02 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 11-18-2004 11:56 PM DarkStar has replied

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 15 (161373)
11-19-2004 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by crashfrog
11-18-2004 11:56 PM


Some Peoples Kids!
Your poor debating skills aside, what evidence are you talking about? Oh wait, that's right, you have no actual evidence, absolutely nothing! Once again you have offered nothing of any real substance, you continue to offer up accusations that in actuality refer to your own style of debate, if that is what you call it, and no, my dear froggy, the claptrap that you offered up is not good enough. It does not even come close to being good enough, regardless of what your obviously undereducated mind is continually telling you.
Once again you have proven that you are not worth the constant time and energy it takes to point out your seemingly endless inadequacies, faults, failures, and foibles. Please direct your worthless debating style, your low self esteem, and your unbelieveable sophomoric behaviour towards another, as you have repeatedly proven yourself to be an oxymoronic example of what a truly honest evolutionist is really like. You have now received your last response from me. Please learn to deal with it and seek professional counseling as needed.
I shall henceforth direct my time and energy only towards those few honest and sincere evolutionists and creationists that are in this forum, two groups which you most assuredly do not qualify to be counted amongst. You will, I wager, continue to respond to my posts in a vain attempt to help bolster what can only be viewed as your extremely low self esteem and your terribly lagging sense of self worth. You obviously need help, as your posts have made so unmistakenly and painfully evident. Again, please seek professional counseling as needed in order to deal with my unequivocal rejection of you and your mindless drivel.

The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 11-18-2004 11:56 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2004 1:55 AM DarkStar has not replied
 Message 12 by MrHambre, posted 11-19-2004 7:02 AM DarkStar has not replied

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 15 (161377)
11-19-2004 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by arachnophilia
11-19-2004 12:52 AM


Re: Opinion formed in advance of adequate knowledge or experience.
Arachnophilia writes:
how many examples do you need to connect the dots?
Within your question hides the answer to the question, "How do macroevolutionists arrive at their erroneous conclusions?"
They think of fossils as dots, connecting backwards in time to form a what is in actuality a non-existant line. The last time I checked, it only takes to dots connected to form a line.
Fossils do not work in this manner and the fossil record proves this to be an undeniable scientific fact, at least this is so for those who have removed the blinders of macroevolutionary bias.
Dots and fossils. I guess I should not be surprised that so many macroevolutionists believe what they believe when they insist upon using that type of distorted reasoning.

The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 11-19-2004 12:52 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2004 2:07 AM DarkStar has not replied
 Message 14 by Loudmouth, posted 11-19-2004 1:36 PM DarkStar has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024