Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-16-2019 2:12 PM
171 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, JonF, kjsimons, Meddle, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle, Tanypteryx (10 members, 161 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,581 Year: 2,618/19,786 Month: 700/1,918 Week: 288/266 Day: 25/35 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Author Topic:   Where Is Macro-Evolution Occurring
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 31 of 108 (111618)
05-30-2004 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by TheNewGuy03
05-30-2004 7:04 PM


The irony!
I find it ironic that you claim to be clearing up misconceptions, but are laboring under misconceptions yourself. C14 is not used to date fossils - it simply cannot be used to date anything over 50,000 years old.

The earth's magnetic field fluctuates, decreases, increases, disappears, and even reappears. That it is decreasing now proves nothing about the age of the earth. It's like looking at the tide going out and concluding that a few months in the past the entire world was underwater.

No one knows what "caused" Big Bang. Maybe it wasn't caused. But, considering that this was the beginning of time as well, the concept of "cause" becomes very slippery (since there wasn't a moment of time when there was no universe!)

We see macroevolution in the fossil record; we see macroevolution in genomes of the species; we can see macroevolution in embryology; we can see "microevolution" happening and extrapolate.

Sorry if the "philosophy" crack stung - what I meant was that the arguments you presented in your post have been heard, and refuted, a million times already.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-30-2004 7:04 PM TheNewGuy03 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-30-2004 7:59 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 108 (111619)
05-30-2004 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by TheNewGuy03
05-30-2004 7:35 PM


Re: hello
TheNewGuy03

God is outside of space and time, so he wasn't CREATED. He's there, and always was there.

Really and you got this from God himself right? Typical bloody armchair philosopher spurting out contradictory crap without actually thinking about it.Now listen closely, How can God be located outside of space and time when space and time are the coordinates by which we determine location in the first place? Would it hurt you to get a clue first before you spout off something so obviously wrong?

This message has been edited by sidelined, 05-30-2004 06:55 PM


"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. "
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-30-2004 7:35 PM TheNewGuy03 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-30-2004 8:11 PM sidelined has not yet responded

  
TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 108 (111620)
05-30-2004 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Chiroptera
05-30-2004 7:50 PM


Re: The irony!
What I was saying was that dating methods aren't consistent. And Big Bang is still a theory...a man-made idea that people believe to be fact. Don't forget that the thinking of man is fallible... but we have to have a source. A lot of things are laid out in the Bible (don't look at it as just another book). But it is logical to say that the earth isn't that old. Put aside what you've been told and look into things yourself...that's all I ask. Macroevolution is simply mutation. But...reply soon
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Chiroptera, posted 05-30-2004 7:50 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-30-2004 8:06 PM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded
 Message 36 by AdminNosy, posted 05-30-2004 8:18 PM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded
 Message 37 by Chiroptera, posted 05-30-2004 8:42 PM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded

  
TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 108 (111622)
05-30-2004 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by TheNewGuy03
05-30-2004 7:59 PM


Re: The irony!
Do you think before you act? Do you have an idea where you came from? Can you think of another word for "macro-evolution" besides "mutation"? Do YOU know what the hell you're talking about? I don't speak out of ignorance. Believe what you want, but when someone presents something to you, at least analyze it and do some research before calling it crap. Damn, dude.

Oh yeah, "location" is simply a word to determine PLACEMENT.

This message has been edited by TheNewGuy03, 05-30-2004 07:07 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-30-2004 7:59 PM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by sidelined, posted 05-30-2004 9:57 PM TheNewGuy03 has responded

  
TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 108 (111623)
05-30-2004 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by sidelined
05-30-2004 7:55 PM


Re: hello
...Try analyzing that little quote at the bottom of your entry. It may help. Keep your eyes open, lad.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by sidelined, posted 05-30-2004 7:55 PM sidelined has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 36 of 108 (111625)
05-30-2004 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by TheNewGuy03
05-30-2004 7:59 PM


Not the best possilbe start
Welcome to EvCForum, TheNewGuy03. I hope you find your visits interesting.

I would suggest that you read the forum guidelines. You aren't starting out on the best possible foot. In fact, you might have that one in your mouth.

So far all your posts are assertions. They have no supporting discussion and no mention of facts on which you base them. They also suggest that you haven't been reading over some of the material posted here. Everything you have brought up has been discussed.

Since we all find the ideas behind the big bang difficult you might want to start with somethings that are simpler.

You have made an assertion about dating methods not being consistent. I suggest that you take that to the dates and dating forum and discuss it there.

I would note that your definition of macroevolution as 'simply mutation' is a new one. It doesn't seem to agree with anyone's defintion both biologists and the creationists. It is not helpful to make up your own definitions for terms without going through the reasoning for doing so.

So far you have demonstrated a significant lack of any knowledge of the topics here. You might want to slow down and show me that you are wrong.

By the way, stay on topic!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-30-2004 7:59 PM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 37 of 108 (111628)
05-30-2004 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by TheNewGuy03
05-30-2004 7:59 PM


Re: The irony!
quote:
What I was saying was that dating methods aren't consistent.

NosyNed is right. It would be interesting if you would go into the Dates and Dating forum and present what you think are inconsistencies.

-

quote:
And Big Bang is still a theory...a man-made idea that people believe to be fact.

So is atomic theory. I've never seen atoms, have you? Do you have doubts that atoms exist?

-

quote:
Don't forget that the thinking of man is fallible...

Including theological thinking.

-

quote:
but we have to have a source.

What is this? The Cosmological Argument? The Ontological Argument? The Transcendance Argument? I'm not too familiar with these arguments; I for one would be interested if you would start a topic on this.

-

quote:
But it is logical to say that the earth isn't that old.

Oh? Having some training in pure mathematics and an amature interest in logic, I would be very interested in hearing your arguments.

-

quote:
Put aside what you've been told and look into things yourself...that's all I ask.

I used to be a creationist. When I looked into things myself and put aside what I had been told, I found that evolution was the logical explanation for life's diversity.

-

quote:
But...reply soon

You, too. But someone is going to come along and yell at us for being off topic here. Start a new thread, or join one already established on a relevant topic.

Oh, and be careful of spreading yourself too thin. You'll find that it's easier if you focus on only one or two topics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-30-2004 7:59 PM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 108 (111648)
05-30-2004 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by TheNewGuy03
05-30-2004 8:06 PM


Re: The irony!
TNG03

Oh yeah, "location" is simply a word to determine PLACEMENT.

So how the hell does that change the fact that it still requires a physical point in space-time.

...Try analyzing that little quote at the bottom of your entry. It may help. Keep your eyes open, lad.

That little quote comes from the late physicist Richard Feynman and if you think I was harsh on you consider yourself lucky he is not here for he would certainly rip you a new asshole larger than that presented by your avatar.As a matter of fact you could do yourself a service to pick up a copy of his Lectures on Physics and get an idea of how far back in the dark ages you really are.Ciao


"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. "
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-30-2004 8:06 PM TheNewGuy03 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-31-2004 11:53 AM sidelined has not yet responded

  
TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 108 (111794)
05-31-2004 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by sidelined
05-30-2004 9:57 PM


Re: The irony!
Did you know that many scientists were Christians? Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur...I could go on, but since you don't believe a word I'm saying, and think I'm just mouthing off words that don't have any logical basis, think again. If intelligent design is false, then nearly 2/3 of the population is in complete error. Give me one proof that REFUTES the existence of God, and I'll leave you alone.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by sidelined, posted 05-30-2004 9:57 PM sidelined has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 05-31-2004 11:57 AM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded
 Message 41 by AdminNosy, posted 05-31-2004 12:01 PM TheNewGuy03 has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 40 of 108 (111795)
05-31-2004 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by TheNewGuy03
05-31-2004 11:53 AM


Re: What does that have to do with anything?
Many of us here are Christians. Evolution has nothing to do with whether or not God exists.

Is there some reason you believe that Evolution excludes God?

Again, please try to support some of your assertions?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-31-2004 11:53 AM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 41 of 108 (111799)
05-31-2004 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by TheNewGuy03
05-31-2004 11:53 AM


Topic
The topic here is "Where is Macro-Evolution Occurring".

Jar, NewGuy, others, please stick to that topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-31-2004 11:53 AM TheNewGuy03 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-31-2004 12:23 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 108 (111809)
05-31-2004 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by AdminNosy
05-31-2004 12:01 PM


Re: Topic
Back on topic we are.
If macro-evolution is TRUE, then the entire basis upon which Christians believe is BULLSHIT, because the BIBLE says that the world was CREATED. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen life come out of non-life, and motility out of non-motility. That's completely illogical. You can not witness macro-evolution, simply because there is no large-scale evidence. If the present world took BILLIONS of years (much longer than the life-age of a man, might I add), then it would [logically] take a few more millions to witness even a small change. Don't believe everything people tell you, or even what you have read.

Leave no thought unquestioned, and no statement unanalyzed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by AdminNosy, posted 05-31-2004 12:01 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by mark24, posted 05-31-2004 12:48 PM TheNewGuy03 has responded
 Message 45 by Chiroptera, posted 05-31-2004 1:23 PM TheNewGuy03 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 43 of 108 (111818)
05-31-2004 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by TheNewGuy03
05-31-2004 12:23 PM


Re: Topic
TheNewGuy03,

If macro-evolution is TRUE, then the entire basis upon which Christians believe is BULLSHIT, because the BIBLE says that the world was CREATED.

If you are literally interpreting the bible, yes.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen life come out of non-life, and motility out of non-motility.

How would I know that you are right or wrong?

That's completely illogical.

Not at all, for something to be logical, it has to be consistent. Since evolutionary theory is internally consistent it is by definition logical. Logic isn't something that "makes sense", & illogic isn't the opposite. For something to be logical it must simply meet certain standards of consistency.

You can not witness macro-evolution, simply because there is no large-scale evidence.

Incorrect. You can't witness macro-evolution (& life from non-life is abiogenesis, not macroevolution, by the way) because the time scale is too large. There is large scale evidence.

If the present world took BILLIONS of years (much longer than the life-age of a man, might I add), then it would [logically] take a few more millions to witness even a small change. Don't believe everything people tell you, or even what you have read.

Not necessarily correct. You assume change is constant. There are numerous stratigraphic sections that testify to evolutionary rate changes followed &/or preceded by relative stasis.

Mark


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-31-2004 12:23 PM TheNewGuy03 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-31-2004 1:15 PM mark24 has responded

    
TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 108 (111822)
05-31-2004 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by mark24
05-31-2004 12:48 PM


Re: Topic
Admittedly, not everything in the Bible was meant to be taken literally. However, this segment of Scripture specifically notes that God created the earth in six days. In the Bible, the Hebrew word for "day" nearly always translates to a literal day, so (if you're a Christian), it would be unreasonable to believe it took billions of years to form.

This statement is consistent. There is nothing inconsistent about my statement. The dead can not give birth to the living, and what does not move does not produce that which moves.

Though creation is also a theory, it has a more consistent basis. Evolution (also a theory) will attempt to make itself work by incorporating tests, some of which are inconclusive or irrelevant.

The stratigraphy of the land as it has been dated is out of order. The younger rock layers lie below the older rock layers, and the younger, fresher soil always subsides above the older soil. Something's wrong.

"Incorrect. You can't witness macro-evolution (& life from non-life is abiogenesis, not macroevolution, by the way) because the time scale is too large. There is large scale evidence."

The only evidence used to support macroevolution is polyploidy. This is, quite simply, mutation. There is no, I repeat, NO, evidence of transmutation between species.

The very nature of the word "abiogenesis" indicates that is has a beginning. See if that theory works when you die...I would love to see you come back to life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by mark24, posted 05-31-2004 12:48 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by mark24, posted 05-31-2004 2:56 PM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 45 of 108 (111831)
05-31-2004 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by TheNewGuy03
05-31-2004 12:23 PM


More irony.
quote:
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen...

...a man be crucified and then come back to life in three days, a flood that covers the tallest mountains, manna fall from heaven, a sea part....

At least with evolution, I can understand the natural process that would produce evolution, and I can see the physical effects from evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-31-2004 12:23 PM TheNewGuy03 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-31-2004 1:42 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019