Jump to content

Att: Foolfromms


freeday
 Share

Recommended Posts

i would like to enter into a friendly debate on micro vs macroevolution. what say you foolfromms. you can have the moderator and judge of your choosing. if i win, you have to admit my car is faster than yours, if you win, i will race you at part throttle. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I deem this debate already finished since there is no difference between either concepts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I deem this debate already finished since there is no difference between either concepts.

 

:HaHa:

 

And the gavel goes down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Topic moved, Arena for the serious templated debates only.

 

kL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I deem this debate already finished since there is no difference between either concepts.

 

where is the link to the previous debate? i would like to view it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I deem this debate already finished since there is no difference between either concepts.

 

where is the link to the previous debate? i would like to view it.

 

There was no previous debate. I'm owning you right now. There is no difference between the concepts of micro evolution and macro evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Shiva H. Vishnu

I deem this debate already finished since there is no difference between either concepts.

 

where is the link to the previous debate? i would like to view it.

 

 

Macro and micro evolution are essentially a christian semantic game. They are the same. Christians will admit that microevolution happens because it happens on a scale we can directly witness, and thus they have no real way to deny it. They then claim that macroevolution is a seperate entity, and their only recourse is to whine about how we cannot observe macroevolution. But they are wrong. we can and do observe evolution of every kind in the fossil record. This is the only way to observe changes that happen over thousands of generations. The creationist loves to point out the lack of transitional fossils, but ignores the absolute fact that all fossils are transitional fossils. They all show a lifeform at some point in its evolutionart development. The creationist clamours for a half man half ape, and then ignores such finds as Austrolopithicus Aferensis and myriad others, all of which are by definition "transitional fossils".

 

There is no question that the macro vs micro debate is one only entered into by the ignorant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I deem this debate already finished since there is no difference between either concepts.

 

where is the link to the previous debate? i would like to view it.

 

 

Macro and micro evolution are essentially a christian semantic game. They are the same. Christians will admit that microevolution happens because it happens on a scale we can directly witness, and thus they have no real way to deny it. They then claim that macroevolution is a seperate entity, and their only recourse is to whine about how we cannot observe macroevolution. But they are wrong. we can and do observe evolution of every kind in the fossil record. This is the only way to observe changes that happen over thousands of generations. The creationist loves to point out the lack of transitional fossils, but ignores the absolute fact that all fossils are transitional fossils. They all show a lifeform at some point in its evolutionart development. The creationist clamours for a half man half ape, and then ignores such finds as Austrolopithicus Aferensis and myriad others, all of which are by definition "transitional fossils".

 

There is no question that the macro vs micro debate is one only entered into by the ignorant.

 

you say it is a christian semantic game, but let me ask you a question. from a christian stand point, what does it matter, if life evolved from a murking puddle to the complex beings we are. does that contradict religion? can't you still believe in God even if we did evolve as stated by ToE? I think so. christians should not be afriad of science and what it has to offer. God put us here to think, to reason, to explore the earth.

 

I am very skeptical of ToE, but it doesn't matter to me one way or another. i just wanted to have a friendly debate.

 

when you look at the fossil record as a whole, yes it shows a progression going from simple to complex life. no it doesn't have that missing like with a fish with legs and wings. but regardless, with my belief, could God not have planned it that way?

 

so with this said, can we stop being so hostil towards me, i don't need to disprove ToE, to prove my religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so with this said, can we stop being so hostil towards me, i don't need to disprove ToE, to prove my religion.

 

You think the fellas are being hostile? Wow. :scratch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you say it is a christian semantic game, but let me ask you a question. from a christian stand point, what does it matter, if life evolved from a murking puddle to the complex beings we are. does that contradict religion? can't you still believe in God even if we did evolve as stated by ToE? I think so. christians should not be afriad of science and what it has to offer.

 

No one here will disagree with you on this. We tell xtians this all the time. It's weird how they get in such a tizzy over ToE.

 

God put us here to think, to reason, to explore the earth.

 

Really? It sure seems like xtians have a tough time thinking and reasoning. More power to them if they do though.

 

 

I am very skeptical of ToE, but it doesn't matter to me one way or another. i just wanted to have a friendly debate.

 

when you look at the fossil record as a whole, yes it shows a progression going from simple to complex life. no it doesn't have that missing like with a fish with legs and wings.

 

Be skeptical and then study the evidence. Studying the apologetics does not constitute studying the evidence. We encourage you to be thoughtful and learn for your self. The issue those who responded to earlier had with your debate proposal is just that you wished to debate a straw man of ToE.

 

 

but regardless, with my belief, could God not have planned it that way?

 

so with this said, can we stop being so hostil towards me, i don't need to disprove ToE, to prove my religion.

 

 

Again, most would agree with you. ToE does not prove or disprove the premise of a religion, it simply explains from an objective point of view the fact that carbon based life forms change over time. It does not attempt to offer nor detract from metaphysical meaning for this process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

you say it is a christian semantic game, but let me ask you a question. from a christian stand point, what does it matter, if life evolved from a murking puddle to the complex beings we are. does that contradict religion? can't you still believe in God even if we did evolve as stated by ToE? I think so. christians should not be afriad of science and what it has to offer. God put us here to think, to reason, to explore the earth.

 

I am very skeptical of ToE, but it doesn't matter to me one way or another. i just wanted to have a friendly debate.

 

when you look at the fossil record as a whole, yes it shows a progression going from simple to complex life. no it doesn't have that missing like with a fish with legs and wings. but regardless, with my belief, could God not have planned it that way?

 

so with this said, can we stop being so hostil towards me, i don't need to disprove ToE, to prove my religion.

 

God God God....no matter what science discovers...its always "God's plans". :ugh:

I am so glad to not be stuck in that little mindset anymore. There is too much to life to believe such silly man-made myths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from a christian stand point, what does it matter, if life evolved from a murking puddle to the complex beings we are. does that contradict religion?

 

No, but it's a strawman of the ToE.

can't you still believe in God even if we did evolve as stated by ToE? I think so. christians should not be afriad of science and what it has to offer. God put us here to think, to reason, to explore the earth.

 

Great, so why the misrepresentation?

 

I am very skeptical of ToE, but it doesn't matter to me one way or another. i just wanted to have a friendly debate.

 

We can, you're just asking for a debate about things that do not exist.

 

when you look at the fossil record as a whole, yes it shows a progression going from simple to complex life. no it doesn't have that missing like with a fish with legs and wings. but regardless, with my belief, could God not have planned it that way?

 

A fish with legs and wings would falsify evolution. Again, you have no understanding of evolution. Evolution does not progress from simple to complex.

 

so with this said, can we stop being so hostil towards me, i don't need to disprove ToE, to prove my religion.

 

You don't know what hostile is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freeday, what they're trying to say that "macro-evolution" is a direct result of all the "micro-evolutions". So there is no difference. In ToE there is no statement to differentiate these concepts.

 

The "macro-evolution" ideas is grown out of the Intelligent Design to excuse speciation from evolution. This way they can approve and agree to evolution, mutations and even selection, but they can claim that different species could not have come out from this. Basically they approve evolution, but deny that mutations can cause new species.

 

We have at several times discussed this, and there are examples in nature where they have found evidence that animals have evolved into new species. So it's a straw-man like Asimov said. It's an invention to break up the ToE into sub-concepts and they can attack one of the easier, because the other is extremely substatiated with scientific evidence and can't be denied anymore. The "macro" evolution, or speciation, is harder to prove, even though there are strong evidence there too, just that the ID community doesn't want to approve those findings.

 

This way, the ID community still can claim "Genesis Creation" story to be true, and also allow parts of ToE to be approved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you say it is a christian semantic game, but let me ask you a question. from a christian stand point, what does it matter, if life evolved from a murking puddle to the complex beings we are. does that contradict religion? can't you still believe in God even if we did evolve as stated by ToE? I think so. christians should not be afriad of science and what it has to offer. God put us here to think, to reason, to explore the earth.

:clap: I am over joyed to hear a Christian say this! You are right! There is no reason to deny good science! Science does not address the God question, and why is that the Evolution Deniers are so worried about it?

 

I am very skeptical of ToE, but it doesn't matter to me one way or another.

Why are you skeptical of it if it doesn't affect your faith in God?? Skeptical because a few religious people are worried about it? I think the giantically, overwhelmingly, solidly, peer-reviewed validation of it pretty much puts the skepticims of mainly non-scientists to rest.

 

On the topic of "Macro Evolution". This is not a term of science. It is a non-science term from the religious Evolution Deniers. If we're going to debate science, then we need to use scientific language, not made-up nonsence from religious apologists. That's the debate: Is it as scientific principle that has been put forth, and follows the rules of science and has recieved credible peer review? No? Then the debate is over.

 

when you look at the fossil record as a whole, yes it shows a progression going from simple to complex life. no it doesn't have that missing like with a fish with legs and wings. but regardless, with my belief, could God not have planned it that way?

No??? According to whom??? Scientists? Whoever says this is full of shit. There are lots and lots and lots and lots of transitional fossils. Yet somehow these don't exist in the books of the Evolution Deniers, just as the all the photographs of the Holocaust are forgeries in the minds of the Holocaust Deniers. Let's mention one: the basilosaurus was found with clear vestigial bones of hind feet. Whales were land mammals that gave up there legs as the moved into a fully aquatic mammal. They are now a different species!

 

I just don't get it why anyone would take these non-scientists seriously when they start from a book of mythology that they are trying to make scientific! They just expose themselves as fools.

 

so with this said, can we stop being so hostil towards me, i don't need to disprove ToE, to prove my religion.

Well, I've never really been hostile towards you, but I do look forward to movingb beyond the foolishness of the Creationists into a more reasoned discussion of the role of religion in the world.

 

------------------------------

 

Edit: I wanted to add the following for you to look at for interest sake:

 

The fossils of Basilosaurus cetoides (Owen) and Zygorhiza kochii (Riechenbach) were the first of many fossil finds that show that modern whales, e.g. the humpback whales evolved from dog-like creatures known as Mesonychids. Both Basilosaurus and Zygorhiza, exhibit unmistakable characteristics of the terrestrial Mesonychids from which they developed. For example, their skulls retained many of the features of the mesonychids despite a pronounced elongation. Also, the primitive whales such as Basilosaurus processed the distinctive, teeth set of the Mesonychids with well-defined incisors, canines, premolars, and multirooted molar. In addition, these whales, e.g. Basilosaurus, had well-defined vestigial rear legs (Gingerich et al. 1990, 1993, Thewissen 1994).

 

From here: http://www.intersurf.com/~chalcedony/Basilosaurus1.html

 

Evolution is very, very cool! Creationism is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you say it is a christian semantic game, but let me ask you a question. from a christian stand point, what does it matter, if life evolved from a murking puddle to the complex beings we are. does that contradict religion? can't you still believe in God even if we did evolve as stated by ToE? I think so. christians should not be afriad of science and what it has to offer. God put us here to think, to reason, to explore the earth.

 

I somewhat agree that ToE doesn't matter to Christianity, but only for those believers who do not take the creation story literally and the age of the Earth according to the Bible literally. I think it is difficult to reconcile ToE and the Bible. Now on the matter of God, it doesn't matter. But the Christian God- that's another story. A person believing in Christianity who also supported ToE would have a hard time, I think, figuring out what to take literally out of the Bible and what not to. But there are people who do it, and I say more power to them. I'm glad when people think and are open to the discoveries of science. I think, however, that once one truly understands ToE and other scientific discoveries like it, it might become difficult to believe the myths of the Bible.

 

But I commend you for seeming open about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

funny enough, my wife thought i was crazy when i came home and told her of my epiphany i had last night. i will still maintain, wether we magically appeared or evolved, it was at God's hand and doing.

 

antlerman, i will look that up. from what i read, as of 2003, there were 250,000 fossils found and there was no overwhelming evidence of creatures in a transitory phase. just records indicating long periods of no change, mass extinctions, followed by much more sophisticated life being found. the evidence does not lie. plain and simple, fossils show a progression from simple to more advanced life. could we have evolved? maybe. could God have strategically planned all of this in preparation for humans? i am content with beleiving that.

 

my original intent was not to prove that macroevolution doesn't exist, but after what i have read, i am convinced there is a difference in the two. i really don't like the words micro and macro. i have always reffered to it as adaptation and evolving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Freeday, if you think that God used evolution to get us here, how do you reconcile that idea with the creation account in Genesis?

 

If you say that the creation account was just someone's way of trying to explain it and shouldn't be taken literally, then how do you know what else shouldn't be taken literally out of the Bible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

antlerman:

 

i spent some time looking up the fossils above. just to throw this out there, from what i read, they look at the fossil from a standpoint that ToE is a fact. take a species, and put it in the middle of two. honnestly it looked more like an crockidile to me. they group it based on what it looked like and what other things look like. we could do the same. just from looking at something, i could say that a dog is an ancestor to a horse, with the lion being the middle link, they all have the same stance, similar builds and shows a progression of size changes. but i know that these are different species.

 

what i meant by transitory species was half developed gills, and half developed lungs of a mammal transisting from water to land mammal. if they were to evolve, it would have been a slow process in which at one point on species would have had both. this qoute came from a site agreeing with ToE. "had well-defined vestigial rear legs (Gingerich et al. 1990, 1993, Thewissen 1994)." in my opinion this is not a transition.

 

i will look up more on it tonight when i am at work, if we are slow.

 

in the future, my posts will be more to challenge what you think, just as you have challenged what i think. not to disprove anyone's belief.

 

But Freeday, if you think that God used evolution to get us here, how do you reconcile that idea with the creation account in Genesis?

 

If you say that the creation account was just someone's way of trying to explain it and shouldn't be taken literally, then how do you know what else shouldn't be taken literally out of the Bible?

 

this is why my wife thinks i am crazy, in another post i defined the difference between asah and bara, the bible specifically says God bara man. a reworking of existing material. unless my NIV uses the wrong translation. this idea is subject to change, i am not done researching it. i will indulge further at a later time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my original intent was not to prove that macroevolution doesn't exist, but after what i have read, i am convinced there is a difference in the two. i really don't like the words micro and macro. i have always reffered to it as adaptation and evolving.

 

Adaptation is a result of evolution, dude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

antlerman:

 

i spent some time looking up the fossils above. just to throw this out there, from what i read, they look at the fossil from a standpoint that ToE is a fact. take a species, and put it in the middle of two. honnestly it looked more like an crockidile to me. they group it based on what it looked like and what other things look like. we could do the same. just from looking at something, i could say that a dog is an ancestor to a horse, with the lion being the middle link, they all have the same stance, similar builds and shows a progression of size changes. but i know that these are different species.

Freeday,

 

I think your making great progress, but I have to keep coming back to this point: Who are you reading? Scientists or apologists pretending to understand science? What you just said above in read is completely false. These are the clear words of a propagandist, who is either completely ignorant of what goes on in science, or are completely dishonest and are saying this crap to sell books to an audience.

 

There is a great post over in the science forum area about Ann Coultier selling her books by this sort of igonorant rhetoric, playing off peoples ignorance. This is a response in part to her rhetoric that I think bears quoting here. It is something I always try to point out how IRONIC it is that non-scientists are somehow able to see what scientists are doing wrong - in science!!

 

Even before considering the minutiae of how fitness is defined, we should note something suspicious about this argument. Coulter and Bethell are not saying here that recent discoveries have shown that evolution is an inadequate theory. Rather, they accuse scientists of having made a simple logical oversight. Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould observed (in response to a previous article, in Harper’s Magazine, in which Bethell raised the same issue):

 

Bethell’s argument has a curious ring for most practicing scientists. We are always ready to watch a theory fall under the impact of new data, but we do not expect a great and influential theory to collapse from a logical error in its formulation.

 

Indeed. Scientists are fully capable of jumping to conclusions, or arriving at incorrect theories from an inadequate supply of data. But it has never once happened in the history of science that a theory achieves mainstream status, only to fall apart when a clever outsider notices a simple logical oversight. That Coulter’s and Bethell’s formulation of evolution suggests it is tautological proves only that they do not understand the theory they are attacking (or are deliberately misrepresenting it, but we will leave aside that possibility for now).

(Emphasis mine)

 

See the entire article posted here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=193037

 

I wish to continue our discussions about God and Evolution later, but for now, respectfully, I really, really want to emphasis that your choice of who you are reading information about evolution, needs to be seriously reconsidered by you. The info I provided by you is not in dispute within the scientfic communitiy. It's only in dispute amongst religious non-scientists of a particular bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

antlerman:

 

i spent some time looking up the fossils above. just to throw this out there, from what i read, they look at the fossil from a standpoint that ToE is a fact. take a species, and put it in the middle of two. honnestly it looked more like an crockidile to me. they group it based on what it looked like and what other things look like. we could do the same. just from looking at something, i could say that a dog is an ancestor to a horse, with the lion being the middle link, they all have the same stance, similar builds and shows a progression of size changes. but i know that these are different species.

Freeday,

 

I think your making great progress, but I have to keep coming back to this point: Who are you reading? Scientists or apologists pretending to understand science? What you just said above in read is completely false. These are the clear words of a propagandist, who is either completely ignorant of what goes on in science, or are completely dishonest and are saying this crap to sell books to an audience.

 

There is a great post over in the science forum area about Ann Coultier selling her books by this sort of igonorant rhetoric, playing off peoples ignorance. This is a response in part to her rhetoric that I think bears quoting here. It is something I always try to point out how IRONIC it is that non-scientists are somehow able to see what scientists are doing wrong - in science!!

 

Even before considering the minutiae of how fitness is defined, we should note something suspicious about this argument. Coulter and Bethell are not saying here that recent discoveries have shown that evolution is an inadequate theory. Rather, they accuse scientists of having made a simple logical oversight. Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould observed (in response to a previous article, in Harper’s Magazine, in which Bethell raised the same issue):

 

Bethell’s argument has a curious ring for most practicing scientists. We are always ready to watch a theory fall under the impact of new data, but we do not expect a great and influential theory to collapse from a logical error in its formulation.

 

Indeed. Scientists are fully capable of jumping to conclusions, or arriving at incorrect theories from an inadequate supply of data. But it has never once happened in the history of science that a theory achieves mainstream status, only to fall apart when a clever outsider notices a simple logical oversight. That Coulter’s and Bethell’s formulation of evolution suggests it is tautological proves only that they do not understand the theory they are attacking (or are deliberately misrepresenting it, but we will leave aside that possibility for now).

(Emphasis mine)

 

See the entire article posted here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=193037

 

I wish to continue our discussions about God and Evolution later, but for now, respectfully, I really, really want to emphasis that your choice of who you are reading information about evolution, needs to be seriously reconsidered by you. The info I provided by you is not in dispute within the scientfic communitiy. It's only in dispute amongst religious non-scientists of a particular bias.

 

when i stated "from what i read" i was meaning- "after reading the article you gave me to read, i have drawn the conclusion that."

 

ex. quote from article. "were the first of many fossil finds that show that modern whales, e.g. the humpback whales evolved from dog-like creatures known as Mesonychids."

 

this statement is made with the idea that ToE is fact. there is no hard facts that proves that Mesonychids are the descendents of modern whales. it is based soley on observations and their reasoning.

 

ex. "Basilosaurus is likely a relative of the direct ancestors of modern whales" they state he is likely based upon jaw structures and observations. but in the first part of the article it sounds as if they are for sure the descendant.

 

i want to piont out something about me. where my logic comes from. for a new medication to come out in america and be FDA approved, it must go through rigorous and extensive (and very expensive) testing. proving without a doubt its ability to work and possible side effect. and still with all of the testing, some things are missed. take vioxx for example, when it first came to the market, it was a wonder drug for people with severe arthritis. i haven't seen it in ages now secondary to the increase risk for heart desease and many lawsuites. science does make mistakes.

 

att: if you have taken vioxx and suffered a myocardial infarction, call your nearest attorney :grin:

 

but i also trust science. i agree with FDA approved medications due to the fact they are tested and the statistical information is released. i would never encourage, nor take anything that is not FDA approved. such as herbal remedies and such.

 

ok i am done ranting :vent:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but i also trust science. i agree with FDA approved medications due to the fact they are tested and the statistical information is released. i would never encourage, nor take anything that is not FDA approved. such as herbal remedies and such.

 

ok i am done ranting :vent:

 

This is off topic, but I have to address it. The FDA can't be trusted either. How many drugs are approved before they are thoroughly tested and enough time is given to detect side effects? Too many. Especially mind drugs. Many drug tests are, furthermore, funded by drug companies. The experiments tested by drug companies also seem to find "statistically significant" differences (indicating a treatment effect) more often than the experiments NOT funded by drug companies. You take a risk either way. It's hard to know who one can trust. This plays into everything, all the way down to religion, i.e., how can you trust the people who compiled the NT that they didn't have their own agenda? The best way to know if something is trustworthy from science is through repeated tests, time and time again. This is how ToE has come to be. It's not a "theory" in the sense of it just being an idea. It's a "theory" like gravity. We don't know everything about either one of those, but we know there is evidence that they exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when i stated "from what i read" i was meaning- "after reading the article you gave me to read, i have drawn the conclusion that."

 

ex. quote from article. "were the first of many fossil finds that show that modern whales, e.g. the humpback whales evolved from dog-like creatures known as Mesonychids."

 

this statement is made with the idea that ToE is fact. there is no hard facts that proves that Mesonychids are the descendents of modern whales. it is based soley on observations and their reasoning.

 

ex. "Basilosaurus is likely a relative of the direct ancestors of modern whales" they state he is likely based upon jaw structures and observations. but in the first part of the article it sounds as if they are for sure the descendant.

 

Don't blame them for what you think they are implying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when i stated "from what i read" i was meaning- "after reading the article you gave me to read, i have drawn the conclusion that."

 

ex. quote from article. "were the first of many fossil finds that show that modern whales, e.g. the humpback whales evolved from dog-like creatures known as Mesonychids."

 

this statement is made with the idea that ToE is fact. there is no hard facts that proves that Mesonychids are the descendents of modern whales. it is based soley on observations and their reasoning.

 

ex. "Basilosaurus is likely a relative of the direct ancestors of modern whales" they state he is likely based upon jaw structures and observations. but in the first part of the article it sounds as if they are for sure the descendant.

Again we come back to an outsider seeing something glaringly obvious that has somehow escaped the attention of trained specialists in that field of science. You seem to think this is all some logic based discipline based within biases that go unchecked by peers or worse yet collaborated upon in some grand conspiracy of anti-Bible charlatans.

 

Even so, that someone should start with accepting the ToE as a baseline is most certainly reasonable considering the overwhelming support for it in the scientific community. What you suggest is that the idea of someone concluding that the dent in the side of an avocado being due to it falling on the concrete from a tree, is a statement being made with the idea that the Theory of Gravity is correct. Of course, why not?

 

Again, checks and balances. Peer review by others trained in those fields. You saying it could be due to some other thing, without a solid working knowledge of that field is as credible to me as someone saying my replacing the monitor on their computer caused the hard drive to crash. Trust me; I've seen reasoning without understanding take paths like this before.

 

Bottom line: Do you have a superior system of determining the most reliable information that is better than the scientific method? No? That why wag a finger at a world wide community of scientists who check and balance each other? Is it because it's not 100% perfect 100% of the time? It is true it is imperfect, but it is a far cry from an open-ended system of knowledge, to it being patently false! That's the logic fallacies of the religious apologist who tries to give credence to their own faith-based knowledge by fallacious attempts to discredit credible science.

 

The religious have nothing to of value to add to scientific knowledge, as the only thing they offer is reading myths as facts instead of cultural stories. It smacks of disingenuousness and insincerity! Those two reasons alone are why I reject them as a source of knowledge, both intellectually and spiritually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when i stated "from what i read" i was meaning- "after reading the article you gave me to read, i have drawn the conclusion that."

 

ex. quote from article. "were the first of many fossil finds that show that modern whales, e.g. the humpback whales evolved from dog-like creatures known as Mesonychids."

 

this statement is made with the idea that ToE is fact. there is no hard facts that proves that Mesonychids are the descendents of modern whales. it is based soley on observations and their reasoning.

 

ex. "Basilosaurus is likely a relative of the direct ancestors of modern whales" they state he is likely based upon jaw structures and observations. but in the first part of the article it sounds as if they are for sure the descendant.

Again we come back to an outsider seeing something glaringly obvious that has somehow escaped the attention of trained specialists in that field of science. You seem to think this is all some logic based discipline based within biases that go unchecked by peers or worse yet collaborated upon in some grand conspiracy of anti-Bible charlatans.

 

Even so, that someone should start with accepting the ToE as a baseline is most certainly reasonable considering the overwhelming support for it in the scientific community. What you suggest is that the idea of someone concluding that the dent in the side of an avocado being due to it falling on the concrete from a tree, is a statement being made with the idea that the Theory of Gravity is correct. Of course, why not?

 

Again, checks and balances. Peer review by others trained in those fields. You saying it could be due to some other thing, without a solid working knowledge of that field is as credible to me as someone saying my replacing the monitor on their computer caused the hard drive to crash. Trust me; I've seen reasoning without understanding take paths like this before.

 

Bottom line: Do you have a superior system of determining the most reliable information that is better than the scientific method? No? That why wag a finger at a world wide community of scientists who check and balance each other? Is it because it's not 100% perfect 100% of the time? It is true it is imperfect, but it is a far cry from an open-ended system of knowledge, to it being patently false! That's the logic fallacies of the religious apologist who tries to give credence to their own faith-based knowledge by fallacious attempts to discredit credible science.

 

The religious have nothing to of value to add to scientific knowledge, as the only thing they offer is reading myths as facts instead of cultural stories. It smacks of disingenuousness and insincerity! Those two reasons alone are why I reject them as a source of knowledge, both intellectually and spiritually.

 

you always have such excellent responses, your vocabulary is second to none. i guess i am just hard headed, but untill the scientist can prove the 7 steps stated for a cell to form, i will reject it. it just isn't fesible in my mind.

 

 

but i also trust science. i agree with FDA approved medications due to the fact they are tested and the statistical information is released. i would never encourage, nor take anything that is not FDA approved. such as herbal remedies and such.

 

ok i am done ranting :vent:

 

This is off topic, but I have to address it. The FDA can't be trusted either. How many drugs are approved before they are thoroughly tested and enough time is given to detect side effects? Too many. Especially mind drugs. Many drug tests are, furthermore, funded by drug companies. The experiments tested by drug companies also seem to find "statistically significant" differences (indicating a treatment effect) more often than the experiments NOT funded by drug companies. You take a risk either way. It's hard to know who one can trust. This plays into everything, all the way down to religion, i.e., how can you trust the people who compiled the NT that they didn't have their own agenda? The best way to know if something is trustworthy from science is through repeated tests, time and time again. This is how ToE has come to be. It's not a "theory" in the sense of it just being an idea. It's a "theory" like gravity. We don't know everything about either one of those, but we know there is evidence that they exist.

 

the problem with the psycho theraputic medications, is most of the time, they don't know exactly what they do or how they work. they make reasonable assumptions, but that is about it. sometimes they find out what it does by a side effect. did you know that viagra was originaly developed for pulmonary hypertension.

 

i will agree that there is reasonable evidence that ToE exists. but could we be interpreting it wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.