Isn't it true that the more a group tries to censor it's members, the more suspect it is?

[Mock Turtle]

But I don't care if you think my views are credible ! Frankly, what you think of anything means nothing to me.

Ditto.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Ah, the light is beginning to shine in

Not in your cave.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Angry ? You are kidding. Now begins the accusations, expected. ad hominems to follow. Corrections ? Nonsense, you have corrected nothing How do you know how any unbiased observer will react to what is presented on anything.

The Church has millions of atheists in it who converted, based on the evidence, before conversion, were they biased ?

Ad populum argument is invalid - not know this?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Is there a process, known to man today, by which new genetic information is added to the genome that would evolve to a new feature? Nothing!

Not know of mating between different species?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Evolution is a theory, currently in vogue. It is not a fact.

But it has a lot more going for it than your supposed God. Produce any evidence for such? And I'm afraid life doesn't count.

 

[shmogie]

But it has a lot more going for it than your supposed God. Produce any evidence for such? And I'm afraid life doesn't count.

I will take this opportunity to decline. I have done it many times, and find it non productive.

 

[shmogie]

Ad populum argument is invalid - not know this?

So you say

 

[shmogie]

Not in your cave.

Cute, do you do standup as well ? A poor act.

 

[shmogie]

Ditto.

We understand one another well.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Cute, do you do standup as well ? A poor act.

I'm sure I could actually.

 

[shmogie]

I'm sure I could actually.

Let me know where you perform, I';d like to see it.

 

[Neb]

Anyway. We've diverted this thread from what it is really about. Driven off course..l

Keywords in OP: Christian and Atheist. What do you expect, sing kumbaya?

 

[Neb]

I posted an example. Macroevolution is merely evolution at the species level and above. There have been many cases of observation of the evolution of a new species.

This website that you C&P is not about macroevolution. This is ADAPTATION, just like the Italian wall lizard. Macroevolution is a large scale biological change. Since 1940s, when it was first “HYPOTHESIZE” [not even a theory or was it a theory now?], did they evolve into something other than what they are? No, they did not. Just because the subspecies from the north did not interbreed with the south species you call this a different species by misinterpreting the word “speciation” and from here atheist are filling the gap, the millions of years of evolution that nobody have ever observed. And you call this hard evidence? Wow! We have the Bible, a history book about God and mankind.

 

[Neb]

Is the fossil "Lucy" scientific evidence for the theory of evolution?

is it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This website that you C&P is not about macroevolution. This is ADAPTATION, just like the Italian wall lizard. Macroevolution is a large scale biological change. Since 1940s, when it was first “HYPOTHESIZE” [not even a theory or was it a theory now?], did they into something other than what they are? No, they did not. Just because the subspecies from the north did not interbreed with the south species you call this a different species by misinterpreting the word “speciation” and from here atheist are filling the gap, the millions of years of evolution that nobody have ever observed. And you call this hard evidence? Wow! We have the Bible, a history book about God and mankind.

Wrong, you are using an incorrect definition of the term. That was why I included a link to what macroevolution was. I warned schmogie about that he probably did not understand that term ahead of time.

And the most common definition of "species" is when two groups no longer produce fertile offspring.

It is evidence, but then you obviously do not understand what evidence is either. Creationists almost never let themselves learn.

Are you ready to go over the basics so that you do not make such ignorant mistakes?

By the way, evolution is never a case where something "evolve into something other than what they were". You share a common ancestor with other apes. That ancestor was an ape. You are still an ape. Strawmanning an argument is a losing tactic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

is it?

You need to answer that question. It is a test to see if you understand the concept of evidence or not.

 

[Neb]

Schmogie wikipedia is a decent source for informal debate

Read this please and take it to heart. You embarrass yourself and your religion.

Evolution as fact and theory


Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent". A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.[1]

Each of the words "evolution", "fact" and "theory" has several meanings in different contexts. Evolution means change over time, as in stellar evolution. In biology it refers to observed changes in organisms, to their descent from a common ancestor, and at a technical level to a change in gene frequency over time; it can also refer to explanatory theories (such as Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection) which explain the mechanisms of evolution. To a scientist, fact can describe a repeatable observation that all can agree on; it can refer to something that is so well established that nobody in a community disagrees with it; and it can also refer to the truth or falsity of a proposition. To the public, theory can mean an opinion or conjecture (e.g., "it's only a theory"), but among scientists it has a much stronger connotation of "well-substantiated explanation". With this number of choices, people can often talk past each other, and meanings become the subject of linguistic analysis.

Evidence for evolution continues to be accumulated and tested. The scientific literature includes statements by evolutionary biologistsand philosophers of science demonstrating some of the different perspectives on evolution as fact and theory.

”You embarrass yourself and your religion.”
Picking up scraps of info from WIKI is not a bad idea but make a show of it as if you really understood evolution is something only a HANGER ON would do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Keywords in OP: Christian and Atheist. What do you expect, sing kumbaya?

I told you two that I would answer questions on another thread. Why do you continue to ask questions here? It appears that you are to blame for the detour at this point. Don't try to blame others for your actions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

”You embarrass yourself and your religion.”
Picking up scraps of info from WIKI is not a bad idea but make a show of it as if you really understood evolution is something only a HANGER ON would do.

Attacking a resource is also a weak tactic. For settled science Wiki is very reliable. It is not of much use in the latest discoveries or gossip about celebrities. Wikipedia is a tool that can be use properly. That was a case of it.

 

[Neb]

Wrong, you are using an incorrect definition of the term. That was why I included a link to what macroevolution was. I warned schmogie about that he probably did not understand that term ahead of time.


And the most common definition of "species" is when two groups no longer produce fertile offspring.

This is what happened when you don’t read what you C&P. Excerpt from your C&P: "Since species are often defined by their inability to interbreed with other species, Ensatina seemed to represent the whole process of speciation — all the gradual changes that accumulate in two lineages and that wind up making them incompatible with one another.” It says here, two different species “are often defined by their inability to interbreed”. Where did the author get the two different species from? Remember the subspecies from the north that migrated down to the south species that don’t interbreed anymore and from here atheist says it’s because they are “TWO” different species already, also known to them as “speciation”, but the fact is, “speciation” had nothing to do with why they don’t interbreed anymore but more of an “ADAPTATION” to the environment and in this case they DID NOT ADAPT, but they, the subspecies and species were the same species.

spe·ciesˈspēsēz,ˈspēSHēz/noun

BIOLOGY

a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens.


spe·ci·a·tionˌspēSHēˈāSHən,ˌspēsēˈāSHən/

noun

BIOLOGY

1. the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.


You see the difference?