Just Accidental?

[savagewind]

I realize that it isn't right to compare an organism with many, many billions of parts most of which are in harmony for the organism's well-being with something that has no parts at all, but here you go....

It is my opinion that one is much less simple than much more than one. OK?

Survival works best with several souls in cooperation. I can imagine that one would be impossible for most people.
See Cast Away. I love liking Tom Hanks! And, I hear he is a Christian.

 

[Sapiens]

Maybe you should talk only about what you know about.

Perhaps you should be taking your own advice, here's something written at a level that you should be able to understand: Divine simplicity - Wikipedia

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.
Colossians 2:8
But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Matthew 7:14
A highway will be there, a roadway, And it will be called the Highway of Holiness. The unclean will not travel on it, But it will be for him who walks that way, And fools will not wander on it. Isaiah 35:8
Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. Matthew 7:15

Overly general bible quotes have no real meaning. It indicates that you don't grasp the topic well enough to offer original thought.

Not everyone to be sure. I suspect that the members who don't have me on technical ignore skip over my posts for the most part.

You read it. That makes one. Are you calling one everyone? Priceless!

I can see why most IGNORE you ... I'd rather expose you. When that get's too dull ... I'll IGNORE you too.

I realize that it isn't right to compare an organism with many, many billions of parts most of which are in harmony for the organism's well-being ith something that has no parts at all, but here you go....

It is my opinion that one is much less simple than much more than one. OK?

Survival works best with several souls in cooperation. I can imagine that one would be impossible for most people.
See Cast Away. I love liking Tom Hanks! And, I hear he is a Christian.

Movie trivia in place of Thomas Aquinas ... good show. BTW: Tom Hanks is a New Age Cafeteria Christian.

 

[savagewind]

Perhaps you should be taking your own advice, here's something written at a level that you should be able to understand: Divine simplicity - Wikipedia

Of course! I agree with that.

Overly general bible quotes have no real meaning. It indicates that you don't grasp the topic well enough to offer original thought.

They applied. You are just making up that insult. I am thinking of a puffer fish.

I can see why most IGNORE you ... I'd rather expose you. When that get's too dull ... I'll IGNORE you too.
Movie trivia in place of Thomas Aquinas ... good show. BTW: Tom Hanks is a New Age Cafeteria Christian.

Tell me. Did Tom Aquinas recognize a difference between do not be leaning on your own understanding and do not be leaning on plain old understanding? Do you know what all the Bibles say? They add the word own there and that is what the World has become. All the people aren't leaning on their own understanding but on someone else's understanding, just like you do. I don't do that. If that makes me boring, so be it! Jesus says I won't be liked and he was right!

 

[savagewind]

 

[Sapiens]

Of course! I agree with that.
They applied. You are just making up that insult. I am thinking of a puffer fish.

Your quotes are overly general and can be applied to most everything from oneness to erectile disfunction. Yes, I authored that phrase, if you take it as an insult that tells me I did a good job.

Tell me. Did Tom Aquinas recognize a difference between do not be leaning on your own understanding and do not be leaning on plain old understanding?

Either way that argues for effective peer review and the path that modern science has taken.

Do you know what all the Bibles say?

Too many of the damn things to know what they all say.

I don't do that.

Clearly you make it up as you go along and do not check for logic.

If that makes me boring, so be it! Jesus says I won't be liked and he was right!

If there were god or a Jesus then you would be liked since the point of the quotes is that your Christian god prefers his followers docile and uninformed.

 

[savagewind]

Oh joy! I am not boring yet.

 

[Sapiens]

I don't know about that ... docile and uniformed can be rather dull.

 

[savagewind]

I don't know about that ... docile and uniformed can be rather dull.

Haha. Ask the local Jehovah's Witnesses if I am docile.

 

[savagewind]

I should admit that I am uninformed. I don't give a **** about any of your.....wait a minute!.....if there is no God and no Holy Spirit.....then.......all the words are just bull****.

 

[Sapiens]

Now you are boring, welcome to a week, or so, of IGNORE.

 

[savagewind]

Oh good! Lol. Thank you. I said, THANK YOU!

Oh @Sapiens are you calling those men who wrote about God informed?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Perhaps you can interpret this garbled bit of nonsense...? Makes no sense to me.

Try English.....



Now this is classic.....

What evidence? If you were asked to provide real evidence for macro-evolution that does not depend on supposition, suggestion or educated guessing....then please feel free to show us what you offered. This thread is well over 200 pages long with thousands of replies......you really think anyone is going to go back and check? Nice try.

I am fascinated that a person of your supposed educational background needs to hang around religious forums to make yourself sound important......let me guess.....you're retired and have you nothing better to do?



Thank you for the lesson in logical fallacies......but what on earth did that have to do with what I said?
Should we all be impressed by your vast command of Latin now? I guess you can Google too.

I don't need a science degree to see that macro-evolution is a gigantic fraud....you obviously need a science degree to believe it. That doesn't say much for science degrees IMO. I am smart enough to see through your bluster and your empty claims....where is your evidence for macro-evolution that does not rely on belief or faith? I haven't seen any.

The more names he calls you, the more he concedes defeat in substance, in the most graceless possible form, I think you can call this one settled!

 

[Sapiens]

Perhaps you can interpret this garbled bit of nonsense...? Makes no sense to me.

Try English.....

Too complex for you? Try diagramming the sentence.

Now this is classic.....

What evidence? If you were asked to provide real evidence for macro-evolution that does not depend on supposition, suggestion or educated guessing....then please feel free to show us what you offered. This thread is well over 200 pages long with thousands of replies......you really think anyone is going to go back and check? Nice try.

I am not responsible for your lack of memory. I state that it's all there, I'm sure that there are plenty of other witnesses. Are you denying that its there or are you just pleading poor memory?

I am fascinated that a person of your supposed educational background needs to hang around religious forums to make yourself sound important......let me guess.....you're retired and have you nothing better to do?

Some of us have to stand up and push back the forces of evil and ignorance.

Thank you for the lesson in logical fallacies......but what on earth did that have to do with what I said?

You are welcome. You said, "The existence of my God and belief in his creation predates your "new" replacement beliefs by millennia." The form of that statement is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad antiquitatema, it is a logical fallacy. Didn't I already tell you that in post 4488? Oh, it's that memory problem again.

Should we all be impressed by your vast command of Latin now? I guess you can Google too.

No, we should be appalled at your willingness to pontificate on documents that you are unable to read in the original.

I don't need a science degree to see that macro-evolution is a gigantic fraud....you obviously need a science degree to believe it. That doesn't say much for science degrees IMO. I am smart enough to see through your bluster and your empty claims....where is your evidence for macro-evolution that does not rely on belief or faith? I haven't seen any.

Since you have trouble with words on a page, try this instead:

 

[Deeje]

Since you have trouble with words on a page, try this instead:

Thank you for posting this!...I could not have chosen a better example of suggestion and assumption if I tried.

What they call "macro-evolution" is nothing but variety within a taxonomic family. All of the creatures this woman referred to (with probably the most annoying voice I have ever heard) are examples of adaptation and genetic blending. Look out for the expression "its a little tricky" and ask if this is really a scientific discussion....or if the prosecution is leading the witness your honor....

Starting off with dog breeds she makes some kind of correlation with drastically different breeds of dog as if this scenario fits macro-evolution somehow.....but since these are not examples of natural selection but artificial selection based on selective breeding to create the end result, it proves nothing but the ability of the gene pool to intermingle various traits. None of those breeds would exist in the wild. Then she says point blank that what we see in these different dog breeds is an example of "evolution". No its not! This is variety (artificially produced) within a taxonomic family......not macro-evolution at all. This is blatant and misleading falsehood.

In the link below, are the dog species that live and breed in the wild....all demonstrate the same basic physical structure but with variations according to location, habitat and food supply. It doesn't mean that they even have to be related.....the Creator could have made a variety of animals using the same basic physical characteristics and the same genetic material. Science cannot prove otherwise.

Wild Dog Species List With Pictures: Types Of Wild Dogs

The difference between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution is evident if you know what to look for in the rhetoric......but the perception of the listener is "manipulated" by inferring that there is really no difference between the two, but time. This misleading assumption is not an established fact....far from it.

She says that macro-evolution is the development of a new species, but it isn't. A new "species" within one specific taxonomic family of creatures produces variety within that family of animals......they will never produce anything but slightly altered specimens of the original. Science has never proven any different.

Then we come to what is called "the biological species concept" which postulates that two species of the same creature that cannot interbreed are two separate species. Two species that look and act very similar but cannot interbreed are said to be examples of macro-evolution......

Western meadowlark and eastern meadowlark: two distinct species | Learn Science at Scitable

If this is supposed to be macro-evolution, then I think we are seeing a very clear example of science's problem....this is variety within the Meadowlark family, not macro-evolution. What a pathetic example! Even a child can see that these two are part of the same family....exactly like Darwin's finches were all still finches.

Canidae are all members of the dog family but there is a lot of variety in that family. Science suggests that they are all related and must have evolved from a common ancestor....but this is a suggestion made to prop up an unprovable theory.

This is how taxonomy works......Creatures can be members of the same family but there is variety within the genus and species. Dogs (canidae) belong to the "Order" of Carnivores but not all carnivores are dogs or are even related to them.

If you really listen to what this woman is saying you can see how much suggestion is offered as fact.
Like all your supposed "evidence" Sapiens....it falls way short of being even remotely convincing.......as usual.

 

[metis]

Again, there's not one shred of evidence that anyone here has presented that "micro-evolution" somehow miraculously stops before getting into "macro-evolution". If no such evidence appears to exist, then why would someone take that belief?

Change is change, and given enough time lots of things can evolve out of change. So, why would anyone assume that such a "wall of separation" exists when there's no evidence of such, plus it defies logic?

The reality is that most here refuse to accept "macro-evolution", not because the evidence goes against it, but because it goes against a literalist interpretation of the creation accounts. This is the driving force of some here-- not science. Science doesn't draw a conclusion without evidence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What they call "macro-evolution" is nothing but variety within a taxonomic family.

The evolution from a single ancestral form into a biological family is the same process as the evolution of one species into two varieties or two separate species, or the evolution of all living things and all things that have ever lived from a single ancestral unicellular life form. You've never been able to rebut that. You have no evidence for your position that there is a barrier preventing whatever it is you call microevolution (your definition seems to vary) and what you call macroevolution, and so, the claim is rejected.

Your whole argument to date is that man has not observed whatever degree of evolution you are requiring at the moment, and therefore, it didn't happen, which, as I pointed out earlier, is an insincere argument coming from somebody that wouldn't accept the analogous argument, namely, that God cannot have created life because you haven't seen it happen.

the perception of the listener is "manipulated" by inferring that there is really no difference between the two, but time.

How is that manipulation? It's called teaching in the academic tradition, which is distinct from religious indoctrination, only the latter being manipulation. She offered evidence and made good faith arguments. Each listener is invited to judge and decide for himself. I doubt that the narrator cares if she is believed. She expects to be believed by many and rejected by others. She's there for those who share her values, methods, and agenda.

She says that macro-evolution is the development of a new species, but it isn't.

Actually, that is the commonest definition found. Notably, you have not tried to define the term. You just keep saying that whatever s observed falls short. Falls short of what?

Like all your supposed "evidence" Sapiens....it falls way short of being even remotely convincing.......as usual.

You mean to you. I found the material convincing. But then the way the two of us think and evaluate evidence is radically different, so there is no reason to expect us to come to the same conclusion, or for somebody that doesn't share your epistemology to have confidence in the judgments of what is true. What I mean by evaluating evidence is not deciding what supports a faith based belief, what does not, and rejecting the latter for that reason.

Of course you won't find evidence convincing if you disqualify it for contradicting a belief.

 

[savagewind]

Again, there's not one shred of evidence that anyone here has presented that "micro-evolution" somehow miraculously stops before getting into "macro-evolution". If no such evidence appears to exist, then why would someone take that belief?

Change is change, and given enough time lots of things can evolve out of change. So, why would anyone assume that such a "wall of separation" exists when there's no evidence of such, plus it defies logic?

The reality is that most here refuse to accept "macro-evolution", not because the evidence goes against it, but because it goes against a literalist interpretation of the creation accounts. This is the driving force of some here-- not science. Science doesn't draw a conclusion without evidence.

For me, it isn't a god belief that makes me doubt that evolution without a supernatural power is possible. It is TIME. If science has the time since the beginning right, it isn't enough. It is more than 200 years since the start of the controversy and in that time there has been no drastic change in any living thing. It has been about six thousand years since human communications began and there are no accounts of any drastic changes. The fact that so many changes have happened in the time since life began on the Earth, surely there should be something solid to point to. I think @Deeje is right. You have not got it.

 

[Jose Fly]

For me, it isn't a god belief that makes me doubt that evolution without a supernatural power is possible. It is TIME. If science has the time since the beginning right, it isn't enough. It is more than 200 years since the start of the controversy and in that time there has been no drastic change in any living thing. It has been about six thousand years since human communications began and there are no accounts of any drastic changes. The fact that so many changes have happened in the time since life began on the Earth, surely there should be something solid to point to. I think @Deeje is right. You have not got it.

Seriously? Have you actually done the math on that?

Life has been present and evolving on earth for roughly 4 billion years. As you note, we have only had an understanding of evolution for ~200 years (and if we were to be fair, we've only had a good understanding of biology and have only been truly studying it for ~100 years).

That means the evolutionary process has been playing out on earth for 4 billion years and we've been seriously studying it for about 100 years, or (100/4,000,000,000) .0000025% of the time it's been occurring. So what you're saying is, in observing 2.5 millionth of a process we should see something "drastic"?

Shoot, even if we think of just the appearance of humans in the process (~6 million years ago), that's barely over one tenth of one percent of the history of life on earth.

Have you really thought this through?

 

[savagewind]

Seriously? Have you actually done the math on that?

Life has been present and evolving on earth for roughly 4 billion years. As you note, we have only had an understanding of evolution for ~200 years (and if we were to be fair, we've only had a good understanding of biology and have only been truly studying it for ~100 years).

That means the evolutionary process has been playing out on earth for 4 billion years and we've been seriously studying it for about 100 years, or (100/4,000,000,000) .0000025% of the time it's been occurring. So what you're saying is, in observing 2.5 millionth of a process we should see something "drastic"?

Shoot, even if we think of just the appearance of humans in the process (~6 million years ago), that's barely over one tenth of one percent of the history of life on earth.

Have you really thought this through?

I have thought it through. You haven't. The reason why I know YOU haven't is it would not take "a study" to see what you say happens. Just eyes and a brain. How many times has what you say happened? Billions!

 

[savagewind]

In six thousand years, there should be at least one story of a changeling. Is there one?
So, instead of dividing six billion with one hundred try six billion with six thousand.