The God Delusion

[Malt 379]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

[Tiercel 6,986]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

Mal,

 

If I have read this thread right? What you have there is micro evolution and most are in agreement that it happens. What some do not agree about is macro evolution where fishes evolve into other spieces. I think?

 

TC

Edited May 16, 2013 by tiercel

[paulus 26]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

Mal,

 

If I have read this thread right? What you have there is micro evolution and most are in agreement that it happens. What some do not agree about is macro evolution where fishes turn into other spieces. I think?

 

TC

 

Milk can turn into cheese but cheese can not turn into a cow

[Born Hunter 17,831]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

Mal,

 

If I have read this thread right? What you have there is micro evolution and most are in agreement that it happens. What some do not agree about is macro evolution where fishes turn into other spieces. I think?

 

TC

 

 

Check this thread again in 10'000'000 years, I'll stick a wiki link up...............

[Malt 379]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

 

Mal,

 

If I have read this thread right? What you have there is micro evolution and most are in agreement that it happens. What some do not agree about is macro evolution where fishes evolve into other spieces. I think?

 

TC

I haven't read it all properly mate! I'm in the strange position of believing in evolution but also choosing to have faith. I'm not exactly 100% sure about what i have faith in but I still have it..

[Ratreeper 441]

Walshie if I were you I wouldn't mind a creationist commenting, because it puts what you have been reading about in the god delusion into practice and shows the reality of how these people think/can't think. I find it interesting to see how people who rely so much on faith to enjoy their lives react when that is put in jeopardy and the field marshall is a great example.

 

The reason he is so assertively denying evolution is due to insecurity in his own beliefs and therefore wants people to reassure him. He knows for 100% fact that his own beliefs only rely on faith and this used to be enough when the church ran things, known as the dark ages due to the retardation of all scientific progress. Now those who disagree with the dogma are not murdered by the faithful it has been a catalyst in our society and that's why in such a small amount time we have gone from the horse and cart to cars that drive themselves on hydrogen fuel.

 

But now we live in a more rational age and more people are allowed to think for themselves instead of being brainwashed, hence they now try and spread their own brand of pseudoscience to try and get in on the game and show a desperate attempt for validation from the rest of the community. They desperately search for gaps in scientific knowledge to force God into, but don't seem to comprehend that they don't have any answers themselves.

 

The argument against evolution is tiresome as they just make false claims based on their own ignorance of the evidence. The 'just a theory' is the most common and shows a lack of scientific vocabularly, as 'theory' means the following (from Wiki):

 

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.^[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

 

Evolution is 100% proven fact, no educated person says otherwise but there are still differences of opinion on exactly how certain developments take place outside of natural selection, as genes behave in complex ways it takes time to analyse all the information.

 

Micro vs Macro is a non sequitor argument, if you can prove micro evolution the only thing missing to provide the 'macro' evolution is enough time, the only reason this cannot be observered is because we don't live long enough. However with bacteria, new genes and new information have been observed to form after a few thousand generations.

This works as genes can duplicate themselves and the copy can be somewhat dormant, or may be damaged/mutate to produce a new function at random. This is then a NEW gene, or however you want to phrase it is is something that is there that wasn't there before.

 

 

Please note that creationist use a double standard in all their arguments, they demand 100% observable proof of the most pedantic things, yet supply no proof for their own statements. They say science cannot explain something, yet they just make up their own answer as if this is a better way of doing things. If any of what they say were true then it would be part of science, if we had all the answers then science would just stop, thankfully neither is true.

Also note that creationists avoid all questions they find difficult such as Noah's Ark and how impossibly childish this is, they will also change their stories at will and cannot and will not present any argument that would prove them wrong, to a creationist any evidence that shows they are wrong can be dismissed as 'bad evidence'

[walshie 2,804]

Walshie if I were you I wouldn't mind a creationist commenting, because it puts what you have been reading about in the god delusion into practice and shows the reality of how these people think/can't think. I find it interesting to see how people who rely so much on faith to enjoy their lives react when that is put in jeopardy and the field marshall is a great example.

 

The reason he is so assertively denying evolution is due to insecurity in his own beliefs and therefore wants people to reassure him. He knows for 100% fact that his own beliefs only rely on faith and this used to be enough when the church ran things, known as the dark ages due to the retardation of all scientific progress. Now those who disagree with the dogma are not murdered by the faithful it has been a catalyst in our society and that's why in such a small amount time we have gone from the horse and cart to cars that drive themselves on hydrogen fuel.

 

But now we live in a more rational age and more people are allowed to think for themselves instead of being brainwashed, hence they now try and spread their own brand of pseudoscience to try and get in on the game and show a desperate attempt for validation from the rest of the community. They desperately search for gaps in scientific knowledge to force God into, but don't seem to comprehend that they don't have any answers themselves.

 

The argument against evolution is tiresome as they just make false claims based on their own ignorance of the evidence. The 'just a theory' is the most common and shows a lack of scientific vocabularly, as 'theory' means the following (from Wiki):

 

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.^[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

 

Evolution is 100% proven fact, no educated person says otherwise but there are still differences of opinion on exactly how certain developments take place outside of natural selection, as genes behave in complex ways it takes time to analyse all the information.

 

Micro vs Macro is a non sequitor argument, if you can prove micro evolution the only thing missing to provide the 'macro' evolution is enough time, the only reason this cannot be observered is because we don't live long enough. However with bacteria, new genes and new information have been observed to form after a few thousand generations.

This works as genes can duplicate themselves and the copy can be somewhat dormant, or may be damaged/mutate to produce a new function at random. This is then a NEW gene, or however you want to phrase it is is something that is there that wasn't there before.

 

 

Please note that creationist use a double standard in all their arguments, they demand 100% observable proof of the most pedantic things, yet supply no proof for their own statements. They say science cannot explain something, yet they just make up their own answer as if this is a better way of doing things. If any of what they say were true then it would be part of science, if we had all the answers then science would just stop, thankfully neither is true.

Also note that creationists avoid all questions they find difficult such as Noah's Ark and how impossibly childish this is, they will also change their stories at will and cannot and will not present any argument that would prove them wrong, to a creationist any evidence that shows they are wrong can be dismissed as 'bad evidence'

 

It's not WHAT is being said I object to rather than HOW it's said.

 

I'm reading the book and I find it fascinating. If others don't like it, don't read it. How simple is that?

[paulus 26]

is macro evolution no more than several thousand or million micro evolution's just viewed within a different time scale

[baw 4,360]

Excellent post ratreeper

[Born Hunter 17,831]

is macro evolution no more than several thousand or million micro evolution's just viewed within a different time scale

 

Essentially yes.

[Tiercel 6,986]

Walshie if I were you I wouldn't mind a creationist commenting, because it puts what you have been reading about in the god delusion into practice and shows the reality of how these people think/can't think. I find it interesting to see how people who rely so much on faith to enjoy their lives react when that is put in jeopardy and the field marshall is a great example.

 

The reason he is so assertively denying evolution is due to insecurity in his own beliefs and therefore wants people to reassure him. He knows for 100% fact that his own beliefs only rely on faith and this used to be enough when the church ran things, known as the dark ages due to the retardation of all scientific progress. Now those who disagree with the dogma are not murdered by the faithful it has been a catalyst in our society and that's why in such a small amount time we have gone from the horse and cart to cars that drive themselves on hydrogen fuel.

 

But now we live in a more rational age and more people are allowed to think for themselves instead of being brainwashed, hence they now try and spread their own brand of pseudoscience to try and get in on the game and show a desperate attempt for validation from the rest of the community. They desperately search for gaps in scientific knowledge to force God into, but don't seem to comprehend that they don't have any answers themselves.

 

The argument against evolution is tiresome as they just make false claims based on their own ignorance of the evidence. The 'just a theory' is the most common and shows a lack of scientific vocabularly, as 'theory' means the following (from Wiki):

 

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.^[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

 

Evolution is 100% proven fact, no educated person says otherwise but there are still differences of opinion on exactly how certain developments take place outside of natural selection, as genes behave in complex ways it takes time to analyse all the information.

 

Micro vs Macro is a non sequitor argument, if you can prove micro evolution the only thing missing to provide the 'macro' evolution is enough time, the only reason this cannot be observered is because we don't live long enough. However with bacteria, new genes and new information have been observed to form after a few thousand generations.

This works as genes can duplicate themselves and the copy can be somewhat dormant, or may be damaged/mutate to produce a new function at random. This is then a NEW gene, or however you want to phrase it is is something that is there that wasn't there before.

 

 

Please note that creationist use a double standard in all their arguments, they demand 100% observable proof of the most pedantic things, yet supply no proof for their own statements. They say science cannot explain something, yet they just make up their own answer as if this is a better way of doing things. If any of what they say were true then it would be part of science, if we had all the answers then science would just stop, thankfully neither is true.

Also note that creationists avoid all questions they find difficult such as Noah's Ark and how impossibly childish this is, they will also change their stories at will and cannot and will not present any argument that would prove them wrong, to a creationist any evidence that shows they are wrong can be dismissed as 'bad evidence'

And there in lies the irony within his posts. Only explained with far more eloquence than I could ever muster.

 

TC

[Born Hunter 17,831]

Something I've just nicked off of wiki;

 

The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They accept that evolutionary change is possible within what they call "kinds" ("microevolution"), but deny that one "kind" can evolve into another ("macroevolution"). Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. In creation science, creationists accepted speciation as occurring within a "created kind" or "baramin", but objected to what they called "third level-macroevolution" of a new genus or higher rank in taxonomy. Generally, there is ambiguity as to where they draw a line on "species", "created kinds", etc. and what events and lineages fall within the rubric of microevolution or macroevolution. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is not supported by the scientific community.

 

Such claims are rejected by the scientific community on the basis of ample evidence that macroevolution is an active process both presently and in the past. The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place. Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community. While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".

[*The*Field*Marshall* 674]

So the thread moves on. . . Thanks Hot Meat, I don't think I debate well as such mate, I just believe a simple boy with truth will give a wiseman with error a run for his money.

 

Walshie, I'm not after the last word or to win mate. . I'm no fool, I can't possibly win with my views on this website!! ATB

 

Tiercel, thanks, the difference in me and the author (with regards to our views) is that he is offensive and I'm defensive, he acts, I react. . That's all I want to hear, evolution is a theory (without legs IMO) but everywhere I turn, it's thrown at you as a fact.

 

Born Hunter, I took you seriously up until those last comments "all science is theory" and "science is entirely what people believe" you've lost the plot there mate, you're getting science and science fiction mixed up now. . Science is the real deal, it produces the goods, It took us into space and gave us cures for diseases, science isn't theory, it tests theory.

 

Paid, I believe the DNA evidence is final nail in the coffin of macro evolution. . I know you've probably no given much attention to my posts, but if you refer to the vids I posted on page 2, 7. and 9 you'll get where I'm coming from. . I'm not sure what you mean by "there is more evidence for evolution than the bible" what facet of bible are you referring to? Obviously I'm likely to disagree and probably could give a good account of why. . But I won't post on it unless you prefer.

 

And the Ratreeper returns after 3 days with a bunch of copy and pastes, was any of that post yours??? You completely ignored my reply to your last post. . .

 

You are a little special, my faith in jeopardy? Please, I'm familiar with the leading arguments from the best of evolutionists, my faith is hardly in jeopardy on here and I'm not being sarcastic. . I am absolutely convinced in my beliefs and I wouldn't be looking for reassurance in the general section of the hunting life! . . That is funny!! And you're saying that the scientists that are featured on the videos I've posted are not educated??? Lol. You're too much.

 

I assertively deny the theory because there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for this so called fact, please present me with just minuscule amount? Don't worry about the 100% you say I demand. . If it was a fact it wouldn't take much to show me would it. .

 

I realise not every one is taking me seriously, but go back through my posts and videos, the answer to all these farcical question are there.

[*The*Field*Marshall* 674]

And don't rely too much on Wikipedia gents, it's not the most trust worthy source of information. .

[paulus 26]