Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Theism and Atheism

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 7:38pm

314d1

314d1

3,962 posts

Just mircoevolution. Marcoevolution is a theory.


Macroevelution is microevelution happening many times... Mage, do you have a video or something to clarify terms like normal?

You can't prove that turtles always will have four legs and one head in this current age (<- so Evolution does not count). There have been a bunch (okay, a few) of two headed turtles in the news lately.


Because having more legs would be ineffective, having two heads is ineffective (As we know from the two headed turtles, it decreases the chances for survival rather than increasing it), and a turtle having less legs is ineffective. A turtle with any of those traits dies and doesn't pass on it's genes. A better show of evolution would be taking the large turtle fossils and comparing them to it's small turtle relatives that you find today.

Are you saying that the US never tested flying vehicles before telling it to the public?


No. What I am saying is that just because you don't know it is a stealth plane, does not mean you can say "It was an alien!!1!shift1" as you seem to think you can.

Have you read Genesis 1? It talks about making the sky and the ground, water from water. Yeah.


Your being irrelevant again, I am asking for science. You already owe me a new bull**** meter, now bring in the facts. There is no water canopy ever enveloping earth. The earth is millions of years old.

Ouch. I made you angry. Basically, if you don't want to read my links or sources, don't post links or sources yourself. You'd waste both of our time.


I like it when you post links, but not to bozo the clown. You have to bring a legitimate, relevant, source who has some authority of what he is talking about.
 

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 7:38pm

jeol

jeol

3,987 posts

Sorry for the double post. There are too many people on right now...

I don't want a "Scientist's answer", I want a scientific answer.

So, basically, everyone who doesn't believe in Evolution won't give a scientific answer.
Just mircoevolution. Marcoevolution is a theory.

Yeah. Most Christians I know say that they believe in Evolution. It's because there's proof. That is, for Microevolution.
You only named two religions. As pointed out evolution is not a religion.

Again, my ignorance.
not to get off topic, but i feel i havent explained why. Mainly, Darwin observed microevolution when studying the finches. He then used his observation of microevolution and said that marcoevolution occured. If marcoevolution were true, we would find fossils to be slowly changing over time, but there are large gaps in fossil records between species that are believed to evolutions of the others. Due to that gap, marcoevolution can't have happened...... etc. etc.

I think a bunch of peoples missed this. I still haven't thought this through yet... Great. Just at the point I need my brain to work. Come on, Evolution, shouldn't your amazing work have dealt with this by now?
 

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 7:44pm

cowmaster1

cowmaster1

701 posts

Macroevelution is microevelution happening many times... Mage, do you have a video or something to clarify terms like normal?


I understand that, but it still doesn't explain the gaps in the fossil records
 

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 7:45pm

314d1

314d1

3,962 posts

So, basically, everyone who doesn't believe in Evolution won't give a scientific answer.


That is pretty much the case, for some reason everyone with a shred of logic seems to "believe" in evolution. I want a scientific answer to why they think evolution is wrong. And not any of this mental gymnastics and bull**** that you seem to think is a scientific answer.

Yeah. Most Christians I know say that they believe in Evolution. It's because there's proof. That is, for Microevolution.


And microevelution is macroevelution, on a larger scale. What are you not getting?

I think a bunch of peoples missed this.


It wasn't really worthy of finding anyway.

I still haven't thought this through yet... Great. Just at the point I need my brain to work.


Than you wouldn't be a creationist any more.

Evolution, shouldn't your amazing work have dealt with this by now?


It has. Any questions?

If marcoevolution were true, we would find fossils to be slowly changing over time, but there are large gaps in fossil records between species that are believed to evolutions of the others


There isn't any significant gaps for most species. Problem solved.
 

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 7:46pm

Avorne

Avorne

3,265 posts

 

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 7:50pm

cowmaster1

cowmaster1

701 posts

Solid, wikipedia... Well, i might as well find my own site disproving evolution. W00t!

There isn't any significant gaps for most species. Problem solved.


Site, please i wanna see it.



Time to find a contradictory site that no one will read! Hell, I might as well not read it either! :P
 

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 7:51pm

jeol

jeol

3,987 posts

No. What I am saying is that just because you don't know it is a stealth plane, does not mean you can say "It was an alien!!1!shift1" as you seem to think you can.

To yourself.
Macroevelution is microevelution happening many times... Mage, do you have a video or something to clarify terms like normal?

Lemme guess... You won't watch the vid.
As we know from the two headed turtles, it decreases the chances for survival rather than increasing it

Yeah, they have two nerve systems or something like that. At least turtles move slowly already!
Your being irrelevant again, I am asking for science. You already owe me a new bull**** meter, now bring in the facts. There is no water canopy ever enveloping earth. The earth is millions of years old.

1. Again, coming from someone who believes in Evolution. Just because you say Evolution is true doesn't mean it is, and just because a canopy of water is unprobable doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Sort of like the alien thingy. An alien crashing is unprobable. However, that might have been the case, but we don't know that.

2. Bull**** meter: 60/100 (copy and paste; note: you can change the numbers all you want)
You have to bring a legitimate, relevant, source who has some authority of what he is talking about.

That is pretty much the case, for some reason everyone with a shred of logic seems to "believe" in evolution. I want a scientific answer to why they think evolution is wrong. And not any of this mental gymnastics and bull**** that you seem to think is a scientific answer.

Just wanting to point this out: if we did not have a shred (or any
number or shreds) of logic, we wouldn't be debating this.
And microevelution is macroevelution, on a larger scale. What are you not getting?

Not everything larger is the same but bigger. The numbers, when doubled, most likely will not be the same. For example, if we were ten times larger, we would be dead. I have a source, but it's from a book and I would have to find it. So. If you want it, tell me.
It has. Any questions?

Hmm... Apparently not, 'cause I still haven't caught on yet.
There isn't any significant gaps for most species. Problem solved.

But you still admit there are some.
 

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 7:53pm

cowmaster1

cowmaster1

701 posts

FOUND IT!

I only read the math section if anyone cares, feel free to read the others though, I encourage you!

 

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 7:55pm

jeol

jeol

3,987 posts

Solid, wikipedia... Well, i might as well find my own site disproving evolution. W00t!

Hah, and at the top it says:
This article needs additional citations for verification.
...
This documentation needs attention from an expert on the subject.

Time to find a contradictory site that no one will read! Hell, I might as well not read it either! :P

He still needs to read my link before he is allowed to post any links :P
 

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 8:05pm

314d1

314d1

3,962 posts

To yourself.


What?

Lemme guess... You won't watch the vid.


Probably will if it is under twenty minutes.

Yeah, they have two nerve systems or something like that. At least turtles move slowly already!


Irrelevant again.

1. Again, coming from someone who believes in Evolution. Just because you say Evolution is true doesn't mean it is, and just because a canopy of water is unprobable doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Sort of like the alien thingy. An alien crashing is unprobable. However, that might have been the case, but we don't know that.


You do realize that whine a scientist uses the term "Improbable" in a situation like this they mean that there is a %0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000....1 chance of said occurrence? Having a water canopy above earth of significant size to be able to flood all the mountains, which would be much larger before such a significant amount of water eroded them, would mean that nothing, especially not a human living to be hundreds of years old, could live in. The sheer amount of water, which would be steam or ice in the atmosphere, would completely block out the sun killing everything on earth. That is just one example on how this pathetic hypothesis of yours fails.

2. Bull**** meter: 60/100 (copy and paste; note: you can change the numbers all you want)


Thank you. But you already fulled it up halfway, I told you to stay off of that link...

Just wanting to point this out: if we did not have a shred (or any
number or shreds) of logic, we wouldn't be debating this.


This isn't a debate. This is me attempting to teach rationality to a mental gymnastic robot club.

Not everything larger is the same but bigger


But macro and microevelution are the same thing but bigger. WTF are you smoking? A better example would be microevelution being an inch, which we pass all the time, but you claiming it is impossible for that to add up to macroevelution, which is like a foot. If microevelution happens enough, then you have macroevelution.

Hmm... Apparently not, 'cause I still haven't caught on yet.


I can tell.

But you still admit there are some.


I will admit that it is possible that there are currently minor gaps of some obscure species. You do realize how hard fossils are to make, find, and then correctly classify? Paleontologists are finding new species every year. Such as science works.
 
Reply to Theism and Atheism

You must be logged in to post a reply!