Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Theism and Atheism

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 8:09pm

jeol

jeol

3,565 posts

FOUND IT!

Wow, solid, Cowmaster. It's soo long!

Having a water canopy above earth of significant size to be able to flood all the mountains

Was the canopy of water supposed to flood the earth? I thought God dealt with the amount-of-water issue.

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

Oo! Speaking of robots and gymnastics, have you heard that Portal 2 is coming out? :D

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.

Okay. I'll find the source.

 

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 8:18pm

Muse2223

Muse2223

408 posts

There's more evolution for Spartacus living than there is of Jesus.

Just sayin.

 

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 8:22pm

jeol

jeol

3,565 posts

Sorry for the double post...

Okay. I'll find the source.

Okay, found it. It was in the book "Life of Fred - Advanced Algebra". It was by Stanley F. Schmidt, who has a Ph.D.

... Fifty foot high persons would have real problems with their heart and blood vessels. If they were ten times as tall, they would have one thousand times as much volume. They would have one thousand times as much blood to be pumped. Being ten times as tall would give the blood vessels that could carry only one hundred times as much blood as a person of normal size. Either Rita's blood pressure would have to zoom upward (causing death by stroke?) or her hands, feet and brain would immediately start to go numb. She would lose consciousness in a matter of seconds.

It goes into more detail, but I think it already states the main idea. Well that was an exciting rabbit trail.

 

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 8:27pm

Moe

Moe

1,780 posts

Okay, found it. It was in the book "Life of Fred - Advanced Algebra". It was by Stanley F. Schmidt, who has a Ph.D.

From what I can find that person has a bachelors and two Ph.D.s in electrical engineering.  Not exactly helpful when discussing biology.  And what do giants have to do with anything anyways?

 

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 8:36pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,667 posts

Knight

Just mircoevolution.  Marcoevolution is a theory.

macroevolution is just a scale of evolution, it's not a separate theory. Also you use theory incorrectly as you imply it as meaning something lesser when in fact a theory is the highest thing you can have in science.

Anyway
Macroevolution Its Definition, Philosophy and History
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution Phylogenetics Primer
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution Part 1:The Unique Universal Phylogenetic Tree
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution Part 2:Past History
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution Part 3:Opportunism and Evolutionary Constraint
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution Part 4:The Molecular Sequence Evidence
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution Part 5:Change and Mutability
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution Closing remarks

There may be a number of gaps in the fossil records but that doesn't mean that we don't have a large number of transitional fossils anyway.

Even if we had no fossils we still have sufficient evidence for evolution with the DNA evidence alone.

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

I find it funny you scoff at wiki then provide such unsupported material. It's a shame you still refuse to learn.

 

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 8:36pm

jeol

jeol

3,565 posts

Not exactly helpful when discussing biology.  And what do giants have to do with anything anyways?

1. It's math. A=kh^2 and V=kh^3.
2. Microevolution is not small Macroevolution.

 

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 8:39pm

jeol

jeol

3,565 posts

Dang it, submit button.

Even if we had no fossils we still have sufficient evidence for evolution with the DNA evidence alone.

In what ways? 'Cause DNA couldn't have existed before life did.

 

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 8:39pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,667 posts

Knight

Wow, solid, Cowmaster. It's soo long!

It would be much better for him if you didn't encourage his ignorance.

 

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 8:39pm

314d1

314d1

3,510 posts

Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles.
-- James Watson, _Molecular Biology of the Gene_, 4th edition by James D. Watson, Nancy H. Hopkins, Jeffrey W. Roberts, Joan Argetsinger Steitz, and Alan M. Weiner; Volume I, page 3, on the first page of Chapter 1: "The Mendelian View of the World.

I think that makes a good start for my post...

1. It's math. A=kh^2 and V=kh^3.

Are you practicing irrelevance again?

2. Microevolution is not small Macroevolution.

Do you even understand what evolution is?

 

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 8:43pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,667 posts

Knight

In what ways? 'Cause DNA couldn't have existed before life did.

You even replied to this.

"Evolution makes no such claims of how life began."

So it doesn't deal with things before life began.

 
Reply to Theism and Atheism

You must be logged in to post a reply!