Jump to content


Photo

Macro-evolution


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#41 adz87

adz87

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 23
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Adelaide, South Australia

Posted 21 April 2011 - 12:33 AM

"So now you are trying to claim that macro evolution and speciation are the same thing?"

The definition of macro evolution according to dictionary.com is "major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa. " If dictionary.com is wrong please give me your definition of macro-evolution and I will try to answer your OP. If you don't define it then how can anyone be expected to answer your question?

"Why have to wrods that mean the same thing? In another thread someone's trying to claim micro and macro are the same."

We have the terms "street", "road" and "highway" etc. - it is a question of scale. According to the definitions I read, micro-evolution is at the level below species, macro evolution is at or above that level. If I am wrong in thinking this then please give me the definition that I have asked for, in your own terms, of micro and macro evolution.

"Then I don't believe your claim about being a creationist. Or even being a Christian. This is basic stuff. Your inability to answer says a lot. And your choice to act stupid on slim chances just keeps adding up."

I promise you what I said was true. I am an ex-creationist. I couldn't provide an answer, not because I didn't understand or because my biblical knowledge was lacking (neither of those is the case), but because I genuinely cannot think of a way to explain the concept of eternity using non-eternal things. I thought it was a rhetorical question which was meant to imply that the eternal cannot be explained using non-eternal things.

"The "I don't understand" answer is a usual tactic. I don't buy it. And your lack of being able to show Biblical learning, but show the atheist opinion pretty much seals the deal in your claim to have been a creationist."

Again I promise you that is true. Where have I shown a lack of biblical learning? What have I said about the bible that isn't true?

Also, I did not show an atheist opinion. I even admitted that the change in people when they are saved is profound and I said that there may not be a materialistic explanation for it. This is not atheist thinking, and I am not an atheist. I am open minded about these things.

"Now since it has been revealed that you are here to waste time by claiming things that don't apply, and acting stupid and saying: But I don't understand. I know you are not that stupid. Doing this you waste my time, and everyone Else's. Be honest, you did not really come here to debate or find truth.You came here to show up the creationists and add a few marks to your ego."

I came here to see if you could answer questions which I myself could not answer when I was a creationist. I have asked you some of those questions in the hopes that you might have an answer where I could not find one.

Please do not ban me, I am genuinely looking for answers.

#42 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 21 April 2011 - 12:47 AM

You have also not answered why small changes cannot add up to large changes? What is the barrier?

Is there a conspiracy among them to brainwash us? If their methods were so flawed that you are able to debunk their entire field of work in one paragraph, why hasn't the rest of the scientific community noticed yet? Please tell me, this is something I have yet to see a creationist answer, and I am genuinely curious. What do you think is happening in the field of science for them to have gotten things so badly wrong for all these years?

View Post


Firstly can you show evidence of why you feel that small changes can add up to larger ones, (and no it is NOT a case of 1 +1 = 2!!). I have already shown you plenty of examples where small changes cannot add up to the big change you assume to have occured, yet this has been ignored.


Conformism is the problem. It is very hard to support new ideas that go against the norm. This has occured constantly over and over in scientific history, however the walls of evolution are breaking down in the areas of microbiology and biochemistry, the more complex the cell becomes, the closer it gets to principles of engineering and away from randomness, the harder it will be to sell the evolution idea.

There are plenty of scientists that have challenged the "establishment" only to lose their jobs... How do you expect anything to change in the face of such.

I used to be an evolutionist. This was mainly because that was what I was taught at school, (so much for Dawkins looking out for the freedom of children when his own "side", enforces their ideas on young minds)... However I now don't believe in it by looking at the "science" behind it, (there is very little actual science and alot of conjecture), and the many scientific principles that have already been established that evolution defies.

#43 adz87

adz87

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 23
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Adelaide, South Australia

Posted 21 April 2011 - 01:42 AM

It is indeed hard to overturn an established theory. Creationism was the established theory once, but evolution then overturned it on account of having more supporting evidence.

And I wasn't ignoring you, I provided the example. You said it couldn't be applied to biology. You said "proteins are produced from DNA and that only specific proteins are needed is a totally different situation to generic blocks that have no defined origin" How is this different? I used specific shaped blocks, in real life you need specific genes. They seem analogous to me, but if you can show me a significant difference, that would actually prevent this sort of process from happening in real life, I will accept it.


"I have already shown you plenty of examples where small changes cannot add up to the big change you assume to have occured, yet this has been ignored." You haven't show anythingof the sort, all you have shown are more "irreducibly complex" systems. These are not a barrier. Not according to logic, not according to science, and not according to the courts. I don't have to provide you with a detailed account of every single one for the same reason that you wouldn't have to show someone every single example of an object falling from a height in order to convince them of gravity. One the principal has been established, which it has, it can be applied to other things as well. Here's an example: a stone archway is irreducibly complex - removal of any one stone will cause it to collapse - but we build them quite readily over existing supports which are later removed. I don't know exactly how the gastic system evolved, or how certain metabolic pathways have evolved, but these are not a barrier to evolution because the principal has been established and we know it works. It has been shown to be applicable to biology in peer reviewed scientiffic literature - check out this if you have a Science subscription: http://www.sciencema...770/97.abstract . To say that these systems couldn't have evolved is an argument from ignorance and is therefore logically invalid. Perhaps what you should say is "I can't think of a way in which these systems could have evolved". It does not mean they cannot have evolved.

Now which established scientiffic principals does evolution defy exactly?

#44 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 21 April 2011 - 03:04 AM

Well adz87,

I can tell you that your claimed world view does not apply. You every answer is pro-evolution, and anti-Bible which is anti-God. So I'm changing your world view to atheist, because you have not proven to be an agnostic.

Agnostic in simple terms is someone that does not know. Your disagreements with the Bible say you already made up your mind.

#45 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 21 April 2011 - 04:59 AM

1. It is indeed hard to overturn an established theory. Creationism was the established theory once, but evolution then overturned it on account of having more supporting evidence.

2. And I wasn't ignoring you, I provided the example. You said it couldn't be applied to biology. You said "proteins are produced from DNA and that only specific proteins are needed is a totally different situation to generic blocks that have no defined origin" How is this different? I used specific shaped blocks, in real life you need specific genes. They seem analogous to me, but if you can show me a significant difference, that would actually prevent this sort of process from happening in real life, I will accept it.
You haven't show anythingof the sort, all you have shown are more "irreducibly complex" systems. These are not a barrier. Not according to logic, not according to science, and not according to the courts.

4.I don't have to provide you with a detailed account of every single one for the same reason that you wouldn't have to show someone every single example of an object falling from a height in order to convince them of gravity.

5. One the principal has been established, which it has, it can be applied to other things as well.

6. Here's an example: a stone archway is irreducibly complex - removal of any one stone will cause it to collapse - but we build them quite readily over existing supports which are later removed.

7. I don't know exactly how the gastic system evolved, or how certain metabolic pathways have evolved, but these are not a barrier to evolution because the principal has been established and we know it works. It has been shown to be applicable to biology in peer reviewed scientiffic literature - check out this if you have a Science subscription: http://www.sciencema...770/97.abstract .

8. To say that these systems couldn't have evolved is an argument from ignorance and is therefore logically invalid. Perhaps what you should say is "I can't think of a way in which these systems could have evolved". It does not mean they cannot have evolved.

9. Now which established scientiffic principals does evolution defy exactly?

View Post


1. What initial evidence was this? was it empirical? Or was it based on supposition like Darwins other idea, Pangenesis.


3. Read post 30, (the one you said you would deal with later). But the keyconcept you need to realise is that the bridge / archway is DESIGNED! This has
already been stated by others before but you have ignored this. This also touches upon my comments that your analogy fails to address key concepts of evolution, ie mutation, selection etc. These are why your analogy is incorrect and doesn't pertain to evolution, these have already been stated but I hope you see them this time.

EDIT: Another thing to add to this is that we are discussing LIVING things here, it isn't like a bridge that can sit there and wait for random bits of stone to fall out of the sky. The cell needs to be able to life and function whilst all these changes are taking place, this is another reason why your analogy doesn't logically fit.

4. I wasn't asking for "every single one", (these are your words)... I was asking for just ONE. If you cannot even show just one example in reality, (without having to draw blocks on the computer), this shows how weak your position is in terms of reality.

5. and I am telling you that the principle that has been "established" doesn't pertain to reality. Instead

6. Yet your example was about a bridge, (so now you are changing the goal posts)... Look back to your pictures, no archway there!!

I bet there are plenty of stones that can be taken away from a stone bridge.


7. If no-one knows then the my claims at point 5 stand.. I would prefer you to comment on the link you have shown. I am not here to review your own information.

8. Yet to claim they did with no empirical evidence is even worse!! Actually not believing in something until there is empirical evidence that directly asserts it is called being scientific...

9. Mendels 1st law- Lets say you have 2 parent organisms one mother and one father and they have 10 chromosomes... in a baby 5 come from a mother, 5 come from the father, yes?

Then how is it that multiple chromosomal organisms "evolved" from a bacteria with a single chromosome.. (Yes binary fission is different to S@xual reproduction).. I have created a few threads asking this, but I have yet to hear a sufficient mechanism that occurs in all species, (I am mainly concerned about animals).

My post 33



You didn't provide the mechanism, since it doesn't refer to evolution at all... Its about building a bridge.. If I was asking about bridges then great... unfortunately for you I wasn't.

As I said before you have simplified it to the nth degree so that it isn't evolution anymore... What you said was a two step process, you must admit that that is simplified. I ask you again, why do you think that your bridge analogy has any relevance to evolution of interdependant structures / systems / parts? and if so, what examples can you show in BIOLOGY that show this? (Or must we debate science with words and concepts, not factual data)

Until you show an evidence in BIOLOGY, (not philosophy), the null hypothesis says no.

If it is non-functional then it cannot be selected for, since evolution is ONLY about the preservation of genetic material that is seen to give an advantage over its competitors. This was one of the things you skipped with your 2 step analogy. Evolution's own "mechanisms" mutation and natural selection are not incorporated into your analogy as well.

My talk on digestion / cellular processes wasn't a question. They were examples in BIOLOGY where it is illogical to assume that these things came about via a gradualistic process.. (Look up cellular respiration and ponder on this and you may begin to see what I mean)

I am still waiting for the evolutionist to show, (with empirical evidence), the mechanisms of how an inter-dependant system comes about- with specific parts working with each other..

Another example can be S@xual reproduction... How did the s@x organs "evolve", to fit like hand and glove?

#46 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 21 April 2011 - 06:39 AM

It is indeed hard to overturn an established theory. Creationism wasthe established theory once, but evolution then overturned it on account of having more supporting evidence.

View Post


Really??? And you were going to provide this "more supporting evidence" when?

And what I mean by evidence is not the standard evolutionary canard of professional opinion, but actual “empirical” evidence as the OP calls for. You know that which you have yet to provide, and I have continually pressed you for.

I don’t see you lasting very long since you cannot provide anything but faith statements as facts.

#47 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 21 April 2011 - 07:08 AM

Really??? And you were going to provide this "more supporting evidence" when?

And what I mean by evidence is not the standard evolutionary canard of professional opinion, but actual “empirical” evidence as the OP calls for.  You know that which you have yet to provide, and I have continually pressed you for.

I don’t see you lasting very long since you cannot provide anything but faith statements as facts.

View Post


Apparantly pictures of blocks making a bridge is empirical evidence of evolution..... ;)

(I would have thought it was empirical evidence of blocks making bridges)

#48 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 21 April 2011 - 08:11 AM

Really??? And you were going to provide this "more supporting evidence" when?

And what I mean by evidence is not the standard evolutionary canard of professional opinion, but actual “empirical” evidence as the OP calls for.  You know that which you have yet to provide, and I have continually pressed you for.

I don’t see you lasting very long since you cannot provide anything but faith statements as facts.

View Post

Apparantly pictures of blocks making a bridge is empirical evidence of evolution..... ;)

(I would have thought it was empirical evidence of blocks making bridges)

View Post



It seems that adz87 wants to totally disregard the OP, which states:

Could someone post "empirical evidence" for macro-evolution?

View Post

Either that, or he believes “mere opinion” = “empirical evidence”… Or “Design Evidence” = “Evolution Evidence”.

Moving goal posts must be hard work in reality, but in the metaphysical world, it requires nothing more than shifting a few words around.

#49 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 21 April 2011 - 10:59 AM

Really??? And you were going to provide this "more supporting evidence" when?

And what I mean by evidence is not the standard evolutionary canard of professional opinion, but actual “empirical” evidence as the OP calls for.  You know that which you have yet to provide, and I have continually pressed you for.

I don’t see you lasting very long since you cannot provide anything but faith statements as facts.

View Post

His statement is absurd. All of the fossils that he showed us were not transitional fossils. They were already been debunked as frauds or misunderstandings.{It does show how horrible scientists are at guessing what fossils were.) Of course, we know why they still try to use this as evidence. Fossils are in complete coherence with Creation.

#50 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 22 April 2011 - 07:36 PM

Here is an example of the definition of macro-evolution. Right from the encyclopedia of science: The development of new species and the extinction of old ones. Compare with microevolution.

http://www.daviddarl...oevolution.html

And from the same site the definition of micro-evolution: Also known as adaptation; evolution within a species. It is distinguished from macroevolution.

Which by the way is what I have read in text books, and what I was taught in school.

#51 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 22 April 2011 - 08:59 PM

I've honestly never seen that definition of speciation before. I thought that speciation was just merely a partitioning of the gene pool. >.> Perhaps they changed the definition of speciation just as they changed the definition of vestigial.

#52 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 April 2011 - 02:28 AM

1. "I have already shown you plenty of examples where small changes cannot add up to the big change you assume to have occured, yet this has been ignored." You haven't show anythingof the sort, all you have shown are more "irreducibly complex" systems. These are not a barrier. Not according to logic, not according to science, and not according to the courts.

2. I don't have to provide you with a detailed account of every single one for the same reason that you wouldn't have to show someone every single example of an object falling from a height in order to convince them of gravity.

3. One the principal has been established, which it has, it can be applied to other things as well.

4. Here's an example: a stone archway is irreducibly complex - removal of any one stone will cause it to collapse - but we build them quite readily over existing supports which are later removed.

5. I don't know exactly how the gastic system evolved, or how certain metabolic pathways have evolved, but these are not a barrier to evolution because the principal has been established and we know it works.

6. To say that these systems couldn't have evolved is an argument from ignorance and is therefore logically invalid. Perhaps what you should say is "I can't think of a way in which these systems could have evolved". It does not mean they cannot have evolved.

View Post


1. The examples demonstrate the "barrier". What, (real world), examples do you have that demonstrate that there is no "barrier"... I never knew scientific validity rested on courts of law... Here I was thinking it was ALL down to empirical evidence

2. Just one will suffice

3. How has the principle been establised, what evidence is there that demonstrates it in terms of reality and factual data that have been analysed via experimentation, (since that is what science is, just pondering on ideas is philosophy)

4. As has been discussed your bridge-archway analogy, (first it was a bridge now an archway), doesn't logically fit evolution. Since it doesn't consider the mechanisms of evolution, the fact that the cells / organisms are alive and HOW the changes/ , (blocks) come about

5. See point 6 below, your words here are evidence for it.

6. Actually to say they didn't evolve is not only scientific, it is also the null hypothesis; until it has been demonstrated in reality, you cannot claim something occured or not scientifically, (you still can philisophically, but science says NO till you have empirical evidence)

#53 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 23 April 2011 - 03:36 AM

I've honestly never seen that definition of speciation before. I thought that speciation was just merely a partitioning of the gene pool. >.> Perhaps they changed the definition of speciation just as they changed the definition of vestigial.

View Post


A lot of evolutionists that come here change the definition of the words concerning evolution to suit their needs during a debate. Such as claiming micro and macro are the same because they cannot provide an actual process after all these years. So now it's: If one can happen, so can the other logic.

If you think about it, proving evolution is like selling a used car. We will tell you all that is good, twist the truth, and you'd better not ask to many questions. But we will make you a deal today if you will convert to our way of thinking.

The more they come in here doing stuff like this, the more I see desperation on their part. And their desperation brings anger at anyone who would dare challenge them on their beliefs. And the anger brews hatred which you can see all over the web and we witness here everyday. And because it's being used to mainly hate Christians, it supports the anti-Christ spirit which will be part of the last days.

#54 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 April 2011 - 06:40 AM

You said "proteins are produced from DNA and that only specific proteins are needed is a totally different situation to generic blocks that have no defined origin" How is this different?

View Post

Quite simply really… We can prove proteins are produced from DNA, and that only specific proteins are needed. But we cannot realistically (or empirically, as the OP calls for) prove ANYTHING about macro-evolution. Why, because it has no foundation but that of hypothesis.

I used specific shaped blocks, in real life you need specific genes. They seem analogous to me, but if you can show me a significant difference, that would actually prevent this sort of process from happening in real life, I will accept it.

View Post


Okay…
First – Provide the blocks.
Second – Provide the information for the blocks.
Third – Provide a way for the blocks to pass information to other blocks.
Fourth – Provide a way for the blocks to continually replicate.
And Fifth – Provide a logical, rational and scientific reason that ALL of the above is of random origin and not designed.

But, most importantly (and you need to follow closely now, because this is your biggest problem)… From where did the blocks originate?


You haven't show anythingof the sort, all you have shown are more "irreducibly complex" systems. These are not a barrier. Not according to logic, not according to science, and not according to the courts.

View Post


Actually, they are indeed a “barrier” to evolution on every level. But Gilbo already provided the explanation in post # 52.


I don't have to provide you with a detailed account of every single one for the same reason that you wouldn't have to show someone every single example of an object falling from a height in order to convince them of gravity.

View Post


Actually, according to the OP, yes you do! But the problem here is this: You have yet to provide even ONE empirical fact to support your hypothesis. NOT EVEN ONE!

All you have done is provided personal opinion, after personal opinion, in a biographical manner; as if that alone were factual evidence. You provide “smoke and mirrors”, “bluster and bloviations”, “equivocations and prevarications”, with the hopes that you can get away with selling your snake oil. But, if you keep this up, you’ll have to hitch up your horses, and move your sales wagon down the road where you can maybe make some money hawking your wares.

At best, you’ve been entertaining. At worst, you’ve provided the “bad example” we can use when explaining “how not to act” in an honest and responsible forum.

#55 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 April 2011 - 06:41 AM

One the principal has been established, which it has, it can be applied to other things as well.

View Post


Ah, stealing from design, in an attempt to prove evolution… This is interesting indeed!

Here's an example: a stone archway is irreducibly complex - removal of any one stone will cause it to collapse - but we build them quite readily over existing supports which are later removed. I don't know exactly how the gastic system evolved, or how certain metabolic pathways have evolved, but these are not a barrier to evolution because the principal has been established and we know it works. It has been shown to be applicable to biology in peer reviewed scientiffic literature - check out this if you have a Science subscription: http://www.sciencema...770/97.abstract .

View Post

Actually, all you have done is provide a good case for “design”, and a stumbling block for evolution. Unless you are insinuating evolution is sentient, and can design and create… Then my friend, you are deep into a religious fervor.

Further, if you are not going to provide a link that everyone can access, you are in violation of forum rules. AND, it just further proves your dishonesty and elitist snobbery. I personally have a subscription to numerous scientific and review sites, but I find it quite repugnant to hide behind a subscription for argumentation. And as a further note: One can claim to have a subscription, make other BOLD assertions, while all the time hiding behind the fact that they hold no such subscription at all.

To say that these systems couldn't have evolved is an argument from ignorance and is therefore logically invalid.

View Post


Hmmm, to make such an assertion, with absolutely NO evidence to support it itself a good example of the Argumentum ad Ignorantum logical fallacy. Further, to make such a fallacious accusation is also a prime example of the Argumentum ad Ignoratio Elenchi. And to do so, with absolutely no correlative basis is a non sequitur.

Therefore, your entire premise is illogical, and ill advised.


Perhaps what you should say is "I can't think of a way in which these systems could have evolved". It does not mean they cannot have evolved.

View Post

Actually, you should perhaps adhere to the OP, and provide evidence and facts. You attempts at dabbling in logic and sarcasms aren’t working for you.

Perhaps you should say: “I cannot provide evidence for my evolutionistic world-view. Therefore it is a religion”. Or, “I cannot adhere to the forum rules and thread OP’s, therefore I should not pretend my opinions are facts”.


Now which established scientiffic principals does evolution defy exactly?

View Post


ALL of them actually; Macro-evolution doesn’t meet any of the criteria of the empirical scientific method. (this is your chance to finally prove me wrong with some facts... That is, if you think you can!).

#56 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 23 April 2011 - 07:41 AM

Why do those who believe in evolution continually ask the question, "What is to stop microevolutionary changes from eventually becoming macroevolutionary ones? Do they not realize that the fact that they are even ASKING the question ALREADY defeats their naturalistic premise, since it has changed the argument from one about the "evidence" to one about "philosophy"? They don't even realize it.

Nobody goes around asking the question, "What is to stop this tomato seed, that I plant in the ground under plenty of sunshine of which I water daily, from growing into a green pepper plant?" Why is a question like that not asked? Because we have OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE (Empirical) of this, is why we don't ask questions like that. To ask such a question would be to "suggest" that there is a "small" possibility that the tomato seed will grow into some other vegetable or "fruit". We have OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE OF REALITY that has CONTINUALLY shown that tomato seeds produce tomato plants. Nothing is to stop a tomato seed from growing into an orange tree if you "imagine" hard enough. :D

It should be just as "silly" for an evolutionist to ask the question since they should ALREADY HAVE empirical evidence of the answer. But they NEVER do. Instead they want to bog us down with "philosophical" arguments of CREDULITY. (Why is it NOT "possible"?) Why couldn't a tomato seed "sloooooowly" and eventually become a green pepper or some "other" vegetable? Well my friend, until you can provide more than just a "philosophical" argument, the natural "evolutionary" process that you claim is happening should be quite easily demonstrated.

I can easily show you how a tomato seed will become a tomato plant. Can you show us any examples to the contrary?

#57 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 April 2011 - 09:18 AM


Apparantly pictures of blocks making a bridge is empirical evidence of evolution.....  :D

(I would have thought it was empirical evidence of blocks making bridges)

View Post

It seems that adz87 wants to totally disregard the OP, which states:

Could someone post "empirical evidence" for macro-evolution?

Either that, or he believes “mere opinion” = “empirical evidence”… Or “Design Evidence” = “Evolution Evidence”.

View Post


Moving goal posts must be hard work in reality, but in the metaphysical  world, it requires nothing more than shifting a few words around.

View Post


Yeah its kinda funny and sad how most of the evos on here do that kind of stuff

#58 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 23 April 2011 - 03:10 PM

I don't think adz87 is coming back, because he is no longer able to hide behind the world view of being agnostic. I changed it to atheist because that was how he was debating.

#59 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 23 April 2011 - 03:17 PM

Yeah its kinda funny and sad how most of the evos on here do that kind of stuff

View Post

That is the only way that most atheists can debate. Unfortunately it makes it rather difficult to have an intelligent and coherent conversation with most atheists when it comes to these matters. I have seen misinformed Christians, but many atheists are purposely misinformed because they will not accept anything contrary to their naturalistic philosophy. It is truly a sad phenomenon.

#60 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 April 2011 - 04:39 PM

I take it that most people just don't really care about the big questions in life anymore.... IMO our world is slowly progressing into vice and obsession of self




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users