Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About JRChadwick

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 01/21/1986

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
  • How old are you?
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    no affiliation
  • What is your Worldview?
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    Sacramento, California
  1. Sorry, Enoch I don't have time to get to your reply today.
  2. JRChadwick


    That does not answer my question. How could repeated independent tests around the world show the same results if they weren't accurate? It is quite improbable that they could all be manipulating their results to match each other. And why would anyone study biology if it meant that to enter the field they would have to learn how to hide facts and evidence in a convoluted effort to confirm "popular opinion?"
  3. JRChadwick


    Yes, computer engineering does include a lot of the same OS programing classes as the computer science, but they go much further. They cover things such as graphic design and software development. I have gotten some enjoyment out of learning hardware scripting such as Verilog, my preference is in network administration and IT support. I even have been learning how to maintain video game consoles. I have started a new series on my channel dissecting them. I should have the NES video out around Christmas if I can get myself to sit down and do it. I doubt I'm going to change anyone's mind on a board like this one, but you have my assurances that I am neither here to stroke my own ego nor am I doggedly stubborn to a belief or principle. Please consider the idea that you can still be religious without denying fundamental principles of science and that no one is going to punish you for using your intellect. I'm curious, gilbo, why you ignored my question about how and why a massive global collusion of scientists would exist to present evolution as fact when it's not? It seems like an impossible conspiracy.
  4. That's what faith is, actually. I'd also like to point out that several of you are in violation or rules 5 and fifteen. Quoting out of context and "elephant hurling".
  5. Are you kidding? My last two posts are responses to posts full of mind quotes.
  6. So sorry for the delay, everyone. With a midterm, two engineering math assignments and two programs to write, I just did not have time to spend online! That's all I have time for today. Have a good Thanksgiving!
  7. JRChadwick

    Macro And Micro

  8. JRChadwick


    I'm not really that into writing software, that's why I am in computer engineering. I agree that you do not have to be a biologist to be scientifically literate.
  9. The term "hard science" is referring to fields of science that realy on a lot of math, such as Astronomy, physics, and chemistry.
  10. JRChadwick


    I guess it is a few posts late for an introductary thread, but here it is! I'm a Computer Engineering major entering my senior year. Biology is not my forte, but I think I have at least a modest understanding of it. Frankly, I like science a whole lot and I am troubled by the large amount of people who feel threatened by it for some reason. AronRa is someone who really doesn't like nationalism. As a long hair liberal living in Texas, I can understand his point of view. However, I am proud of my country and what it's accomplished. But I am also dismayed and embarrassed by the decrease in scientific literacy. I doubt I'm going to change anyone's mind on a board like this one, but you have my assurances that I am neither here to stroke my own ego nor am I doggedly stubborn to a belief or principle. Please consider the idea that you can still be religious without denying fundamental principles of science and that no one is going to punish you for using your intellect. An interesting note is that I am actually quite conservative and right leaning and outside of the topics of religion and science, you and I might agree on a lot of things.
  11. ** Of course, having said all of that, Ipso Facto renders and summarily Eliminates the Masqueraders from the remote vicinity of any "science" discussion... Paleontology, Archaeology, Anthropology, most Geology, evolutionary biology, Theoretical Physics (there are echelons here don't go all Maxwell on me). Throw in Cosmology, because you can't do "repeatable" TESTS/Experiments. Are you saying that the fields of Paleontology, Anthropology, Geology, Evolutionary Biology, Theoretical (I assume you are referring to quantum mechanics) Physics, and Cosmology have not been used to create models of predictable utility? None at all? Would you care to retract that before I provide examples of how you are wrong regarding each of those? It's not that hard. I do not know much about Anthropology and I am marginally better at Geology, but I still could do it with not a lot of effort. I'm a "Creationist" and I don't "create" this; As Evidenced By, my stance depicted above. You also have a Stereotype (Fallacy) and a Generalized Baseless Assertion (Fallacy) x 2. You did a decent job of summerizing the scientific method, but regretably there are many tropes that creationists fall into. Mostly because they all read the same sources. It is not a "stereotype" nor a "generalized baseless assertion" to point out that the terms I described were made up by creationists. Because they were. Theodosius Dobzhansky (Geneticist and The Father of 20th Century Evolution Theory).... "Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life." Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409 Gratuitous--- lacking sound reason, unwarranted, uncalled for. I'm afraid the good doctor is incorrect if he actually said this (I can't find this quote on any non creationist website.) If the Theory of Evolution had to comprise the creation of... everything, then would not Biologists also have to be Cosmologists? No, those fields are unrelated. The creation of the universe was very different to the origin of life or the diversity of life. ‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’ Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960. Let's go with something a little more modern: Theory of Evolution: The change in inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Strickenberger's Evolution 4th Edition, B. K. Hall & B. Hallgrímsson. 2008. That's much more accurate. Information--- That which Informs. It requires a sender and a receiver that are "On The Same Page". In the context which you are using it, as in Genetic Information,....This Information exhibits Functionally Sequence Complexity (FSC). It's Algorithmic and Cybernetic. The Contrarian view to this is Tantamount to....viewing a Magnetic Board with the message: "Be back Later, Gone Fishing. The Instructions are on the table, have the Exponential Space Shuttle built when I return. Have a nice day". Then concluding... That the force between Magnets of the Letters and the Board is responsible for the Arrangement of those Letters and the Message thereof. To what is this referring? So please, use this against me.....? I Triple Dog Dare You!! All you have done is take quotes from the abstract of biological medical science papers. What is your argument and how do these papers support it? I'm pretty sure from what I've read that none of these people are creationists nor did they write these papers with the idea of disproving biology or confirming biblical creation. Chicago Field Museum of Natural History Conference on 'Macroevolution': "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." Roger Lewin PhD, Science (Vol. 210(4472):883–887, 1980.) Remember what I said in my first post? These terms were once used, now they are not. It appears evolutionists are using the ole "Bait and Switch" technique. Taking "Micro"- evolution" which is Natural Selection and Genetic Variation and "Grandfathering" these into darwinian evolution or "Macro"-evolution"... in a pathetic attempt to feign credulity with the former without explaining the latter. There is a very significant distinction. “Micro"-evolution, by definition, is the same thing as genetic variation (the shuffling of pre-existing genetic information or Change in Allele Frequency). It is both observable and observed, measurable and measured, repeatable and repeated—in short, it has been scientifically verified as a natural phenomenon. However, in every single case, the organism that has undergone the variation is the SAME KIND OF ORGANISM! What is a "kind" anyways? That's another creationist invented word. I digress, what if a member of a species experiences a gene duplication? It now has two verions of the same gene, but that means that one of these copies is free to mutate and possibly create a novel function in future generations while the other copy is preserved so any vital function it is related to is preserved? It is still the same species, but from your own definition above, would this now be considered "Macro" evolution? “Macro"-evolution” or (Bacteria to Boy Scout) on the other hand, has not been verified as a natural phenomenon. It has not been observed, measured, or repeated. No natural mechanism has successfully been put forth as the means by which new and more complex genetic information is generated so as to result in unequivocally new traits, organs, and organisms. “Macro"-evolution is an entirely contrived notion, extrapolated, with no empirical basis, from “Micro"-evolution. Gene drift, duplication, deletions have never been observed? The independently discovered taxonomic, genetic, and paleo trees of life all matching perfectly has not been observed? Ring species haven't been observed? The distinction is both precise and significant. To blur the distinction is to show contempt for empirical science and mix fact with fantasy. I'm afraid not. It is impossible to say one is possible without saying the other is as well. Huh? The first statement you said... "macro/micro evolution ideas is that macro evolution is evolution above the species level. This is more accurate..." (This is correct) Then you say....."it does happen and it has been observed happening in both of the life domains. All that is required for speciation to occur..." This is a Strawman (Fallacy). If "Macro"-evolution is ABOVE Species Level (Which it is)... Then, How on Earth is providing proof of "Speciation".....Proof of "Macro"-evolution???? Any more "Hanging Curve-Balls" ?
  12. JRChadwick

    Macro And Micro

  13. JRChadwick

    Macro And Micro

  14. I have to disagree with you. As you can see above, this board's definition of evolution does indeed include several unrelated fields. I had no intention of hijacking this thread, as you can see I covered the topic quite thoroughly. I have further examples of goalpost changing if these are not enough.

Important Information

Our Terms