No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-06-2015, 09:10 AM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
(26-06-2015 11:12 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 07:35 AM)dancefortwo Wrote:  (Spent a lot of time in the woods when I was growing up. I like nature. )


Is it true about bears???

I tried that joke at a party thrown by a gay friend of mine. A big hairy guy came up and introduced himself, and claimed he was a "bear". I asked if he shits in the woods. He was NOT amused. (I thought it was hilarious.) My sense of humor is a little rough for some people, I guess. I can't tell if he was truly offended, or just mad that my tone revealed I was straight and thus unavailable. Dodgy

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
03-07-2015, 12:00 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
[Image: crocoduck.jpg]

No one's has ever seen on of these.

Score one for Creationist.

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2015, 07:46 AM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
(23-06-2015 03:09 PM)Tonechaser77 Wrote:  I'm really tired of hearing this line of rationalization against evolution, in part because it simply shows the ignorance that people hold on to without studying the entire Theory of evolution so that they understand what exactly is going on.

We don't expect to observe large changes "directly.' Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution. Matt Dillahunty had a brilliant analogy of someone agreeing that a watch went from the 10th minute to the 11th or 12th but could not possibly go to the 20th minute even having observed the micro movements. WTF! really people?
Micro-evolution has been observed and because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, micro-evolution implies macro-evolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism.

Furthermore, as biologists use the term, macro-evolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.

Plus, there are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

What are some other push-backs you get when discussing evolution with creationists??


I don't ever argue evolution with these people. They are off the deep end, head over heels, koo koo for cocoa puffs irrational. I like what Leonard Piekoff said in a class one time: (paraphrasing) I don't agree with you, I have nothing to say to you on the subject and now I'm going to go watch the Titanic so I can see something happy and uplifting in comparison to you.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
01-08-2015, 08:12 PM
No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
(03-07-2015 12:00 PM)Commonsensei Wrote:  [Image: crocoduck.jpg]

No one's has ever seen on of these.

Score one for Creationist.

Actually...that's not too far off from a Spinosaurus. So....checkmate to the banana-man and his deranged sidekick, Dipshitz.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
28-08-2015, 01:01 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
(23-06-2015 03:09 PM)Tonechaser77 Wrote:  I'm really tired of hearing this line of rationalization against evolution, in part because it simply shows the ignorance that people hold on to without studying the entire Theory of evolution so that they understand what exactly is going on.

We don't expect to observe large changes "directly.' Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution. Matt Dillahunty had a brilliant analogy of someone agreeing that a watch went from the 10th minute to the 11th or 12th but could not possibly go to the 20th minute even having observed the micro movements. WTF! really people?
Micro-evolution has been observed and because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, micro-evolution implies macro-evolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism.

Furthermore, as biologists use the term, macro-evolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.

Plus, there are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

What are some other push-backs you get when discussing evolution with creationists??

Don't they discuss on the atheist experience show that even without fossil records the DNA alone is enough evidence to prove evolution? I wish I could remember who they said this statement was from.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2015, 01:07 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
(24-06-2015 04:27 AM)natachan Wrote:  I was at the library and I came across a book called Fool Me Twice which discusses science and the american political landscape. One thing I found was that while only 45% accept the theory of evolution, when the question was rephrased to ask if it was true that man came from other life forms as described by the theory of evolution, 75% said true. It goes on to conclude that the problem isn't about knowledge, people know the basics about evolution. That isn't the issue.

The issue is that the facts don't matter. It isn't about facts, it is about how one goes about obtaining knowledge. You hear them say that their creationism is just as valid as evolution. They know the facts are not on their side, but it doesn't matter because the facts are not important in this case.

I have heard similar that you have to always know in their minds God always wins. It doesn't matter what you say, what evidence you bring to the table. If the bible says the sky is lime green, pink, and has polka dots it has to be true because God always wins.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2015, 01:56 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
(28-08-2015 01:07 PM)highlyclassified Wrote:  
(24-06-2015 04:27 AM)natachan Wrote:  I was at the library and I came across a book called Fool Me Twice which discusses science and the american political landscape. One thing I found was that while only 45% accept the theory of evolution, when the question was rephrased to ask if it was true that man came from other life forms as described by the theory of evolution, 75% said true. It goes on to conclude that the problem isn't about knowledge, people know the basics about evolution. That isn't the issue.

The issue is that the facts don't matter. It isn't about facts, it is about how one goes about obtaining knowledge. You hear them say that their creationism is just as valid as evolution. They know the facts are not on their side, but it doesn't matter because the facts are not important in this case.

I have heard similar that you have to always know in their minds God always wins. It doesn't matter what you say, what evidence you bring to the table. If the bible says the sky is lime green, pink, and has polka dots it has to be true because God always wins.

This is why I try to avoid these discussions. A creationist will always twist whatever I say, or whatever facts there are, to fit their desired conclusion.
They don't care if they have to lie, and they don't care if you know they are lying.
They only need to convince the weak-minded people who will follow them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
28-08-2015, 02:45 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
(27-06-2015 09:10 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 11:12 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Is it true about bears???

I tried that joke at a party thrown by a gay friend of mine. A big hairy guy came up and introduced himself, and claimed he was a "bear". I asked if he shits in the woods. He was NOT amused. (I thought it was hilarious.) My sense of humor is a little rough for some people, I guess. I can't tell if he was truly offended, or just mad that my tone revealed I was straight and thus unavailable. Dodgy

He had no sense of humor.

Or he had just finished shitting in the woods and thought he got caught.

Either way, funny shit.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2015, 03:30 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
[quote=. If the bible says the sky is lime green, pink, and has polka dots it has to be true because God always wins.
[/quote]

But the sky is lime green, pink and does have polka dots. Have you not been looking upwards?

What do you mean Life is short. It's the longest thing you're going to do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes stevec's post
28-08-2015, 04:43 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
(28-08-2015 03:30 PM)stevec Wrote:  
(28-08-2015 01:07 PM)highlyclassified Wrote:  If the bible says the sky is lime green, pink, and has polka dots it has to be true because God always wins.

But the sky is lime green, pink and does have polka dots. Have you not been looking upwards?

The trick is to not look directly at the really bright bit of it.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: