PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evolution vs Creationism

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To EMYERS...

Well, the second post was refering to myself after unwittingly using a word which has become hackneyed and an embarrassment to the Queen yet it arrogantly claims its position in day to day prose... sought of like the plight of the evolutinalists!


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 2:08 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The central limit theorem hypothesizes that a large sum of independantly, identically distributed variables approximate the normal distribution, under certain conditions; an accepted statistical obervation. Independant occurance of events leads to randomness, hence the existence of the word random. If random did not exist surely we would be able to predict stock prices, accidents etc. This is where evolution breaks down: IT CANNOT EVEN BEGIN TO EXPLAIN THE  EXISTENCE OF A COHERENT WORLD WHICH IT POSTULATES TO HAVE ARISIN FROM RANDOM OCCURENCES!

(Edited by CipherComplete 5/3/2006 at 2:45 PM).


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 2:22 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To EntwickelnCollin

Thanks for the "honourable" statement labelling me as a Profundus Maximus. It appears that your modus operandi of vilifying my current position in the status qou has failed. I have utter sympathy for you who live on borrowed ideologies (evolution) and neglect what is truth. I'm afraid to say that your approach is retrograde and needs "a bit of sanitation". As Biko said: " Ground for a revolution is always fertile in the presence of absolute destitution" in this case, you need a revolution...

(Edited by CipherComplete 5/3/2006 at 2:41 PM).

(Edited by CipherComplete 5/3/2006 at 2:42 PM).


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 2:38 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The central limit theorem hypothesizes that a large sum of independantly, identically distributed variables approximate the normal distribution, under certain conditions; An accepted statistical obervation. Independant occurance of events leads to randomness, hence the existence of the wor random. If random did not exist surely we would be able to predict stock prices, accidents etc. This is where evolution breaks down: IT CANNOT EVEN BEGIN TO EXPLAIN EXISTENCE OF A COHERENT WORLD WHICH IS POSTULATED FROM ARISING FROM RANDOM OCCURENCES!


You really don't know what you're talking about. The only thing remotely considered "random" in the function of Natural Selection is the way in which DNA will mutate. And, on that note, it is not even random, as Roy has already pointed out. The only reason we cannot tell which strands of DNA will mutate and when is because the variables of DNA mutation are too many and small for us to keep track of them. After all, every organism on this earth is born with thousands of tiny, often barely-noticeable mutations.

If you are trying to say we cannot predict the path of Evolution, you are only half right. We cannot predict what mutations will appear, when they will appear, and in what species they will appear. However, we can, to a very certain degree, predict the result of those mutations. If one out of every ten grass blades with copper-tolerant genes grows in a meadow with copper-poisoned soil, obviously the copper-tolerant blades of grass will produce copper-tolerant offspring, while the rest of the grass will die out. If a population of flying squirrels are found to be born with flaps of skin that are more effective at gliding than that of their ascendants, we can easily predict that this population of flying squirrels will prove victorious in their niche over the less effective gliding squirrels.

To reiterate:

This is where evolution breaks down: IT CANNOT EVEN BEGIN TO EXPLAIN EXISTENCE OF A COHERENT WORLD WHICH IS POSTULATED FROM ARISING FROM RANDOM OCCURENCES!


Your fundamental failure to understand the issue is that Evolution isn't supposed to explain such a thing.

Well, the second post was refering to myself after unwittingly using a word which has become hackneyed and an embarrassment to the Queen yet it arrogantly claims its position in day to day prose... sought of like the plight of the evolutinalists!


Oh dear... Not only do you employ an unnecessary use of vocabulary intended only to obscure and complicate your points, but you're another British poser. The extraordinary thing is, most brilliant people in this world don't feel the need to act so uncharacteristically sophisticated.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 2:45 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks for the "honourable" statement labelling me as a Profundus Maximus. It appears that your modus operandi of vilifying my current position in the status qou has failed.


That clearly isn't so. You're either entirely sarcastic by now, or you've just proven my point with your use of Latin. At any rate, your sophist smokescreen fails. While I'm modest in exercising it, my vocabulary encompasses what you've demonstrated so far.

As Biko said: " Ground for a revolution is always fertile in the presence of absolute destitution" in this case, you need a revolution...


Your evidence to any destitution you claim me to be experiencing is, I'm glad to say, lacking.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 5/3/2006 at 3:07 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 2:53 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 1:34 PM on May 3, 2006 :
so is it wrong to kil a lemur?


Without justificaiton, most definetely.

is it wrong to kil any animal at all?


Yes.




so kiling any animal any time is wrong except when it is needed for survival?  what about hunting? what about tests on animals?  what swatting annoying mosquitos?  in what situations is it acceptable to kil animals?
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 3:07 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To EntwickelnCollin:

Point of clarity: I'm by no means British and have no connection with colonists who have denigrated and degraded the African man for eons. I will opt not to reveal my nationality, I guess it is also not important at least for this debate.

I reason your argumentation on mutations. Astoundingly we appear to be sharing the same bed but not the same sheet! Let me explain: Supposing you are some arbitrary creature, say a frog, (in [your] billions of years ago) on the verge of mutating to a better equiped species for the mere reason (supposingly) of continued existence. Suppose wings are needed to preserve the following generations. Do you understand the collaboration and the exactness of how such a mutation should come about? The sudden incorporation of specialised nerves, bone structure to "ill-equiped" creature? Sounds ludicrous? Indeed it should be.

(Edited by CipherComplete 5/3/2006 at 3:15 PM).


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 3:12 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

so kiling any animal any time is wrong except when it is needed for survival?  what about hunting?


Just curious... do you ever read entire responses? This is the third time I've said I believe hunting for sport is wrong.

what about tests on animals?  what swatting annoying mosquitos?


Tests, I did indeed fail to take into account. I would add that into a list of occassions in which I believe it is acceptable to kill animals--but only if the tests go toward research and are not some mashochistic game.

Mosquitoes... I slap them all the time. They cause me pain, they leave welts of swollen skin and blood on my body, and they're in no danger of going extinct. That's enough reason for me to slap them. On the other hand, I disagree with pinning an insect to a table and dissecting it while it's alive, like pulling its wings or appendages off.

in what situations is it acceptable to kil animals?


I believe I've covered this. Now, after going back and forth on this for about a dozen posts, let's hear what point you were trying to make.




-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 3:13 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

cipher,

While it might be true that "Godliness with contentment is great gain" it is certainly even more true that "haughtiness without substance is vain".    

Know what I'm saying?
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 3:13 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Supposing you are some arbitrary creature, say a frog, (in [your] billions of years ago) on the verge of mutating to a better equiped species for the mere reason (supposingly) of continued existence. Suppose wings are needed to preserve the following generations. Do you understand the collaboration and the exactness of how such a mutation should come about?


Evolution often fails when an entire species is on the verge of extinction. While Punctuated Equilibrium can sometimes take advantage of the moment and make giant leaps, often times, the population will just go extinct. In this particular case, it's very unlikely a species of frog, without anything similar to wings save their own appendages, will evolve in time to escape extinction. In most causes where a specie escapes exctiniction, the "savior" mutation is already fully or partially present.

Point of clarity: I'm by no means British


Sorry. "Queen" tricked me there.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 3:19 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

FREDGUFF:

Does the "haughtiness without substance is vain" refer to me; or you are trying to create a pun from my motto. If it is please explain your reprimanding. Let's distinguish the trees from the forests here: in this site I'm merely using my intellect to stir sound debate....    



-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 3:25 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Supposing you are some arbitrary creature, say a frog, (in [your] billions of years ago) on the verge of mutating to a better equiped species for the mere reason (supposingly) of continued existence. Suppose wings are needed to preserve the following generations. Do you understand the collaboration and the exactness of how such a mutation should come about? The sudden incorporation of specialised nerves, bone structure to "ill-equiped" creature? Sounds ludicrous? Indeed it should be.


Actually the scenario you have described has nothing to do with anything being proposed by mainstream science.  In my opinion it is a clumsy strawman errected by:

A.  An individual who is  incapable of providing a reasonable argument against the mountains of scientific evidence that support the theory of evolution.

B.  A  troll who wants to jerk chains and rattle cages.

C.   A dishonest creationist.

For what it's worth, I am guessing you are "A" or "B".
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 3:28 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TO EntwickelnCollin:

Well, if the saviour mutation is already partially or fully present it implies that the ill-equiped and the equiped existed independantly and hence there were different species. This means no evolution had occured....

(Edited by CipherComplete 5/3/2006 at 3:50 PM).


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 3:34 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Does the "haughtiness without substance is vain" refer to me; or you are trying to create a pun from my motto.
Yes on both accounts.

If it is please explain your reprimanding. Let's distinguish the trees from the forests here: in this site I'm merely using my intellect to stir sound debate....
If erecting clumsy strawmen is your idea of stirring "sound debate" then maybe you should use your time to pursue an endeavor that is more suited to the limitations of your "intellect".  
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 3:36 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To Fredguff:

To impart wisdom to the intellectually challenged, I'm none of the above. In light of this information, I believe that you could assign youself to A,B or C. I'm guessing C!

Now for the meat of argumentation:
You speak of mountains of scientific evidence supporting the THEORY of evolution. Allow me to school you about the word theory. Theory is an assumption based on [limited] information or knowledge. Would you elaborate on how support would imply a truism. To you ignorance, there is absolutely no evidence what so ever available to confirm or even suppport evolution. Please research or at least admit your ignorance. "If you thought education was expensive, try ignorance."  


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 3:46 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Now for the meat of argumentation:
You speak of mountains of scientific evidence supporting the THEORY of evolution. Allow me to school you about the word theory. Theory is an assumption based on [limited] information or knowledge. Would you elaborate on how support would imply a truism. To you ignorance, there is absolutely no evidence what so ever available to confirm or even suppport evolution. Please research or at least admit your ignorance. "If you thought education was expensive, try ignorance."  


You're obviously joking. I refuse to believe you don't know the difference between the conventional use of "theory" in society versus "scientific theory," which isn't applicable to the definition you supplied.

Well, if the saviour mutation is already partially or fully present it implies that the ill-equiped and the equiped existed independantly and hence there were different species. This means no evolution had occured....


Incorrect, proven so simply by the dozens of differences in the homo sapien species alone I could name off the top of my head, like skin color, eye color, hair color, average height, average bone density, blood types, etc.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 5/3/2006 at 4:01 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 3:58 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TO FREDGUFF:

Apparently you and I are world's apart. There exists no other being who is comforted by his/her connection with a fool's paradise (besides you). Intelligence is my passport to intellectual debate and I'm certainly humbled by your comments. Remember, it was the fool that also said: " There is no God." I'd advise you to be more nonchalant in your approach so that you can circumvent pertubation and other unnecessary confusions about intellectual debate.


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 4:02 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apparently you and I are world's apart. There exists no other being who is comforted by his/her connection with a fool's paradise (besides you). Intelligence is my passport to intellectual debate and I'm certainly humbled by your comments. Remember, it was the fool that also said: " There is no God." I'd advise you to be more nonchalant in your approach so that you can circumvent pertubation and other unnecessary confusions about intellectual debate.


I would expect nothing of the sort from Fred when you are deliberately aggravating the users on this board. It's already apparent you are not here to engage in honest debate, or you would indeed apply to Fred's list of "A, B, and C."

Either you really don't know what a scientific theory is, in which case you would be firmly cemented under A, or you do know what you're arguing against, and intentionally supplying poor, silly material, in which case you'd apply to B.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:07 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To EntwickelnCollin:

I'm certainly disturbed by the fact that we are losing our line of conflicting thought. Firstly, you are refering to micro-evolution above which is an obvious means for the adaptation of species and inheritance from their forefathers. The object of this debate is Macro evolution which should not be confused to be a subset of the above. This refutes evolution and it is clearly indicating that you are arguing from "limited knowledge", which makes you a theorist...


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 4:11 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To impart wisdom to the intellectually challenged, I'm none of the above. In light of this information, I believe that you could assign youself to A,B or C. I'm guessing C!
 While I will admit to being dishonest on occasion (though not in this forum) you defy reasonableness with your guess that I am a creationist.

You speak of mountains of scientific evidence supporting the THEORY of evolution. Allow me to school you about the word theory. Theory is an assumption based on [limited] information or knowledge. Would you elaborate on how support would imply a truism.
When I see the theory argument,the troll alarms start ringing really loud...Whatever...Theory? Hypothesis? Idea? Explanation? At the end of the day "Evolution" rises and falls on the available scientific evidence.  Even if one were to take into account only the available genetic evidence,  Evolution (or common descent) is the best explanation for species diversification on Earth.  No other scientific theory comes remotely close.  Throw in evidence from the fossil record, comparative morphology, and species geographic distribution patterns  and you have one of the most robust scientific "theories" out there.  

Aren't there some billy-goats trespassing on your bridge that need tending to?  



 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 4:17 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TO EntwickelnCollin

Aggravating!! I'm appalled. An honest quest to disseminate information that would lead to the termination of evolution is equated to be aggravating. Illustrates how little faith evolutionalists have on their "little" theory.

(Edited by CipherComplete 5/3/2006 at 4:23 PM).


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 4:19 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm certainly disturbed by the fact that we are losing our line of conflicting thought. Firstly, you are refering to micro-evolution above which is an obvious means for the adaptation of species and inheritance from their forefathers.


Microevolution is not an accepted term within biology. There is no difference between it and and macroevolution. Both are the change of life over time as a result of nature acting on genetics. There is no formal distinction between micro and macroevolution, a term originally invented by a biologist, but placed into its modern-day use by creationists. In order to use micro and macroevolution scientifically, you must first draw a specific line where microevolution ends and macroevolution starts, a task that, to this day, has not yet been accomplished by anyone.

This refutes evolution and it is clearly indicating that you are arguing from "limited knowledge", which makes you a theorist...


You needn't recite anymore PRATT's. Try to come up with something you can't find off the first page of a creationist propoganda website.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:23 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Aggravating!! I'm appalled. An honest quest to disseminate information that would lead to the termination of evolution is equated to be aggravating. Illustrates how little faith evolutionalists have on their "little" theory.


I agree. Evolutionists ought to have no faith in such things to begin with, or they would be biased and lose out on much scientific credability. It certainly is aggravating to refute the same point for the 30th time this year.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:25 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To fredguff:

My sincere apologies for insisting on facts. What evidence are you babbling about. Can you give clear cut example which you would use as a yardstick to cement your support of evolution.


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 4:29 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Obviously you cannot as there is NO such evidence. In my opinion evolution is buried, now ideally six feet under with full credit to its followers. Sought of like a Saddam, who with the comfort of a hole, was betrayed by his followers...


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 4:32 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apparently you and I are world's apart. There exists no other being who is comforted by his/her connection with a fool's paradise (besides you).
Non sequitur...No reasonable person could conclude that I am "comforted by my connection with a fools paradise" based on what I have posted in this forum.  And if the fact that I watch  "American Idol" means that I am guilty of your charge, then you just got lucky with your guess.

Intelligence is my passport to intellectual debate and I'm certainly humbled by your comments.
My appologies; my intent was to educate you.

Remember, it was the fool that also said: " There is no God." I'd advise you to be more nonchalant in your approach so that you can circumvent pertubation and other unnecessary confusions about intellectual debate.
Non sequitur...What does the existance of God have to do with this discussion.  More importantly, what would compel you to counsel me in the manner which you have?  


 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 4:34 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm by no means British and have no connection with colonists who have denigrated and degraded the African man for eons. I will opt not to reveal my nationality, I guess it is also not important at least for this debate.


Hmm, Americans haven't been "colonists" for years and America certaintly hasn't been around for eons (we're a relatively young country in the scheme of things).... anyone know who he is talking about?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:44 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To EntwickelnCollin:

What is PRATT'S. I infer from shaking hands with your statement that you been to a creatinist website. A first step, which leads me to understand that you are a leaven caught between remaining hideous and neglecting the truth and being aware of the truth but being stubborn in accepting it. I'm still waiting for my example.

Micro and Macro evolution are clearly distinguishable terms. If you read Darwin's (father of your theory!) The Origin Of Species you would know. Do you also find it difficult to draw the line between micro and macro ecomonics? If you do, then I understand your problem...


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 4:46 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My sincere apologies for insisting on facts. What evidence are you babbling about. Can you give clear cut example which you would use as a yardstick to cement your support of evolution.


Similarities in embryonic development is evidence that certain animals share a common ancestor.  The fact that all members of echinodermata and chordata are deuterostomes is evidence that starfish and humans share a more recent common ancestor than chimpanzees and lady bugs.  Other shared similarities between the two phyla,  that fall outside the realm of embryonic development, only serve to bolster this conclusion.
Mouth first
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 4:48 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Micro and Macro evolution are clearly distinguishable terms. If you read Darwin's (father of your theory!) The Origin Of Species you would know.


First of all, the words "micro" and "macroevolution" are never even used in any of Darwin's writings, in large part because those words hadn't been invented yet. If all you mean to say is that Darwin makes a distinction between adaptation and speciation, you are correct, but microevolution is not adaptation, while according to the informal definition of it, macroevolution is speciation.

The fact that you haven't read On the Origins of Species is noted, though.
What is PRATT'S.


Point Refuted A Thousand Times

I infer from shaking hands with your statement that you been to a creatinist website. A first step, which leads me to understand that you are a leaven caught between remaining hideous and neglecting the truth and being aware of the truth but being stubborn in accepting it.


I've been to dozens of Creaitonist websites. Make no mistake, I do not by any means accept Creation. It would simply be dishonest of me (towards myself) to only look at one side of the issue.

[Edit]:

On review of this post, I've unearthed a possible contradiction within your beliefs, Cipher.

You earlier stated you were "none of the above" in respect to "A, an ignorant person," "B, a troll," or "C, a creationist."

Yet, it would seem with your choice of the word "truth," that you are indeed a Creationist. Please explain.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 5/3/2006 at 5:01 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:56 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

FREDGUFF:

Are you infering that because Abraham Lincholn and Bush were presidents of the United States, they are the same KIND of president? Your logic is really palpably lacking in depth...


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 5:00 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Obviously you cannot as there is NO such evidence.

Yeah and there is no evidence that the world is round or that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon.   Whatever.

In my opinion evolution is buried, now ideally six feet under with full credit to its followers.
 Your opinion and 75 cents will get you a bad cup of coffee unless you can substantiate it.

Sought of like a Saddam, who with the comfort of a hole, was betrayed by his followers...
I am not really bothered by your ignorance of science (or at least your feigned ignorance).  It's your ham-fisted attempts at "waxing eloquently" that are getting my dander up.  If you are, as I suspect, a troll, then Bravo!

 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 5:02 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are you infering that because Abraham Lincholn and Bush were presidents of the United States, they are the same KIND of president? Your logic is really palpably lacking in depth...


How you linked the characteristics of political figures  to homology is much more illogical.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 5:03 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I request to be excused, I'm off to a meeting. Please put more coal in the fire I'll be back for replies in the MORO. The fable of evolution lives on...


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 5:06 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

FREDGUFF:

Are you infering that because Abraham Lincholn and Bush were presidents of the United States, they are the same KIND of president? Your logic is really palpably lacking in depth...


Based on what I know about Abe and Shrub, I would separate them at the genus level with Lincoln being a "homo" and Junior being a "pan". There are more than a few in the scientific community who think we should change W's genus to "homo". I think Karl Rove might be behind this.

Shrub the chimp is now a homo.

BTW: I am not a dumbocrat so don't go there.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 5:16 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've been allowed mercy to do justice to my fellow intellectuals.

Firstly: EntwickelnCollin: "C" above referred to a dishonest creationalist which certainly I'm not. I've also not given any significant detail about my beliefs, nor find it necessary to reveal them unless prompted to do so. Mine, is just drawing conclusions from what I've read about evolution.

It appears to me to be a sternly contrived fable which is believed but not seen and has served to deceive human kind, even the intellects on this site today.

Anathema is thought caught up in the delusion of evolution to any act (thought incl.) of a revolution.


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 5:23 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

FREDGUFF:

How could you even begin comparing evidence of a "circular earth" and "man walking on moon" with evidence of evolution. The above is what evidence is to me, a truism which remains infallible and absolute which does not have to be reasoned by illusive and unconvincing logic...


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 5:37 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Similarities in embryonic development is evidence that certain animals share a common ancestor."  

The political example seems not to be well accepted. Well, I'm using a DELL computer and my neighbour has a HP. They both have WINDOWS XP installed. Does the use of WINDOWS XP warrant that they were jointly manufactured? Don't provide twaddle as proof. My sharing of embryonic development with another species does not imply that I was derived from it neither that the other specie was derived me neither that we jointly derived from one specie. We earlier refered to randomness....

(Edited by CipherComplete 5/3/2006 at 5:54 PM).


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 5:51 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The political example seems not to be well accepted. Well, I'm using a DELL computer and my neighbour has a HP. They both have WINDOWS XP installed. Does the use of WINDOWS XP warrant that they were jointly manufactured? Don't provide twaddle as proof. My sharing of embryonic development with another species does not imply that I was derived from it neither that the other specie was derived me neither that we jointly derived from one specie. We earlier refered to randomness....


Computers don't reproduce. All life does. If computers produced other computers with minor changes in their metallic part makeup, and it was found that models of computers have changed in predictable patterns through past generations, it would indeed be a valid conclusion that they 'evolved.'

Your contrast between non-living machines--that are not only suspected but proven to be designed by human beings--and evolution is both a straw man and PRATT.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:15 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

FREDGUFF:

How could you even begin comparing evidence of a "circular earth" and "man walking on moon" with evidence of evolution. The above is what evidence is to me, a truism which remains infallible and absolute which does not have to be reasoned by illusive and unconvincing logic...
Obviously I have been exposed to evidence that you are not aware of.  Visit some of the links that I posted on the Chimp and Human Genomes threads.


From the evidence that I have been exposed to I know that scientists can now use DNA evidence to link just about all placental animals to a single ancestor.   Placental DNA is filled with all kinds of genetic markings that can be used to demonstrate common ancestory.   Prosecuter use these markings to link dead-beat dads to the the children they are responsible for.  Added to this is the fact that I know that scientists can use DNA markings  to link certain placental species like humans and chimps to a common ancestor at a level of certainty that is higher than the levels that our court systems routinely require for convicting dead-beat dads.    

Do I have a "smoking gun" that connects humans and non-placentals (like sea urchins) to a common ancestor?  No...But using all the available  scientific evidence with "Occam's razor" I can safely conclude that it is highly probable that sea urchins and humans are related.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 6:15 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To add to both my former response and Fred's:

It's important to note that computers are not all directly made of the same chemical ingredients, while all life is. Neither are computers built using the same code, while life is.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 5/3/2006 at 6:19 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:18 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's important to note that computers are not all directly made of the chemical ingredients, while all life is. Neither are computers built using the same code, while life is.


And even if we do use this far from perfect analogy we can look at certain similarities in the the HP and Dell computers (like the MS operating systems and Intel processors and trace their origins back to the first IBM pcs.  Moreover if we stumble on an old computer that has a Motorolla processor and runs a dated version of the OS operating system then we can trace it to a MAC.

I am with Entwickeln though...I don't like using false analogies that compare Apples to Oranges or...IBM clones for that matter.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 6:32 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is where evolution breaks down: IT CANNOT EVEN BEGIN TO EXPLAIN THE  EXISTENCE OF A COHERENT WORLD WHICH IT POSTULATES TO HAVE ARISIN FROM RANDOM OCCURENCES!

I just want to emphasize, the theory of evolution doesn't TRY to explain the existance of a coherent world, it only explains the diversity of life on earth.  And evolution isn't random.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:29 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from CipherComplete at 2:22 PM on May 3, 2006 :
The central limit theorem hypothesizes that a large sum of independantly, identically distributed variables approximate the normal distribution, under certain conditions; an accepted statistical obervation. Independant occurance of events leads to randomness, hence the existence of the word random. If random did not exist surely we would be able to predict stock prices, accidents etc. This is where evolution breaks down: IT CANNOT EVEN BEGIN TO EXPLAIN THE  EXISTENCE OF A COHERENT WORLD WHICH IT POSTULATES TO HAVE ARISIN FROM RANDOM OCCURENCES!

(Edited by CipherComplete 5/3/2006 at 2:45 PM).


An neither can the Central Limit Theorem explain the formation of a raindrop.  You vastly overextend it's significance when you try to force it's range over systems where the variables are not independant.

Chaos Theory

Self-Organizing Systems

You do believe in raindrops don't you?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:49 AM on May 4, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fredguff and EntwickelnCollin:

Blah, Blah, Blah. Once again we beating around the bush and not speaking how we see it. A Dell/HP is an obvious ramification of an IBM pc; it is quite intuitive that the presence of a Dell/HP is dependent on the archaic Mac BUT the current day manufacture of a Dell is independent of its origin. In my understanding, it would not be safe to then conclude that all current day computers are IBMs! Think before you preach, it would circumvent a lot fallicies leading to your own mea culpa. Infact, ipso facto, I can safely conclude that even the most dogmatic exponents of evolution could possibly be naive in the beliefs.

(Edited by CipherComplete 5/5/2006 at 05:14 AM).


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 05:08 AM on May 5, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis:

I would like to believe that I am adequtely equipped with scientific knowledge. I would rather not boast about my credentials. Though, I do not leave my brain at the door when entering a room of scientific theory. I think around ideas and not merely accept them as a modus vivendi to deny what is true. And yes, I do believe in rain drops (Strictly from evidence)!  


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 05:31 AM on May 5, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In my understanding, it would not be safe to then conclude that all current day computers are IBMs!


That would be like saying human beings are bacteria, which isn’t true either.

Blah, Blah, Blah. Once again we beating around the bush and not speaking how we see it.


What do you mean by, “we are not speaking how we see it”? That certainly doesn't make your argument any stronger. Computers are proven to have been designed; life is not. Computers are not organic; life is. Computers cannot reproduce; life can. Computers are not structured off the same code; life is. Most importantly, computers are not alive; life is.

Would you care to actually address these flaws in your analogy?

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 5/5/2006 at 07:26 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:19 AM on May 5, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Cipher's continued reliance on logical fallacies  to forward his points clearly demonstrates that he does not understand basic logic. What's more, his stilted wording only serves to highlight the emptiness of his arguments.   Even on those rare occasions when Cipher makes a point that is at least structurally sound in its logic, it usually amounts to nothing more than regurgitated creationist propoganda that has been previously refuted a thousand times.  

Cipher reminds me of the pimply faced teenager who squeals the tires of his mom's car when he leaves the Burger King Parking lot.  As he looks back in his rearview mirror he is convinced that he sees looks of amazement and respect from the fast-food patrons.  In reality the looks are of contempt and pity.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 10:23 AM on May 5, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Simply, simply, simply what I'm illustrating to you in the example above is that correlation does not imply causation. Sharing the same genetic properties with some species does insinuate evidence that I share origin with that specie. It would even be an embarrasment to Lyell if he was aware of the existence of such logic in the present day.
Secondly, you mention creatinist propaganda... All what I've presented in this site come from my own thought life, once again you can jumped the gun and labelled me a creationist. Where did you obtain such info? Thirdly, It would then be safe for me conclude that all what you have alluded above has been evolutionist propaganda as you've promptly replied to my post. That implies that all you alluded in your posts has been a dire need to entertain trivialities.

EntwickelnCollin: To avoid dodging an argument you need to "speak how you see it"; otherwise you will be harbouring and spewing the thoughts of another being. Try be unique, it will take the eye off the eyesore.


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 09:08 AM on May 6, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from CipherComplete at 05:31 AM on May 5, 2006 :
Apoapsis:

I would like to believe that I am adequtely equipped with scientific knowledge. I would rather not boast about my credentials. Though, I do not leave my brain at the door when entering a room of scientific theory. I think around ideas and not merely accept them as a modus vivendi to deny what is true. And yes, I do believe in rain drops (Strictly from evidence)!  


Good, then you should have no problem understanding that your use of the Central Limit Theorem is incorrect and that matter is able to self-organize into complex patterns.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:56 AM on May 8, 2006 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.