Well you should be having a hootin' good time by now then!
Pleasure entertaining you!
|
Well you should be having a hootin' good time by now then!
Pleasure entertaining you!
I am going into horizontal mode. It's 2 am here.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
And your arguments are now so poor that it becomes too silly to continue...
Enjoy your frustrations. Better give up Linda : you are no match for me.
Good night!
:rolleyes:
·
LOL I love how you THINK I am frustrated! More of your stereo typing??
Linda : you are no match for me. Good night!--ha dream on!
We were having an intelligent debate and you were giving your points and I was giving mine. When you realised that your so called "evidence" was going no where (considering, as I pointed out, your evidence was for Micro not Macro evo) so you resorted to play ground name calling.. . lol sheer display of defeat.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
I am willing to continue the debate with you if you believe you have anymore evidence you would like to present for your case because obviously your e coli bacteria point has fallen flat on its face.
I would also like to add that my disbelief in the theory of evolution is completely and utterly independent of my religious beliefs. My disbelief in the theory is simply because of what knowledge I have gained through studying biology (which I have a strong passion for) and realising that the evidence for Macro evolution is non existent in both findings from lab research as well as the fossil evidence to name a few. So your condescending remarks about my religion just fly right over my head, because I was a non-believer in evolution long before I became a saved Christian so there is no agenda there, I just don't believe based on what has been observed in biology. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Lol...
Gees.. this man is seriously even on this religious forum at odd hours of the night.
**unbelievable**
[QUOTE=sassyT]I think this is an area where you need to do a little bit more reading/studying. Micro evolution (small changes within a species), is what leads to macro evolution. These very minute changes occur very gradually over an immense period! It's not like a mutation occurs and one species gives birth to another (at least not normally. Interestingly enough I have recently heard about a species that IS suspected of giving birth to a completely different species. But lets leave that alone for now).Quote:
Correct I have no qualms with believing animals of different species such as the wolf, coyote, and fox all may have shared a common canine ancestor (microevolution), but the line gets drawn when evolutionists insist that these species also share a common ancestor with dolphins or fruit flies (macroevolution).
Sassy... Please, please, please, come to your senses about this! The overwhelming majority of accredited scientists put the earth's age in the billions of years (around 4.5 billion, in fact). How on earth can you dispute this? This is where you are losing mass amounts of credibility with anyone who knows anything about science. There are many different 'clocks' used to determine the age of the earth. All calibrated according to a completely different set of scientific principles, and ALL show the age of the earth to be around 4.5 billion years old. Again, PLEASE look into this further and find that just about every scientist who studies this area is in agreement! There's a reason for that. There is only a small lunatic fringe who want to be debate this and their agenda is almost always to promote Creationism. No REAL scientist takes them seriously and neither should you.Quote:
This is an assuption made by scientists who believe in evolution, however as I have pointed out before.. the age of the earth is unknowable.
Now THIS is an interesting point! To be honest, I'm not qualified to give you satisfactory answers for this. I strongly suggest you go to richarddawkins.net to find these answers. There is a forum section on evolution and many there that are very strong in biology and sciences who could give you very accurate answers. I do know that we have observed evolution in other organisms with short life spans like the fruit fly. But again, I'm not qualified to go into detail. If you'd like, I'd be more than happy to research it and get back to you. I wouldn't mind, because I'm sure I'd be learning myself too.Quote:
Time is not even a factor because bacteria have over 2 million generations in just 20 minutes and we have not observed bacteria cease to be bacteria and evolve into something totally different.
Again, it is not just mutations but selection pressure. A process that occurs gradually over millions, sometime HUNDREDS of millions of years. I'm positive that where you're having trouble is in imagining the immense amount of time involved. You accept it where it makes sense to you. The human brain is geared to conceptualize time in in terms of decades and maybe even centuries, but certainly not in the sense of millions and millions of years. You will never have your real time visual of evolution. It needs to be inferred from the overwhelming evidence we do have. And this does not make the case for evolution any less strong. On the contrary...Quote:
I doubt you can because the evidence mutations that add "new" information just does not exists. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that random mutations have the ability to generate entirely new genes which would program for the development of entirely new traits in species.
The Theory of Evolution is so simple that explained properly a child could understand it. Yet, its explanatory power is incredibly complicated and mind boggling! It literally explains the entirety of life as we know it (but granted it does NOT explain the origin of life). It's because of this that many lay people (and Creationists in particular), are skeptical. But please know that this theory is accepted by fully 98% of the members for the International Academy of Science! This should give you serious pause Sassy, because there's a very good reason for that.
Yes, the assumption you make is that micro will eventually lead to macro, but there is no evidence of this in nature or in what has been observed in lab research or in fossil record. In fact the evidence is quite the contrary.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobrobster
.Quote:
Now THIS is an interesting point! To be honest, I'm not qualified to give you satisfactory answers for this. I strongly suggest you go to richarddawkins.net to find these answers. There is a forum section on evolution and many there that are very strong in biology and sciences who could give you very accurate answers. I do know that we have observed evolution in other organisms with short life spans like the fruit fly. But again, I'm not qualified to go into detail. If you'd like, I'd be more than happy to research it and get back to you. I wouldn't mind, because I'm sure I'd be learning myself too
Maybe you are the one who needs to do a little reading on bacteria and you will find that no matter how many mutations there are, whether it is by natural selection or random, Bacteria still remains bacteria, in never evolves into anything other than BACTERIA even after 2.5 million generations. Doesn't that tell you something?
i already addressed this and you ignored it...Quote:
Again, it is not just mutations but selection pressure.
okey, I wanted to address this separately. plse read carefullyQuote:
Originally Posted by lobrobster
I did a research paper on radio dating so I have done a lot of research on this. One thing you need to realise is that the methods used for dating the earth rely on a number of unverifiable assuptions. So if arriving at a "date" depends upon a chain of assumptions, each link in the chain being an assumption, the validity of the calculated date can be no stronger than the weekest link (weakest assumption) used in the calculation.
Now I am not going to go into all the scientific assumptions but to illustrate let me put it this way... suppose there is a burning candle sitting on the table. How long has that candle been burning? This can be calculated if the candle’s burn rate and original length is known. However, if the original length is not known, or if it cannot be verified that the burning rate has been constant, it is impossible to tell for sure how long the candle was burning. A similar problem occurs with radio dating of rocks. Since the initial physical state of the rock is unknowable, the age can only be estimated according to certain assumptions.
When dating a rock, the geochronalogist must first assume the rock’s age before it is dated. For example, if a scientist believes a piece of rock is 4.5 billion years old, he or she may then use the uranium-lead dating method because it has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. This involves circular reasoning so how can the date be truth? It is impossible to know!
The geochronologist must also be sure that the rate of decay, from uranium to lead for example, has remained constant in the rock over the past 4.5 billion years. Furthermore, the amount of uranium in the rock that was present to begin with must also be assumed. So uf all of these assamptions are correct, then the resulting dates are correct. However if even Just one of these assumptions is wrong, then the resulting dates are erroneous.
so lob the difference between you and me is that you take everything "scientists" tell you at face value because you have been brain washed to think that scientists are always right, but I don't just take things from scientists at face value because I know there is almost always an agenda behind it certain fields of science. Even in medicine. Scientists will pass a drug as "safe" and you find out later that the pharmaceutical company is who funded the research.
So don't think I don't believe in these theories like evo because of my religion. It has nothing to do with that. I was into biology before I ever became a christian. I have just always been very analytical. ;)
Without even getting into the various methods used for dating (and there are more of them than just measuring the decay rate through carbon dating, etc. And they ALL point to an earth being roughly 4 billion years old). But forget that. I'd like to concentrate on your comment about how I take scientists at face value, while you do not...Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Do you REALLY think that 98% of all scientists are in kahootz with each other and collaborating to fake the age of the earth so they can further some agenda?? Does that really make sense to you? You think they couldn't raise money for their endeavors unless they deceive us?
That makes no sense, especially when you consider that religious people make up the vast majority of our world's population. It would make sense the other way around... Alter the facts to appease the religious people so they have the majority on their side. To think that 98% of all scientists are involved in some type of conspiracy is pure paranoia on your part Sassy.
Also, I'll bet you trust science just fine when it comes to your health, or when you get on a plane. I'm sure you take what they say about aerodynamics at face value when you're 30,000 feet in the air.
amirite? ;)
Sassy, a very important part of science is to address possible errors. Scientist believe that the age of the earth is 4.55 billion years to within 1% error. Science estimates how wrong it might be by looking at the assumptions we have made, and looking at how well agreed different lines of evidence are. A 1% error is absolutely amazing.
Again, I'll bet you take science at face value when you're 30k ft. in the sky on an airplane. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
We can't make any progress with this, since I don't know what else to say. It's like telling me photo synthesis or the speed of light are just scientists trying to fool me. 98% Sassy. If you really think they are ALL lying, there is nothing I'm going to say that will convince you. I'd just remind you that the majority of people on earth ARE religious! So if I were a scientist trying to cater to the public in order to receive funding for my projects, I'd be more likely to bend my data to cow-tow to believers, than to atheists. That just makes sense. Also...
What do you think of ring species? Do you accept that? We should move this discussion to the science forum. There is more than ample evidence for ring species. I'm curious if you would deny that. Peace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
But if I do not "sign off" you are the first one to suggest I skipped off, because of your "arguments"...Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
:rolleyes:
·
No, I just find it funny that an old man is up all hours of the night harassing people about something he claims to find as ridiculous as the boogyman... lol :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Lobroster Don't get me wrong I have no problems with science that is factual, observable and verifiable. For example gravity is a irrefutable scientific fact. Like I have said before science is the effort to discover, understand how the physical world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding. History is not science. Scientists were not present to observe when the earth began. All they can do is spectulate, assume, hyothesise, theorise etc but they can never know for sure. It is impossible to know how old the earth is.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobrobster
A 4.3 billion year old earth as I have illustrated is not a fact because the methods used to date the earth rely on a number of unverifiable assuptions. I don't know why that is so hard for you to accept.
If we go back to my candle burning analogy lets say I don't know how long the candle was to start with, and I also do not know that the rate of burning is constant and there is no way to verify either, I can say "i assume the candle was 12inches to start with and I assume the burn rate has been constant therefor according to my calculation, this candle has been burning for 30 minutes"
Given my assumptions, dont you think it would be irrational for me to claim my "30minute" estimate is absolute factual truth?
[QUOTE]Again gravity is an irrefutable scientific fact that I have no problem with.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobrobster
No.. lol you are making an invalid comparison here.. Photosythesis is an observable scientific fact and does not rely on any unverifiable assumptions.Quote:
We can't make any progress with this, since I don't know what else to say. It's like telling me photo synthesis or the speed of light are just scientists trying to fool me.
I don't know why you are deliberately exaggerating my statement and taking it out of context. I did not say all scientists are lyers. Of course not, I am going to be a scientist myself so why would I say that about myself. All I am trying to say is there are certain branches of science that are not reliable.. because of the simple fact that they have to rely on assuptions that can not be verified as true. For example the age of the earth.. can not be observed tested or repeated in the lab because it is history. Scientists can estimate using unverifiable assuptions as a premise. The result is not reliable because there is no way to verify if the assuptions made are accurate.Quote:
98% Sassy. If you really think they are ALL lying, there is nothing I'm going to say that will convince you. I'd just remind you that the majority of people on earth ARE religious! So if I were a scientist trying to cater to the public in order to receive funding for my projects, I'd be more likely to bend my data to cow-tow to believers, than to atheists. That just makes sense. Also...
"harrassing" ? I noted that you had not used that ridiculous claim already some 24 hours, so it had to turn up again somewhere... And yes it did... Here !Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
How funny that so far you never have been able to specify that harassing. Where, when, how. Never.
Yes, you may say that I post views you disagree with. But harassing is something different, and I know for sure that anyone who is really harassing someone on this board would be banned very soon.
So why am I still allowed to post my views here? It's rather simple, is it not, sassyT ? Just because I do not harass anyone. So you are making false claims. Nothing new here, isn't it, sassyT ?
:rolleyes:
·
[QUOTE=sassyT]So let's just cut to the chase. Are you saying that YOU know more than 98% of scientists? Because it's a fact that AT LEAST that number will tell you the earth is 4 billion years old.Quote:
Again gravity is an irrefutable scientific fact that I have no problem with.
It's also a F-A-C-T that a similar percentage strongly supports the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life we see today (although they would also admit to not knowing how life was first sparked into existence).
So what on earth makes you think that you, SassyT, knows more than 98% of all scientists? Don't you think you're being just a tad bit arrogant and full of yourself? It's like me claiming I could've hit more homers tonight than Hamilton's 29 in the derby. Please...
That is what religion does to some fanatic followers, specially those sensitive to creationist brainwashing. If I see the non-scientific approach by sassyT here in all topics, and her closed minded creationist thinking clouding her real scientific thinking, I doubt if ever she will be capable of obtaining an official degree in Biology. Science is about facts and support. Religion is about belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobrobster
As always : everyone may BELIEVE whatever he/she prefers to believe. But reality is almost always something else...
:rolleyes:
·
Talk about going OFF subject on posts!!
My question was
Objective/subjective how does it disprove God?
The question is unanswerable. Those who are not religious, who live their daily lives without the need for a god, have no need to prove that something they don't see/doesn't exist (i.e. proving a negative). Those that believe in a god do so out of faith and require no proof whatsoever.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:52 AM. |