Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The phrase "Evolution is a fact"
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 26 of 217 (489517)
11-27-2008 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Peg
11-27-2008 10:47 PM


still bacteria
In some sense, Peg, we are still bacteria.
We're just a collection of bacteria that first got together to form a more complex kind of partnership and then clustered together to make a big lump of bacteria.
But it would be confusing to call everything by one name so we, to make things a bit easier and give us chapter headings in biology books group things by other names.
So our kind of bacteria we call eukaryotes. But that is too big a pile to deal with too so we call a smaller pile of bacteria (the ones that didn't partner with green algae) animals.
Of course, we would still be fish too if we didn't want to have smaller groupings so we called some of the fish that didn't stay wet tetrapods. We are, you should note, still 4 'legged' we just do funny things with 2 of them.
And so on and so on. The major groupings of life are all for convenience.
Btw, you should note that there are single celled organisms that cross over to being multicellular. The divides that you think are there aren't so hard and fast after all.
and:
Yes a pony is a variation of horse, which is a variation of an mammal, which is a variation of a vertebrate, which is a variation of an animal, and so on and so on.
The facts are, Peg, life on earth consists of things which are all variations of one thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Peg, posted 11-27-2008 10:47 PM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Fosdick, posted 11-28-2008 1:16 AM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 30 of 217 (489546)
11-28-2008 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Fosdick
11-28-2008 1:16 AM


There can be only one....
Yea, why does there appear to be only one lineage. Maybe there is only one way to do it? Maybe what we see now is a combination of several lineages? Maybe the others are there but we haven't noticed them yet? Maybe we are just the descendants of the meanest, ugliest kids on the block?
I'd like to know but I don't know how the question will be answered. Probably not soon enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Fosdick, posted 11-28-2008 1:16 AM Fosdick has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 105 of 217 (515227)
07-16-2009 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Peepul
07-16-2009 10:22 AM


macroevolution's definition
No, macroevolution was defined within biology a long time ago. It is used, as I understand, only to a limited degree now though.
It is simply changes that are above the species transition level or considerations related to speciation occuring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Peepul, posted 07-16-2009 10:22 AM Peepul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Peepul, posted 07-16-2009 10:41 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 135 of 217 (523899)
09-13-2009 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Peg
09-13-2009 8:19 AM


It seems that over the years, evolution has gone through many changes itself and now 'evolution' is more about how species change over time rather then where life came from in the first place. It could be for this reason that many are now accepting 'evolution'..its no longer about the origin of life
It has never been about the origin of life.
Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Peg, posted 09-13-2009 8:19 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Peg, posted 09-13-2009 9:15 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 179 of 217 (524265)
09-15-2009 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Archangel
09-15-2009 10:27 AM


Why continue?
Message 50 Archangels "interpretations" message
You gave up all pretense of science already, Archangel. Why do you continue?
When asked for alternate interpretations that match the facts at hand you ducked to "godditit".
Now you are back saying the interpretations given are wrong. But you offer none that explain all the facts.
Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Archangel, posted 09-15-2009 10:27 AM Archangel has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 189 of 217 (524385)
09-16-2009 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Archangel
09-16-2009 9:46 AM


A second explanation
So, your first explanation for what we see is that God is a big practical joker.
The second explanation is that we don't see what we claim to see at all. You claim that 10,000's of people over many decades are liars.
Really well thought out Arch.
As for tree rings, take that to this thread:
Message 1 Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III).
Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Archangel, posted 09-16-2009 9:46 AM Archangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Archangel, posted 09-17-2009 8:36 AM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 198 of 217 (524511)
09-17-2009 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Archangel
09-17-2009 8:36 AM


Re: A second explanation
In other words, it comes no closer to proving that any of the overall beliefs regarding the age of the earth which evolution promotes are even close to accurate in reality.
Answer it there. You have the correlations to explain and it is clear you haven't read the thread. No one explains the correlations. You are ducking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Archangel, posted 09-17-2009 8:36 AM Archangel has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 201 of 217 (524566)
09-17-2009 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Archangel
09-17-2009 8:36 AM


Loki the trickster God
Feel free to quote me saying that anywhere. Why must evos always distort and purposely misinterpret what we say in order to denigrate our position?
You claim that God wrote in Genesis not just that He did create everything but your interpretation is also on how He did it. The interpretation you give of Genesis is at odds with what God wrote into the rocks and stars of the creation itself. Since you claim that the paper copy is the truth then the rock copy must be a trick. You paint your God as a practical joker.
Here was what you wrote when asked for your interpretation:
quote:
My evidence is both consistent, self evident and rational. It is the first chapter of Genesis which clearly and unequivocally states that God created the heavens and the earth and all life upon it by the word of His mouth. It was a supernatural act and therefore cannot be proven according to human standards of science, nor does it need to be since we see the results of His spoken word in the very creation which you refuse to give Him credit for creating in love. Balls in your court now...
  —Archangel
The above only 'explains' the evidence if we are forced to assume that everything we can see of the creation around us is a lie which is in conflict with what you say the Bible says about the how things were done. If it isn't then you have no interpretation which works at all. Balls in your court now ...
Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.
Edited by NosyNed, : spelling and spelling again

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Archangel, posted 09-17-2009 8:36 AM Archangel has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 202 of 217 (524567)
09-17-2009 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Archangel
09-17-2009 1:47 PM


Interpretations again.
Using the speed of light, red shift and gravitational theory, can you prove in absolute terms that our application of, and predictions based on these observations are absolutely correct and cannot be interpreted in any other way which would drastically change the theoretical outcome we have arrived at regarding the age of the earth and the universe?
You should know by now that nothing is absolutely proved in any real-world slightly complex situation. What we do have is enough evidence to support the current interpretations as being very probably correct. Very probably to a very high degree of assurance.
If you claim there are better interpretations then you should offer them up. Your tries to do that so far are: God makes it look like that and everyone is lying. These seem pretty weak since you don't give and clear example of these lies. You also don't explain why ICR or others haven't published the facts to expose the lies. Perhaps you can refer to such publications?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Archangel, posted 09-17-2009 1:47 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024