Always talking about micro-evolution?

I should have known you would hate having the words of atheist biologist evolutionist Robert Dawkins wielded against you, because you're all so predictable. My students laugh when one of my predictions comes true, because I teach Phys Ed. The only reason you think there's evidence that Dawkins and Gould are different people is that you're rebelling against God. Um, I think you should prove that hydrogen gas can become a human or that Crashfrog can walk to the moon before I listen to your lies. Smoke and mirrors, and then more smoke. I assume you will resort to ad hominem attacks, like all you Nazi abortionist atheist fuckheads do when your lies are exposed. I'm leaving, my exit is long overdue, I'm not going to be here any longer, you can all claim victory after I'm gone. I'm really leaving.regards,
Esteban "Promise To Miss Me?" Hambre

quote:

---

Same goes vice versa; you will not believe in God's power to create in 6 days no matter what I show you.

---

Isn't the point of faith that you believe regardless of being "shown" anything or not?

quote:

---

The Israelites didn't believe Jesus despite all the miracles he did. If I could heal the sick, make the lame walk, raise the dead, you would try to explain the power of God away like Pharoah did; "...cheap magician's trick...", etc. So what's the point?

---

If you could raise the dead, I would likely believe. That would be incredible evidence of the supernatural, especially if you just poofed these people alive without any equipment.The problem is, you can't do this.

quote:

---

Because evolution over billions of years is a lie of the devil.

---

Why do you degrade the bible to a mere science textbook?Some christian Biologists believe that God's work is written in the story of life on Earth.Why would god make the earth look old if it wasn't? Why would god make genetic trees and mophological trees so amazingly similar if creatures weren't related to each other?

quote:

---

Evidence does not exist, only lots of hot air that keeps changing as scientists continue surmising.

---

So far, you refuse to address any specifics. You only repeat your claims as if doing this will make then true. Now answer my two questions above.

quote:

---

But I can quote what I want, you simply won't let God be sovereign. So, again, what's the point?

---

What we want you to do is stop repeating your wild claims and support your claims with evidence.You say "X can't be true".We ask "Why not, the evidence shows this, and this, and this?"You say, "X is a lie of the Devil!"So you see how ignorant you are looking?It seems pretty clear to me that I would have to stop using my intellect to be the kind of Christian you are.Sorry, not interested in shutting down the brain.

quote:

---

Those who come here thinking there is no God,

---

What does atheism have to do with the change in allele frequencies in a population over time?

quote:

---

and that life came from non-life,

---

What does Abiogenesis have to do with the change in allele frequencies in a population over time?

quote:

---

As far as someone like me, we've already considered the prospect that God perhaps may have used evolution to create, simply because scientists brought the question up. However, examination of the facts by countless experts show a different story than the one we're taught by would-be scientists who refuse to believe in God.

---

Please list the names of, let's say, 10 of these "countless experts", including their area of training.Please also indicate who are the "would-be scientists who refuse to believe in God." Please list names.

quote:

---

There are numerous people (I can name names, and so can you) who left your camp after they got an inside view of evolution.

---

Yes, please name names.

quote:

---

But, of course, you discredit them.

---

Do they do good science? If not, they deserve to be discredited.

quote:

---

There are also those who broke away from my camp to join yours, but their motivation was far different; rebellion against God.
Nothing other than rebellion against God.

---

Why are you continuing to degrade the Bible by reducing it to a mere science textbook?Also, how dare you presume to decide for every Christian on the planet that if they do not follow your particular beliefs and your particular interpretation of certain parts of the bible, that they are "rebelling against God"?Apparently, you must think that you are the only one in the world qualified to judge if someone is a "true Christian" or not.How grotesquely arrogant.

quote:

---

They expect you to "substantiate" almost every thing you say, then when you do, they blast the source as being an evolutionary heretic.

---

Please indicate where anyone has ever called someone an "evolutionary heretic."If we criticize a source it is probably because it is not a peer-reviewed, scientific source.Professional scientists use professional, peer reviewed journals to publish their work. Quotes from popular press books or on-line publications are not scientifically-valid unless they are properly referencing peer-reviewed work. That is because one can say anything one wants to in a popular press book regardless of validity.

quote:

---

(most of the creationist experts are EX-evolutionists who simply found no choice but admit that the theory of evolution has no provable mechanism for changing a microbe into a microbiologist.

---

Actually, most Creationists were never trained experts in scientific fields which deal with Evolution, and a surprising number are not trained in the sciences at all.Almost all are Creationists for religious reasons; almost to a person, they are ALL Christian fundamentalists.In contrast, Biologists, as all scientists are, a very diverse group WRT religious beliefs.That Creationists are very nearly all Fundamentalist Christian, and Biologists are quite diverse in their religious views, is extremely telling, don't you think, Skeptic?

quote:

---

House cats to alley cats and little mice to big mice, yes. But no mechanism for macro-evolution).

---

Actually, the mechanism for "macroevolution" is exactly the same mechanism for microevolution according to Biologists.Can you please explain, in detail what barrier exists that would prevent many, many small changes over time from accumulating to result in large phenotypic differences between "parent" and "daughter" species?

quote:

---

But, like the pharisees, they either won't substantiate anything (just lots of hot air and fallacy-laden arguments)

---

Please list and counter all falaccies made in response to evidence you have presented.

quote:

---

but when they do, their sources of information are always infallible and absolutely irrefutable

---

Not true.Remember, just because you are unable to refute evidence does not make it "irrefutable".

quote:

---

(so be prepared for ad hominem attacks if you dare point out flaws in their arguments!)

---

Please list these flaws, and please list the ad hominem attacks in response to your refutations. Or, you can link to them.

Okay Mr. Toad. When I said everyone comes in with a biast opinion, I meant it. We are all leaning toward one or the other. We all want to show that what we are saying is true. However, here is my question: What happens if YOU are wrong? I know what happens if I am wrong-basically nothing. Plus a worldview that falls apart? Not mine. Not BIblical Christianity. If you wanna talk about worldviews, start a new thread and let's go for it.Also, it seems you are very fast to defend youself...and that reminds me of...a proverb, but I don't remember exactly where it's found, anyone wanna help me on that one?

I explain to a rational God that, if he wanted me to turn my brain off and blind myself, I should have been born without eyes and a brain. Well, not quite. Don't forget there's a whole lot of other religions you don't believe in. How do you know you're not bound for Zoroastrian hell? So, the stakes are as high for you as they are for me - you have just as great a chance to wind up in hell as me. Well, you've been pretty quick to attack me personally. What did I ever do to you? Why all the sudden snotty attitude? Is that how you witness for your God?[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-18-2004][This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-18-2004]

Pascal's Wager is off topic for this thread. Please restrict discussion here to micro-evolution.Pascal's Wager can be taken to a thread in Faith and Belief. I believe there are already many topics there discussing this.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

quote:

---

Okay Mr. Toad. When I said everyone comes in with a biast opinion, I meant it. We are all leaning toward one or the other. We all want to show that what we are saying is true.

---

At the risk of drawing off-topic ire from Admin, I will reply once to this. we can begin a new topic on bias if you wish to continue.I would agree that everyone comes here with some bias. However, there are different kinds of bias, and all bias is not a hinderance or a "bad" thing.The kind of bias that many of the evolutionists here have is bias in favor of the evidence. We go where the evidendce leads, so we are biased towards trusting in the evidence to show us, as clearly as possible, the nature of the Universe.The kind of bias many religious people/Creationists have is the kind that makes them, for example, consider acceptable any evidence that supports what their religious beliefs are before they ever look at any evidence, and unacceptable any evidence that contradicts what they have already decided ahead of timemust be true according to their religion.Do you see how the evidence found in nature leads scientific inquiry, and that Creationists are simply picking and choosing evidence in order to make their ideas look credibly scientific, and then ignore everything else? These are opposites.Certainly, I do not mean to say that all science-mided people are free of "bad bias", but I also think that this kind of "bad bias" is part and parcel of being a Creationist.

You know what guys. Look, I'm done. This is my last post on here. I can't believe how many of you are so freaking arrogant that you think you are so right and we are so wrong. "Rebuke is more effective for a wise man Than a hundred blows on a fool."- Prov 17:10
Look deep into the evidence guys, draw your own conclusions if you wish. I want to leave on a good note, but I also want you to open your eyes a little bit."A man's pride will bring him low, But the humble in spirit will retain honor." -Prov 29:23"He who trusts in his own heart is a fool, But whoever walks wisely will be delivered." -Prov 28:26"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, But he who heeds counsel is wise." -Prov 12:15"In the multitude of words sin is not lacking, But he who restrains his lips is wise." -Prov 10:19Take these words into consideration. If you think it's all a bunch of bull and don't wanna see/hear it, that's fine. However, I hope the strings of some hearts are pulled on. If any one would like to specifically e-mail me and it is constructive, instead of destructive(not saying you have to agree-I just don't want to be told how wrong you think I am) then feel free to e-mail me. For anyone else, I am praying for you.Miss Smartie Pants Yes Um-redhottloser@yahoo.com

That's two run-a-ways today!It hardly makes the creationist camp look all the impressive or good witnesses for Christ when they find the kitchen a bit too warm and run away.

Did you ever stop to think that we come to that conclusion not through arrogance, but through evidence?S.J. Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory is a thorough examination of the scientific theory of evolution for laypersons. It's almost 1500 pages long. And you expect us to just abandon one of the best-confirmed theories of science based on your 23 posts - maybe 600 words, or 2 pages - so far? Now, of course it's not just page length, it's evidence - but there's more evidence on page one of Gould's book than in all of your posts so far. Then you probably should have stopped before you used Biblical quotes to call us all "fools."Oh, and by the way, check out what your Bible says about that:

quote:

---

Matthew 5:22 - but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

---

Hey, I didn't want to be called a fool. Why should we pay any more attention to your wishes than you did to ours?

quote:

---

This is my last post on here. I can't believe how many of you are so freaking arrogant that you think you are so right and we are so wrong.

---

If you think I'm wrong, then show me how I'm wrong.I have been wrong many times in the past and will be in the future, so I welcome correction.What I don't welcome is people who cannot or will not support their claims who then become indignant.Also, in case you hadn't noticed, this is a debate board. Debate occurs when people talk about why they think an opposing viewpoint is incorrect.It seems that you don't like to debate, or find it upsetting, so it's probably good that you take a break to cool down.Hopefully, you will eventually realize that debate and disagreement is natural and healthy when discussing science and you will not become so threatened in the face of discussion.

hey Froggie and Nosy ned and whoever I got a question for you since I learned more about evolution. This topic is about micro or macro evolution.So I see there are changes in allales or genes from one generation to another. But who says it has to be just a little bit at a time. I mean if a girl with two heads can be born that isn't a little bit at a time. And if two heads are better than one then the two heads will be the way things go.So where is there a rule about how small changes have to be? I don't think a pig is going to make a parrot. My cousin was born as a twin with extra toes and teeth. We have midgets. Giants. I see now about evolutioon. But I think it can happen faster too, can't it?

Available evidence indicates that evolution does not normally progress with large steps in a single generation. Evolutionary biology is based on the evidence.Large change can happen in a generation, though it tends to happen more often in plants than in animals; and even then the levels of change are such that creationists would normally say "they are still mice", or "it is still corn". (These are two examples in which fairly significant change has been seen to arise within a generation.Two heads are actually much much worse than one. Drastic change involving an extra head or an extra limb or something like that is nearly always fatal.Extra toes or teeth is not such a major problem; but it is still much more change than would normally arise in a single generation. Macroevolution is about the patterns of change as diversity accumulates, and about processes which impact upon whole species; like extinction events and species sorting and so on. It is not a distinct kind of saltational change that occurs in a generation. By geological standards, evolution can proceed very rapidly; but by the standards of time used in human history, it is very slow.Cheers -- Sylas

It is not necessarily true that the extra head has anything to do with a mutation or genetics at all. For about 4% of births there are difficulties which arise during development. These are purely errors in the development process and not necessarily genetic. (though there may be some genetic component as well).I think Sylas covered it but there isn't any "rule" about size of changes. However, if the change is deleterious then it will be weeded out by selection. Large changes have, I think, a greater chance of be deleterious.You should note that something like half of all pregnancies terminate in the first weeks. I don't think it is known why but it could be that they have things wrong that make them not viable. It is kind of an early selection process.