Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 241 of 284 (344305)
08-28-2006 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by CK
08-28-2006 1:58 PM


Re: Cat Kind
The science will come. We start from what we know and we expect the needed scientific explanations to follow.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by CK, posted 08-28-2006 1:58 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by jar, posted 08-28-2006 2:14 PM Faith has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 242 of 284 (344307)
08-28-2006 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Faith
08-28-2006 12:23 PM


Amount of research...
What do you mean "still?" We are just beginning to put together a new idea and we use some obvious examples for a start.
and
Yeah, I know it looks like major chutzpah but it's not as if I'm alone. Creationists have been studying this stuff for decades.
Well, are you just starting or is there decades of work to review?
It's odd that after decades there doesn't seem to be coherent work to review and discuss. We get the zany pronouncements of the likes of Hovind that other creationists disavow and we get the half formed fuzzy suggestions of others.
I go to AIG and ICR (which I have been, mistakenly perhaps as the major sources of creationist research and views) and see things which are, at best, misleading used to support their ideas. I note that no one can go to AIG or ICR and point out the place where they answer the fundamental point of the correlations threads about dating.
We wait a year and no one shows up here who is wiling and able to debate the issue of the correlations.
What has been going on in these decades?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Faith, posted 08-28-2006 12:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 08-28-2006 2:12 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 243 of 284 (344312)
08-28-2006 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by NosyNed
08-28-2006 2:04 PM


Re: Amount of research...
Well, are you just starting or is there decades of work to review?
We're just starting with the "body plan" idea MJ introduced, which is where the dogs and cats came in. There are plenty of other things to study.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by NosyNed, posted 08-28-2006 2:04 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by NosyNed, posted 08-28-2006 6:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34047
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 244 of 284 (344313)
08-28-2006 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Faith
08-28-2006 2:00 PM


Why Biblical Creationism is doomed from the start
The science will come. We start from what we know and we expect the needed scientific explanations to follow.
And that is exactly why you are doomed to fail.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Faith, posted 08-28-2006 2:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 245 of 284 (344329)
08-28-2006 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Faith
08-28-2006 1:56 PM


Re: Cat Kind
Faith writes:
We have to assume more genes in the earlier varieties of the Kind that were on the ark, a bigger genome. We have to assume that Noah and his family of three sons and their wives had the genetic capacity to be the progenitors of everybody on earth, all the Semites and the Africans and the Europeans and the Chinese and the Indians and the native populations of the Americas. Implies a large genetic ability no longer seen. How this was shown in the genome we don't know.
That is my point. You have to assume a bunch of things, but there is no reason to believe any of those things are true (and many to believe that they aren't). This is not how science works. But that may be how religious dogma works. Easy to conclude that we may be talking about religious dogma, but we certaily are not talking about a new scientific development.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Faith, posted 08-28-2006 1:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 08-28-2006 3:34 PM fallacycop has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 246 of 284 (344336)
08-28-2006 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by fallacycop
08-28-2006 2:52 PM


Re: Cat Kind
Well, if you are going to talk to creationists there is no point in wasting your breath telling us our premises don't meet with your approval. We know they don't. But they are the basis for everything we put together, and it does hold together quite coherently and logically. That in itself ought to be some validation of it. But it doesn't matter. What you call religious dogma is simply truth and science can certainly be built on truth.
Cheers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by fallacycop, posted 08-28-2006 2:52 PM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by ringo, posted 08-28-2006 3:55 PM Faith has replied
 Message 254 by fallacycop, posted 08-28-2006 11:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 489 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 247 of 284 (344344)
08-28-2006 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Faith
08-28-2006 3:34 PM


Re: Cat Kind
Faith writes:
Well, if you are going to talk to creationists there is no point in wasting your breath telling us our premises don't meet with your approval.
The problem is that most creationists (not you) want their tripe to be taught in schools as science. So it certainly is necessary for your premises to meet with the approval of real science.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 08-28-2006 3:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 08-28-2006 4:21 PM ringo has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 248 of 284 (344353)
08-28-2006 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by ringo
08-28-2006 3:55 PM


Re: Cat Kind
The problem is that most creationists (not you) want their tripe to be taught in schools as science. So it certainly is necessary for your premises to meet with the approval of real science.
Well, our PREMISES will never meet with scientific approval of course, given the prejudices against the Bible. That's why we're looking to establish some of their outworkings as science. There's really no point in continuing to bring that up on this forum, though, where we're just a bunch of amateurs who like to think about the concepts, hoping they'll get grounded in science sometime in the future, not expecting scientific approval any time soon.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by ringo, posted 08-28-2006 3:55 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by nwr, posted 08-28-2006 7:10 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 252 by Belfry, posted 08-28-2006 9:40 PM Faith has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 249 of 284 (344406)
08-28-2006 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Faith
08-28-2006 2:12 PM


Re: Amount of research...
So the short time --- "just starting" is in reference to the discussions here.
The "decades" is to the research done by creationists outside of here.
Right?
But you aren't using any of that research? You are going to start all over here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 08-28-2006 2:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6418
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 250 of 284 (344422)
08-28-2006 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Faith
08-28-2006 4:21 PM


prejudice
Well, our PREMISES will never meet with scientific approval of course, given the prejudices against the Bible.
There is no scientific prejudice against the Bible, that I know of. If anything, there is a bias toward it, in that it is considered more important than other ancient texts.
There isn't any idolatry toward the Bible either, at least among scientists.
Edited by nwr, : better title

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 08-28-2006 4:21 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by AdminNosy, posted 08-28-2006 8:53 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 251 of 284 (344459)
08-28-2006 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by nwr
08-28-2006 7:10 PM


Post Titles
Uh, just where in that post nwr are cats mentioned?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by nwr, posted 08-28-2006 7:10 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Belfry
Member (Idle past 5163 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 252 of 284 (344479)
08-28-2006 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Faith
08-28-2006 4:21 PM


anti-biblical?
Faith writes:
Well, our PREMISES will never meet with scientific approval of course, given the prejudices against the Bible.
There's a big difference between "prejudice against" the Bible and a refusal to work on the assumption that Genesis is literally accurate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 08-28-2006 4:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 253 of 284 (344509)
08-28-2006 10:58 PM


Wow
I see this thread was started like 3 days ago and its already up to 17 pages. That's incredible.
I haven't gone through the entire thread, but from what I've seen, it seems to be the age old argument on micro and macro and what does it all mean, what is a 'kind', there are no examples of macro, people keep using micro to explain macro, and so on and so forth.
Why not settle the matter quickly by presenting some actual evidence? There is no evidence that can be given in support of Noah's Ark. The only thing that can be done is to provide feasibility studies, which are all fine and good, but neither present all variables, and neither does it support or defend evolution or creationism. But, it should be abundantly obvious that if macroevolution is merely a magnification of microevolution, the evidence should be plain to see -- so much so that our arguing about it should be trivial.
Instead of the usual harangue and instead of the usual hyperbolic sentiments, such as but not limited to, "There are millions of transitional forms," would somebody provide for the board a legitimate piece of evidence of a macroevolutionary event of speciation?

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by fallacycop, posted 08-28-2006 11:08 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 254 of 284 (344513)
08-28-2006 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Faith
08-28-2006 3:34 PM


Faith writes:
Well, if you are going to talk to creationists there is no point in wasting your breath telling us our premises don't meet with your approval. We know they don't. But they are the basis for everything we put together, and it does hold together quite coherently and logically.
Anything goes in order to get where you want. I wouldn't call that coherent and logical
That in itself ought to be some validation of it. But it doesn't matter. What you call religious dogma is simply truth and science can certainly be built on truth.
Now you are just begging the question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 08-28-2006 3:34 PM Faith has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 255 of 284 (344517)
08-28-2006 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Hyroglyphx
08-28-2006 10:58 PM


Re: Wow
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
would somebody provide for the board a legitimate piece of evidence of a macroevolutionary event of speciation?
The problem is that nobody has given an acceptable definition of what macroevolution is supposed to mean yet. You have to do that before you go aroud asking for a good example of one

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-28-2006 10:58 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by kuresu, posted 08-28-2006 11:21 PM fallacycop has not replied
 Message 257 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-28-2006 11:39 PM fallacycop 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