Troll, trollololololol

(July 10, 2014 at 9:47 am)SteveII Wrote: For example, I do not believe in macro-evolution (common ancestor) because the theories are not supported by science.

So, we've got a theory, right? It's called evolution, and it's been confirmed all over the place, to such a degree that arguing over it now would be absurd. And we've confirmed that many of the current species we have today do have ancestry in common with other species in numerous different groupings, including humans and the other great apes.

What we're left with, then, is a whole ton of evidence supporting the idea that life evolves, an additional ton of evidence demonstrating the interconnectedness of life, and a natural inference based on the available evidence that this process extends back. What we don't have is any serious evidence discordant with that claim, nor any evidence of anything happening in the past that might supplant such a claim as the most probable solution.

And yet you're sitting here saying that you don't believe the most probable, supported thing, because the science you're being fed from creation.com tells you it isn't supported.

One wonders exactly how much mainstream science you've looked at, on this issue, before you decided that it's not supported. Now, I'll fully admit there's no silver bullet on this issue, but science doesn't operate on absolute certainty and there's a hell of a lot more support for common ancestry than against it.

(July 10, 2014 at 10:02 am)Esquilax Wrote: One wonders exactly how much mainstream science you've looked at, on this issue, before you decided that it's not supported. Now, I'll fully admit there's no silver bullet on this issue, but science doesn't operate on absolute certainty and there's a hell of a lot more support for common ancestry than against it.

LOL, na....genetics was pretty much the silver bullet Esq. When we talk about the fact of evolution, vs the theory - common descent is the fact. Give em an inch and they'll take a mile.

(July 10, 2014 at 10:07 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(July 10, 2014 at 10:02 am)Esquilax Wrote: One wonders exactly how much mainstream science you've looked at, on this issue, before you decided that it's not supported. Now, I'll fully admit there's no silver bullet on this issue, but science doesn't operate on absolute certainty and there's a hell of a lot more support for common ancestry than against it.

LOL, na....genetics was pretty much the silver bullet Esq. When we talk about the fact of evolution, vs the theory - common descent is the fact.

Hell, even evolution that we see now in viruses and shit, or even smaller animals.

(July 10, 2014 at 9:47 am)SteveII Wrote: Regarding the flood, you all seem to think that is a linchpin argument against the existence of God and I have to prove it. I have no idea if the flood was regional , if the genealogy from Noah was just for the Jewish family tree, how many animals were there or how they dispersed. I will follow the science where it goes. However, there is a difference from following the science to accepting prevailing theories rooted in naturalism. If the YEC theories do not hold up against hard evidence, then they are wrong. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we are to ignore our senses, in fact we should examine our surroundings.

You will follow science "where is goes" but not to the point of "accepting prevailing theories rooted in naturalism?" Honey, ALL prevailing scientific theories are rooted in naturalism. What you are really saying is that you won't believe science if goes so far as to contradict what you believe. That is the core of what is wrong with creationism.

(July 10, 2014 at 9:47 am)SteveII Wrote: For example, I do not believe in macro-evolution (common ancestor) because the theories are not supported by science.

Saying you believe in micro but not macro-evolution is like saying you believe in erosion of river banks, but not river beds.

You keep asking for examples of macro evolution beyond the fossil and genetic record. I have one for you: the dog. We've bred all kinds of dogs from the wolf. And yes they are all the same species now because you can still inter-bred them and produce more dogs. But it a long way from a Chihuahua to a wolf. Eliminate all the dogs larger than a toy poodle but smaller than a German Shepard and what you get is two separate species that can't inter-bred. That is macro evolution.

We share a common ancestor species with chimps, but were that ancestor species alive today neither group could bred with it. All the intermediaries are dead. The only difference with dogs is that we've kept the intermediaries alive.

Let's say I'm editing a book. I randomly microchange a word. Then another. Then another. Then another. And so on and on. What's stopping the book to end up macrochanged?

You really think macro-evolution has been proven? Read this: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html --It doesn't mention God and cite 43 scientific works and quotes dozens of scientist. I am not even saying it is correct in everything it says -- I only point out that it seems macro-evolution is a little ways off from being proven and is certainly not universally accepted by scientist.

The problem with all of you is that you have no other option to believe, so it must be true. Ironically, a theist could be more open to different possibilities than the atheist.

(July 10, 2014 at 12:01 pm)SteveII Wrote: You really think macro-evolution has been proven? Read this: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html --It doesn't mention God and cite 43 scientific works and quotes dozens of scientist. I am not even saying it is correct in everything it says -- I only point out that it seems macro-evolution is a little ways off from being proven and is certainly not universally accepted by scientist.

The problem with all of you is that you have no other option to believe, so it must be true. Ironically, a theist could be more open to different possibilities than the atheist.

What's the mechanism they propose that stops macro evolution from happening?

Perhaps I need to define my terms. I take macro-evolution to mean the evolution of all life from non-life through random mutations and natural selection.

(July 10, 2014 at 12:05 pm)SteveII Wrote: Perhaps I need to define my terms. I take macro-evolution to mean the evolution of all life from non-life through random mutations and natural selection.

The site you linked is about abiogenesis? It doesn't look that way in the slightest. So again: what is the mechanism they propose that prevents macro evolution from happening? Is it like a resetbutton? I mean: is there a set of code in there somewhere that says: If x percent of DNA is changed, revert back to original design or something?