Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
May 5, 2014 at 1:20 pm (This post was last modified: May 5, 2014 at 1:21 pm by Cyberman.)
(May 5, 2014 at 1:04 pm)LastPoet Wrote: His god is too small.
Indeed.
Carl Sagan, in "Pale Blue Dot", Wrote:How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?” Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.” A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
(May 5, 2014 at 1:35 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: You rev I'm wondering, since what you would called micro evolution is readily observed, what is the mechanism that prevents these changes from accruing?
Show me the evidence that it accrued.
Why? If you read it you wouldn't understand it.
You just keep believing that your god did everything in 6 fucking days. It's all you can handle.
(May 5, 2014 at 1:35 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: You rev I'm wondering, since what you would called micro evolution is readily observed, what is the mechanism that prevents these changes from accruing?
Show me the evidence that it accrued.
I believe steel curtains link in the first reponse does that aptly. However I was not necessarily saying that they do, but rather I was asking if you accept changes with in these species "Micro evolution", then what stops the changes from "piling up" and eventually leading to much bigger changes "Macro evolution"
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
(May 5, 2014 at 6:43 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Well, good thing nobody with an ounce of intellectual integrity gives a damn about what a know-nothing ignoramus thinks then isn't it?
Good luck living in the dark ages, kid. I'm sure a lot of people here will go methodically through the evidence and the structure of their arguments will revolve around charting the current model of evolution as we know it, but we both know that you don't give a shit about learning about anything don't we?
I am open to learning Science, but not working hypothesis that can't get past first base.
No you're not. You've shown that time and again when you post debunked creationist nonsense and then refuse to read the actual science.
Creationism is a claim, I'm not even sure it qualifies as a hypothesis.
Evolution is a fact. It's not only managed to get to first base, it's scored with the chick and is enjoying an aftersex smoke.
(May 5, 2014 at 3:17 pm)Beccs Wrote: Evolution is a fact. It's not only managed to get to first base, it's scored with the chick and is enjoying an aftersex smoke.
And it's ready for another go!
Oh, and Rev -- about those retroviral insertions? Still waiting, champ.
May 5, 2014 at 3:37 pm (This post was last modified: May 5, 2014 at 3:37 pm by Tonus.)
Isn't rasetsu's post pretty much the end of the discussion? It shows that not only did Rev use a very old quote, but it's a misrepresentation of Kerkut's actual statement. And a particularly nasty one, which makes it seem deliberate. I just don't see that there's anything else to discuss if his first post was that thoroughly disingenuous and so easily refuted.
(May 5, 2014 at 10:43 am)rasetsu Wrote:
(May 4, 2014 at 10:18 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: The evolutionist Kerkut defined the “general theory of evolution” as “the theory that living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.” He goes on to say, “The evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.” G. A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (Oxford, UK: Pergamon, 1960), p.157.
Here's the full quote from Kerkut, with your extracts in blue:
Quote:There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the "Special Theory of Evolution" and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "General Theory of Evolution" and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.
So Kerkut wasn't referring to the theory of evolution as commonly understood, which he contrasts as the "Special Theory of Evolution," but rather to an expanded, non-standard definition of his own which includes abiogenesis. So, your second argument is to quote mine and misrepresent the words of a scientist in a way that is dishonest and does not impact the standard definition of evolution in the slightest. That's fucking weak.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
I am open to learning Science, but not working hypothesis that can't get past first base.
No you're not. You've shown that time and again when you post debunked creationist nonsense and then refuse to read the actual science.
Creationism is a claim, I'm not even sure it qualifies as a hypothesis.
Evolution is a fact. It's not only managed to get to first base, it's scored with the chick and is enjoying an aftersex smoke.
No that happened so long ago evolution is now relaying the tale of his conquest to a adult grandkid.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Tune in next month for Argument number 3 - once Rev's pastor or person of similar distinction has told him what it is.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
![[Image: guilmon_evolution_by_davidgtm3-d4gb5rp.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=orig15.deviantart.net%2F1dbf%2Ff%2F2011%2F319%2F3%2F3%2Fguilmon_evolution_by_davidgtm3-d4gb5rp.gif)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
