Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Anomalocaris]

you do realize those of your links that didn't come strictly from your ilk does say what you claim they say, right? Not only are you a moron, you are an utterly dishonest and overreaching moron.

[lucent]

you do realize those of your links that didn't come strictly from your ilk does say what you claim they say, right? Not only are you a moron, you are an utterly dishonest and overreaching moron.

You're saying that this:

THE GIST
Microfossils of bacteria living 3.4 billion years ago were found in Australia.
Earth had no oxygen at the time the bacteria existed.
The finding from a remote region of Western Australia lends hope that life has existed on Mars.

http://news.discovery.com/space/microfos...10821.html

isn't debunked by this?:

(PhysOrg.com) -- It appears that the supposed oldest examples of life on our planet -- 3.5 billion-year-old bacteria fossils found in Australian rock called Apex Chert -- are nothing more than tiny gaps in the rock that are packed with minerals.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-over...earth.html

Perhaps you need glasses?

[reverendjeremiah]

You obviously don't know what macroevolution is if you think it is a "fundy concept". That just shows further shows your ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

And my post is original, because I lifted it off myself. I didn't steal anything, those are my own words.

Did you read the article? Biologists have not used this terminology for over 60 years. Posting that a scientist use the term in 1927 is only a statement of fact, not a statement of modern relevance.

If you wish for me to extend modern relevance to Christianity, then you MUST extend modern relevancy to Biology... and by bringing up "macro evolution" you are saying "You will discuss modern Christianity with me, but I will insist that Biology be discussed era 1940's"

This is why they use "allele frequencies" now. If you actually withheld your judgements and read this material, and let the evidence determine the answer, then you would understand the basic mechanism of Natural selection.

By suggesting that "micro evolution" works, but not "macro evolution" is the same as saying "Evolution is a fact". It is also the same as saying "Sure, a person can walk a mile, but walking 100 miles is impossible" or "Sure, someone can change a little bit, but all of those little changes do not make big changes to someone over a long length of time. that person is still basically the same"

Now, I am sure you feel all superior and everyothing, flaunting your pre made words here and there, but nothing you are doing or saying is convincing me.

If you want to convince me, then get your work published in a scientific publication, and let it run the gauntlet. If your science holds up and it passes the gauntlet, then, and ONLY then, will I take you as anything more than just a troll.

[lucent]

You obviously don't know what macroevolution is if you think it is a "fundy concept". That just shows further shows your ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

And my post is original, because I lifted it off myself. I didn't steal anything, those are my own words.

Did you read the article? Biologists have not used this terminology for over 60 years. Posting that a scientist use the term in 1927 is only a statement of fact, not a statement of modern relevance.

If you wish for me to extend modern relevance to Christianity, then you MUST extend modern relevancy to Biology... and by bringing up "macro evolution" you are saying "You will discuss modern Christianity with me, but I will insist that Biology be discussed era 1940's"

This is why they use "allele frequencies" now. If you actually withheld your judgements and read this material, and let the evidence determine the answer, then you would understand the basic mechanism of Natural selection.

By suggesting that "micro evolution" works, but not "macro evolution" is the same as saying "Evolution is a fact". It is also the same as saying "Sure, a person can walk a mile, but walking 100 miles is impossible" or "Sure, someone can change a little bit, but all of those little changes do not make big changes to someone over a long length of time. that person is still basically the same"

Now, I am sure you feel all superior and everyothing, flaunting your pre made words here and there, but nothing you are doing or saying is convincing me.

If you want to convince me, then get your work published in a scientific publication, and let it run the gauntlet. If your science holds up and it passes the gauntlet, then, and ONLY then, will I take you as anything more than just a troll.

Jeremiah, this is getting sad. First you called macroevolution a fundy concept. Now you're saying it is outdated. How about you actually do some research and figure out what you're talking about before your correct me? Macroevolution is still in use today:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev...tion.shtml

"An historic conference..The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying micro-evolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution...the answer can be given as a clear, No.

Francisco Ayala, major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the United States said: 'small changes do not accumulate'"

Science
v.210 11/21/80
3/12/94

There is no proof of one species changing into another. Your store is an infinite amount of miles away because it has never once been observed happening. There are natural limits to the change within species. This is why you won't find any one inch horses or 50 foot tall gerbils. They have been breeding fruit flies for thousands and thousands of generations and have never produced a non-fruit fly. They have millions of generations of bacteria and have never produced another kind of bacteria. In fact, they have found blue green bacteria (supposedly) over a billion years old and it is exactly the same as we find today. That alone should tell you that macroevolution is a fairy tale.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk9wmQP7SdM

Allele frequencies refers to gene frequencies:

Allele frequency or Gene frequency is the proportion of all copies of a gene that is made up of a particular gene variant (allele). In other words, it is the number of copies of a particular allele divided by the number of copies of all alleles at the genetic place (locus) in a population. It can be expressed for example as a percentage. In population genetics, allele frequencies are used to depict the amount of genetic diversity at the individual, population, and species level. It is also the relative proportion of all alleles of a gene that are of a designated type.

And micro and macro evolution refers to changes in gene frequencies, either within a population or above the species level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

Microevolution is the changes in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population.[1] This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow, and genetic drift.

[reverendjeremiah]

HOLY CRAP... you are right!

Evolution is bullcrap...and that means Jesus is King.

Praise Jesus..please forgive me forever doubting you. I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior

[tackattack]

I will review this thread in it's entirety and post a formal debate tonight if all parties are still wishing to have a formal debate and I find here within the purpose and if it is to be a formal debate. Are lucient and revj still in agreeance on having a formal debate?

We'll do it in standard debate format with four rounds..opening, 2 rebuttals, and closing.

RevJ will be taking the position of the theist with beliefs non-denominational and a trinitarian, as well as a bible literalist and a young earth creationist, original sin, the fall, the life death and resurrection, substitutionary atonement, the second coming, judgement day, heaven and hell as attained from http://100prophecies.org/christianity.htm

lucient will be taking the position of the atheist

The posting times will be one week with an open structured question session after the close, unless the participants would prefer to save questions for a separate discussion thread. If you still agree to the debate, please post an affirmative response with a projected start time for your openers.

Thank you Tack..I'm still up for the debate. I'll have my opening statement ready by tonight or tomorrow at the latest

I will post around..oh 7:00 pm tonight, which will be 6 and 1/2 hours from the times stamp on this post.

I will post an introduction (for both parties and the debate) with start dates and times for each round after one of the admin's answers my question about condemned posting rights. Wouldn't want to start a debate and one of the proponents can't post their arguments. I will give all responses due by Wed. Morning 7:30 and the standard timezone will be US EST. One week per round, no other debaters. Any cancellation, and some initial rules on what I will moderate for I will state. After the conclusion, we'll open it up to questions, I'll open a separate discussion thread for the community members for the debate.

[reverendjeremiah]

Atheists are going to get pummeled by my arguments!!!

[tackattack]

Rev, what do you mean by moderate the debate?
Can't any of the mods do this?

He requested a debate moderator. A forum moderator has nothing specifically to do withthe former. A debate moderator creates the debate thread, creates a discussion thread, moderates audience participation if desired, introduces the individuals, sets the rules for posting, keeps it on track, keeps the timeline, delcares the debate over, etc.

It still requires the forum admins to grant debaters (and in this case the moderator too) permission to post in the thread. That's the only thing we're waiting for. As I've submitted the request for the 3 of us to have permission to the sub-forum, I'm assuming with lucent's posting priveleges in check there is probably a discussion going on backstage about this. Once I have authroization to post we'll get it started.

[fr0d0]

Late to the party... just wanna say RevJ: Great idea for the debate: taking opposite sides. Genius

[The Grand Nudger]

A before B Lucent. Your god didn't perform any miracles, because neither your god nor miracles exist.