Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Quadrivium

You are STILL harping on BS semantics?

Nope, You keep bringing it up. I even said we could agree to disagree.

In order to refute a scientific theory, you either have to show the evidence to be wrong, or provide an alternate explanation backed by empirical testing and evidence as Colin asked for. Have you done either of these? NOPE.

I can't believe how downright silly and pedantic you are being here. Clearly something has happened to you. You asked for the best evidence, I gave it, you whined that it is too much evidence and you only want one piece. Then when I gave you the option to hand pick any one of them you wanted, you completely ignored it.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Micro vs Macro.
Macroevolution has never been observed in a lab.
The evolutionist, however, will tell you that it has been observed because Macroevolution is microevolution on a grander scale.

Complete nonsense. The process is EVOLUTION, and the mechanisms for micro and macro are IDENTICAL. Macro is just more time and hence more accumulated changes. LMAO @ this old tireless strawman of evolution directly from Kent Hovind.

You are wrong again bud...
One can be scientifically proven (micro) the other (macro) is taken more on faith than evidence.

And I would like to admit:

I WAS WRONG!

I see now that you have not changed and I am apologize for insinuating that you had.
It seems you have always been this way. I just got blinded by one post from you and thought you had an open mind.
I see now I was wrong.
Thanks.
Quad.

ETA:
Any comment on the link I provided in my last post?

I'm confused now.

Am I the limb of a whale?

originally posted by: Quadrivium
You are wrong again bud...
One can be scientifically proven (micro) the other (macro) is taken more on faith than evidence.

Completely false. Evolution is one process that has been proved. The only difference between the 2 is time. Claiming micro evolution has been proved but not macro is like saying somebody could walk a mile but not walk ten miles given more time. It's extremely naive and shortsighted. It's an argument straight from Kent Hovind, the world's biggest fraud.

Any comment on the link I provided in my last post?

Which one and what is the context of such?

Any comment on any evidence that I posted for you?

a reply to: Barcs

I told you before about my hypothesis on the purpose of evolution. The purpose is survival. Life was given all the information it needed to survive.
When the environment changes or there is increase competition for a food source, life will adapt. It is an involuntary change. The body senses a change on a molecular level and starts adapting accordingly.
Your response at the time:

I disagree with the notion that mutations are voluntary, or a result of the body reacting to the environment. No scientific study has ever suggested that. Some mutations are small, they aren't noticed for thousands of generations until they combine with other mutations. They aren't just one-lifetime changes that are determined by a consciousness. If that were the case, I'd expect a lot more big changes, rather than tiny changes that add up over hundreds of thousands of years.

From a non scientific perspective, I do like that idea. I agree that we have a lot more control over our own bodies than many folks realize. The brain is incredibly powerful, but I'm not convinced it would choose so many small insignificant mutations that eventually make a big difference over millions of generations. You'd also have to consider the evolution of bacteria, viruses, and other microscopic organisms that are not conscious and do not have a brain. How does it work in this case. What would be the actual mechanism for replicating the new genetic code if not causes by one of the other factors? I'll admit that this is a pretty interesting hypothesis, however. Do you have any reading material I could check out?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Even though I didn't have anything solid to back up my hypothesis, at the time, you still showed interest. I have always remembered that post and I admired you for it.
A short while back I ran across a paper and I thought of you and this thread (well part 1). Then, oddly enough, Akragon started the thread back up with part 2.
The paper is here, if you would like to give it a go.

The only thing real about the evolution theory is that no matter how hard you believe it, believing it doesn't make it real.

Don't take my word for it.

The irony of what you say is completely lost on people of faith like you. It really does make me laugh!

a reply to: TerraLiga

It's nice to laugh.

Thank you for the free entertainment.

In all seriousness, neither of us is going to persuade the other to believe the other’s point of view. I respect that you have had a look at the options before you and have made a choice. Of course, I think you made the wrong choice, but I don’t get a prize for persuading you otherwise, so I won’t.

Good luck with your god. I know you are looking forward to your death to start living, but excuse me while I live my life in wonder and amazement at the natural world.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

Good luck with your god. I know you are looking forward to your death to start living, but excuse me while I live my life in wonder and amazement at the natural world.

Your perception of the Christian philosophy is twisted. Heaven is at hand, waiting for us to find it here on earth. Just because you heard some hypocritical pastors say some nonsense doesn't mean you should ignore the treasure waiting in your house.

a reply to: cooperton

To be fair, your perception of how science works is even more twisted.

One theological individual to another. I don't see your heaven at hand. I see another day on the wheel. I don't see your path to be any more worthy than the hundreds of others.

What I do see, is that you don't understand science, or you are deliberately misrepresenting it.

a reply to: Barcs

Any comment on any evidence that I posted for you?

talkorigins.com...
Ha Ha, Proof that "talk origins" is a made for profit organization.

biologywise.com...
Mutation does not equal evolution as you stated in another thread.

en.wikipedia.org...
This is the the opening statement to this wikipedia "This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness."

humanorigins.si.edu...
Artist renditions of what they believe (faith) our predecessors looked like.

en.wikipedia.org...
All examples of microevolution. Flies ore still flies, viruses are still viruses etc.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
The first and last pages were unimpressive. I will look further, when time permits, as there are hints that there maybe something worth commenting on in-between.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

To be fair, your perception of how science works is even more twisted.

One theological individual to another. I don't see your heaven at hand. I see another day on the wheel. I don't see your path to be any more worthy than the hundreds of others.

What I do see, is that you don't understand science, or you are deliberately misrepresenting it.

Maybe you're looking in the wrong place.

a reply to: Quadrivium

I strongly doubt it. See I've repeatedly stated here I am a deeply spiritual person. I just don't share that. But I apocalyptic Abrahamic cultists, always insist they are right. But can't prove it. So I'm challenging that.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

I strongly doubt it. See I've repeatedly stated here I am a deeply spiritual person. I just don't share that. But I apocalyptic Abrahamic cultists, always insist they are right. But can't prove it. So I'm challenging that.

As we all do my friend. That is why it's called Faith.
We all question (except for Evolutionist, their faith is STRONG).

a reply to: Quadrivium

I'm not your friend neighbour. I understand gnosis and eídein. However, the Abrahamic cultists here sell their faith as the only faith.

Evolution is from eídein, and is thus based on testable data. It is not, no matter how you try neighbour, a faith basde thing. You do see social darwinism in a lot of the Abrahamic cults however, despite what their little carpenter taught.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

I'm not your friend neighbour. I understand gnosis and eídein. However, the Abrahamic cultists here sell their faith as the only faith.

Evolution is from eídein, and is thus based on testable data. It is not, no matter how you try neighbour, a faith basde thing. You do see social darwinism in a lot of the Abrahamic cults however, despite what their little carpenter taught.

Friend, you are wrong again.
Evolution can be whatever we make it to be and to some it is a religion. That is hard for some people to swallow because they have a very narrow way of thinking.

You see, science is a man made thing. It is the way that MAN tries to learn and understand what he sees around him. Nature does not change, just our view of nature as we learn and discover new things.
It is very much faith based. You have faith that the current outlook on Evolution is correct.
It is faith based because there is no possible way you can know for sure.
You may say: "Well it is the best explanation that we have on what we see". It is still faith based because we don't know that IT JUST IS.
End of story.
Thanks for playing friend.

a reply to: Quadrivium

You start with an absolute. As if, only you have the answers. I as a polytheist and a scientist can't possibly have any. Not in your restrictive little world view.

Science studies the natural world (the universe). If it studies something you claim is created (with no proof) of a single omisomething being. Then it studies the workings of that being. I don't beleive in a single omisomething being. I believe in hundreds of gods.
So no, science is not faith based. Because it WILL (and DOES) change its theories, when more compelling data is found. It is honest about that. But your faith? No its absolute, and screw the facts.

Data is data. Anyone can interpret it. If they take the time.

Its not end of story, because you shall reply. You can't help it. So prove that your little desert war god, is the supreme being above all. Prove your little carpenter is unique among the dozens of dying and reborn godlings. I bet you can not.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

You start with an absolute. As if, only you have the answers. I as a polytheist and a scientist can't possibly have any. Not in your restrictive little world view.

Science studies the natural world (the universe). If it studies something you claim is created (with no proof) of a single omisomething being. Then it studies the workings of that being. I don't beleive in a single omisomething being. I believe in hundreds of gods.
So no, science is not faith based. Because it WILL (and DOES) change its theories, when more compelling data is found. It is honest about that. But your faith? No its absolute, and screw the facts.

Data is data. Anyone can interpret it. If they take the time.

Its not end of story, because you shall reply. You can't help it. So prove that your little desert war god, is the supreme being above all. Prove your little carpenter is unique among the dozens of dying and reborn godlings. I bet you can not.

You are just a dishonest person. How can anyone take you serious?
Again, why do you assume my faith of choice? Where have I ever claimed my faith or my God on this thread?
Unlike what you claim, I actually don't mention my faith in these threads. People like you, with no other rebuttal, like to try and use it as a weapon.

So no, science is not faith based. Because it WILL (and DOES) change its theories, when more compelling data is found. It is honest about that.

Hmmmm.... I wonder who it was that said "Evolution Just Is. End of story!"
Oh! that was you, lol, you are a hypocrite.
You don't understand philosophy or human nature.
You are out of your league.
You get too emotional when you think someone is threating your religion, and you try to attack, thinking you have the other person pegged.
Childish.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Ooo look one of those claims. You will need to prove my dishonesty neighbour.

I don't need to assume your faith. Your posting has revealed it. You are Abrahamic . You have cited creationist dogma. I don't need to assume anything. I'm a researcher, I researched your posting here. The conclusion and in your OWN words. You are a Christian who does not go to church.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum You are part of the Abrahamic branch of human spirituality.

One is not limited to just this thread, to research afteral.

So the dishonest would be yours, as you are apparently trying to deny, following the God of Abraham.

Further you are using the fallacy of implied emotion in the written word. You can't prove my emoptional state, thus you are making it up.

On top of this, you think my religion is being threatened here? By this I can only assume you think my religion is Science? Its my Day job. My religion is called *Senistrognata (“Ancestral Customs” in reconstructed proto-Celtic), it is polytheistic, it is anamistic, it has ancestor worship. But its not science. No I'm a chemist and a Bioinformaticist by day.

So again you are the dishonest one here.

As for understanding philosophy and human nature? Being out of my league? Nah. The P in my PhD stands for Philosophy.

Nice try neighbour, but no cigar.

The one who is out of their league here would be you. You can't debate the science, so you attack the man. However, that would be human nature for someone in a position of weakness, such as yourself.

Slan leat

a reply to: TerraLiga

Good luck with my god also.