|
It's quite rare when I'm at a loss for words ... but logic just bolted from the room and trampled me down into the ground on the way out.
| quote: | Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487
You will only ignore it,So why should I even bother? No matter what you say,you still can't prove to me that Macro evolution is true.(even if you think those links explain everything.)
|
Now Nellie, this is the second time you've done this and it's as equally ineffective as your first attempt. Generally, when presenting a thesis or a claim, the norm is to provide evidence to support your claim in order to establish credibility. Otherwise what is the point of you speaking? Are you trying to reassure your own beliefs? Because by no means are you either convincing anybody that you are correct or building up credibility for the case that you are arguing by refusing to provide your evidence. That entire line of reasoning escapes logical reasoning because if everybody is going to "ignore" it to begin with, what's the harm in posting your evidence to satiate our desires? Furthermore, not one single argument or source that you have posted HAS been ignored. Each and every one has been analyzed and criticized to expose the underlying weaknesses that detract from their credibility. If you disagree with the analysis we have provided, why don't you argue the EVIDENCE rather than baselessly reasserting your premise that "macroevolution is false", "creationism is correct", "God did it", etc., etc., etc.
Secondly instead of resorting to the jeuvenille argument that nothing he says can EVER convince you that macroevolution is true, why don't you attack the meat of his argument? You said that there are no transitional fossiles. MisterOpus then provided a long list of transitional fossils. So why don't you discredit his case by going over his list of transitional fossils and TELL us why they are not transitional fossils at all?
I don't know what kind of arguments you won in the past, but the "covering your ears and closing your eyes" defense is not one that will win you any arguments here unless you count utterly frustrating your opponent by being irrational as a win.
| quote: |
I'm not the one having the issue here. I'm not referring to any particular link, what I'm talking about is this theory is so full of holes that it's ridiulous. They aren't getting smaller,and they aren't getting found because Macro evolution is completely false. One species cannot morph,or cannot evolve into the next.
|
Once again, MisterOpus provided a long list of transitional fossils. Please discredit them if you can. And you cannot make an argument by arguing backwards. The fossil evidence supporting the theory of evolution is not false because the premise is "known" to be false. Show us the overwhelming evidence that establishes the falsehood of evolution on its own. The book you listed has been discredited, the links you provided have been discredited ... what is your evidence of the growing "holes" in the theory of evolution? So far not ONE of your sources has withstood peer review. Whether it's because you CAN'T defend your sources or because you simply choose not to, you cannot logically use them to support your case until you do so.
| quote: |
If they have these so called fossils of this crap then show me a picture.
I've already read this stuff.
|
Sigh ... if you had bothered to look at my original posts on page 2, I included all sorts of pretty pictures of the fossil remains.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2684927.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2664541.stm
Dino Family Tree Shows Birds are Related
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2036458.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1858574.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2089873.stm
Now spent about 5 minutes of googling finding these transitional fossils and news articles about them in laymen's terms. If you would like, I can go MUCH more in-depth with scientific journals so you can analyze the data in its entirety yourself. Somehow, I get the impression that you would be uninterested in me providing this data however.
| quote: |
No, That's not my entire case.But, what I'm saying is Finches will throughout the future only be finches, they aren't going to evolve into something else.
|
Sigh, it appears you don't understand evolution. Species do not automatically evolve in order to survive as a rule of law. Evolution is the process whereby species that DO NOT adapt to survive are killed off. One example of such are our cousins the neanderthals ...
| quote: |
Me? Unfair? Naw. Who said I didn't read it? I've already read most the junk you've posted. I know what it's saying. ( there you go again with your condescending attitude. >_< ) I don't need to ask you questions,why would I? I'm not being dishonest. I can assure you. |
If it's junk then demonstrate at how you arrived at that conclusion. And don't use the "it's junk because macro evolution is false" argument. If the theory is false, the evidence should point in that direction. So discredit the evidence ...
| quote: |
No no no, that's not what I'm talking about. Micro evolution, I already explain it but you aren't listening to me.
Take your pinky...ok? Lick it...now,both ears! okies?
Micro evolution is completely different than macro,and I guess I have to explain it once again. Lions,tigers,leppards,domestic cats, they are allllll a part of the feline family. All animals within the feline family are an example of micro evolution. They are all different kinds of cats,but they are all cats!
|
Of course they are all cats because they are all descendants from a common anscestral lineage that was feline. Let's just ignore the word "macro-evolution" for a second. You are not disputing that cats have "micro-evolved" from one species in the family to several correct? So there is a common ancestor correct? Well guess what, the Felidae common ancestor has been linked to the Miacis family of species some 20-30 million years ago. Therefore the Felidae family line "micro" evolved from the Miacis line (a tree climbing animal with retractable claws). Now the Miacidae family line had a number of species in it that had also "micro evolved" into a wide variety of species. Kind of like how lions, tigers, and tiny kitty cats all micro-evolved in the feline family right? Well it just so happens the Miacidae family had a wide variety of species of different sizes, and wouldn't you know it, but dogs, hyenas, weasels, etc., also "micro" evolved from that line as well. So now dogs and cats don't have an evolutionary link to each other but to the SAME COMMON ANCESTOR. I thought MisterOpus explained this already?
| quote: |
One word " Bible ". There's all the proof you need,and beyond. That and I know he didn't, don't be immature.No mocking either.
|
So you, a mere mortal, knows what God would and would not do??? My, my, my, we must think very highly of ourselves to be able to tap into and understand the unlimited boundlessnes of what God would choose to do.
| quote: |
No one gave you the right to criticize me,Or anyone. That's the point.
|
The whole purpose of this forum is to criticize, debate, and argue. If you're looking to keep a journal of your thoughts you've come to the wrong place.
| quote: |
Let's see, Noah..You remeber the happening of Noah? Scientists found fossils of animal and prey sitting together,WAY WAY up there on a mountain,they were trying to avoid the flood.
I keep wanting to say paul,I have no idea why(wathing way to much Dune.) But, Sampson..you do know the story of Sampson and Delilah(sp?) Right?
Well, when Sampson pushed over the pillars, they found the area that happened. The pillars are pushed over.
You remeber when Jesus was hung on the cross, the sky went dark..scientists back in the day recorded that happening,they also recorded the great earthquake too.
Maybe that isn't all about evolution,but that is proof the Bible isn't lying.
|
Sources please? I would very much like to see this "scientific" evidence.
| quote: |
Not physically,no he didn't. Man physically wrote it down, but God wrote it through man.
(actually unicorns existed,but God took them off the earth because he knew man would covet their horn,Just like a rhino,or the Narwhal).) I can't remeber where it was said... They weren't all magical and junk like fairytales say though. The Bible is not the weakest source known to show that God exists.
|
YOu've got to be kidding me ... unicorns??? Well, now I've heard it all. So if God took them off the Earth because man would covet their horns why didn't he take rhinos or elephants?
| quote: |
Impossible. God has always been and always will be.
|
"Me fail english? That's unpossible!"
| quote: |
ooh,Methodist,So strict. :/ so it's college that did it to you then? That happens to a lot of people. :/ Infact,I know a few friends that happened to. (God and Allah are the same person.Just different names.)
|
Yup ... you see what happens when you get an education? What a tragedy.
| quote: |
Yea, it can. Scientists are working with it now.
|
Oh? So what's their progress?
Essentially Nessa, your arguments have consisted of extremely basic refutations that carry almost no weight behind them. When provided with evidence to back a claim, you respond with a simplistic "No I know that that's false", "Macro-Evolution is false", "No it's not", etc. without backing up your claims in any way what's so ever. When prompted to show us your evidence you refuse to do so because we would "ignore" so what would be the point? Frankly it's a tactic that boggles the mind and belies your age/maturity.
___________________
Retro ...
|
) we have entered an age where any force majeure or natural phenomenon including something as trivial as an earthquake can be explained.
