quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Macro evolution is false.Darwin said there are many missing links-Darwin himself. Also,Atheists have proven it false,and proven the existance of God. If you wish to know more, Please do read " The case for faith ". All about an atheist who proved the existance of God,because he was trying so hard to prove there was no God. It's a very interesting book.

I'd really love to know how it's possible to prove that god exists. Yes, I'm a weak (As opposed to the common strong position) atheist (I'm moving towards agnosticism), but I've yet to come across an argument that 'proves' that god does or does not exist.

I'm just going to assume that you're being sarcastic, as the existance of a supreme being has never been proved, in fact, all the arguments that claim to do just that are riddled with logical fallacies and errors.

___________________
Currently Whoring:

• Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
  
• CPU - So It Begins
  
• Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
  

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Macro evolution is false.Darwin said there are many missing links-Darwin himself. Also,Atheists have proven it false,and proven the existance of God. If you wish to know more, Please do read " The case for faith ". All about an atheist who proved the existance of God,because he was trying so hard to prove there was no God. It's a very interesting book.

How is macro-evolution false might I ask? I welcome a challenge ... you up for this one misteropus?

___________________
Retro ...

Already on it Occ.

quote:

Originally posted by tathi Evolution: The Big Hoax is particularly funny http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/#evolution

Oh FFS, Kent fucking Hovind? When are fundies going to realize this guy is a crack?

This is really disheartening.

quote:

[b]Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487[b] All I can say is you got it coming to you,and it isn't going to be pretty.

Are you familiar with Pascal's Wager?

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html


Hmm,To add to that link about evolution...

Macro evolution is false.[/QUOTE]

I stand corrected. THIS is really disheartening. Despite the fact that there is no difference between "micro" and "macro" (creationist terms), I'm sure your next sentences will enlighten your argument.

quote:

Darwin said there are many missing links-Darwin himself.

The fact that you use this false claim only proves how little you know or even understand anything about evolution. In case you didn't know or understnad, a great many of those "missing links" have been discovered since Darwin. Evolution theory has also been modified and adjusted accordingly to modern discoveries and has been very well predicted with the help of genetics.

Here's some more info. that may help you with transitional fossils:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...ions.html#proof

Actually this one is a little better and more informative:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

As for "Macro", the proper term is "speciation", and that has been observed:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Here's a great overall summary on evidence for "Macroevolution":

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

quote:

Also,Atheists have proven it false,and proven the existance of God. If you wish to know more, Please do read " The case for faith ". All about an atheist who proved the existance of God,because he was trying so hard to prove there was no God. It's a very interesting book.

You'd be very hard pressed to find too many atheists that would agree. You are basing your statement off of one so-called former "atheist" (I have my doubts that he was an atheist in the first place. The book you refer to is called "The Case For Christ", by Lee Strobel. The fact that you did not know the name leads me to believe that you haven't even read it. Well I have, and it leaves much to be desired. Strobel was an investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune, who's wife was a Christian while he was an atheist. So in order to convince himself that his wife had the "correct" viewpoint, he did a series of interviews and investigations to see if there was any facts that supported Jesus actually being alive.

To make a long story short, I found his interviews and investigations incredibly suspect. There were a number of people he interviewed that I found incredibly laughable; for example he interviewed a materials science PhD about evolution instead of an evolutionary biologist or even a geneticist. Additionally, Strobel did not interview any critics of Christianity, even though he openly attacked them at will. For a supposed "skeptical" investigative journalist, that is incredibly one-sided an very unprofessional. Anyone who wants to understand a subject should investigate all angles on that subject, including the criticisms, which given the facts of those criticisms cannot be ignored.

If you care to read the other side of the story on Strobel, here's a few criticisms of his work:

http://www.bidstrup.com/apologetics.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...er/strobel.html

http://home.teleport.com/~packham/strobel.htm

http://human.st/jesuspuzzle/CTVExcerptsIntro.htm

(this last website is an exerpt from Doherty's book, "The Jesus Puzzle". I highly recommend this book to you, if you ever consider reading an alternative viewpoint).

Let's be clear: I have absolutely no problem with your faith. However, I do have a problem mixing faith and the supernatural with that of science and the natural. One can be tested and supported with evidence, the other cannot. It would do you credit to keep these separate in the future. Many Christians have. Many theists have as well (including myself).

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Hmm,To add to that link about evolution... Macro evolution is false. I stand corrected. THIS is really disheartening. Despite the fact that there is no difference between "micro" and "macro" (creationist terms), I'm sure your next sentences will enlighten your argument. The fact that you use this false claim only proves how little you know or even understand anything about evolution. In case you didn't know or understnad, a great many of those "missing links" have been discovered since Darwin. Evolution theory has also been modified and adjusted accordingly to modern discoveries and has been very well predicted with the help of genetics. Here's some more info. that may help you with transitional fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...ions.html#proof Actually this one is a little better and more informative: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html As for "Macro", the proper term is "speciation", and that has been observed: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html Here's a great overall summary on evidence for "Macroevolution": http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

And the most recent fossil findings of macro-evolution pertaining to one area ... birds and dinosaurs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2684927.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2664541.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2036458.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1858574.stm

etc., etc., etc.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by tathi lol your being sarcastic right?

No. I'm serious. I have proof against Macro evolution, from tapes,from books and from biologists.

___________________
~Nessa

quote:

Originally posted by arctic I'd really love to know how it's possible to prove that god exists. Yes, I'm a weak (As opposed to the common strong position) atheist (I'm moving towards agnosticism), but I've yet to come across an argument that 'proves' that god does or does not exist. I'm just going to assume that you're being sarcastic, as the existance of a supreme being has never been proved, in fact, all the arguments that claim to do just that are riddled with logical fallacies and errors.

I'm not being sarcastic. So,do you want to read this book that prooves Him real,or not?

___________________
~Nessa

quote:

Originally posted by occrider How is macro-evolution false might I ask? I welcome a challenge ... you up for this one misteropus?

Micro evolution is accurate.

But,Macro evolution is false,There isn't any possible way we can change from one spieces to the next. I've read about evolution,and it's many missing links. I can tell you how this debate will end up though,If you'd like me to that is.

___________________
~Nessa

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I stand corrected. THIS is really disheartening. Despite the fact that there is no difference between "micro" and "macro" (creationist terms), I'm sure your next sentences will enlighten your argument.

No, Macro and micro aren't the same. They are different. Micro are small changes within the same species, Macro is like that whole ape into man issue. There is a huge difference.

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0737_Macro_vs._Micro_Evol.html

This is a better way of explaining it.

___________________
~Nessa

please nelly do go on

this is an old article i have been wanting to bring up for a while but havn't had the time nor did i want to create a thread solely for it, i think all the science nerds here will find it interesting:
http://www.smh.com.au/media/2003/11...8674381518.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003...8674378878.html

what do you think of the bifurcation between homo sapien and homo technicus, and the ethical problems that may come with it? Does this intelligent design show how godlike humanity is?

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 No, Macro and micro aren't the same. They are different. Micro are small changes within the same species, Macro is like that whole ape into man issue. There is a huge difference. http://www.forerunner.com/forerunne...Micro_Evol.html This is a better way of explaining it.

Oh goodie. Vague semi-scientific statements establishing the falsity of evolution utilizing texts dating back to 1977, 1985, and 1985. Even if one were to take that brief treatise to heart, your claim that macro-evolution is false is a fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam. This excites me coming from a theist no less!!!!




Weeellll let's just say I do back flips for good irony such as this. At best your reference makes a case for the lack of proof and as we both should know, the lack of proof is not proof *COUGH* god *COUGH*

Now then that point aside let's go into your source and examine a key point that it is making:

quote:

When Did the Fish Sprout Legs? When one examines the historical record of life, we find the absence of transitional forms between the major life groups such as fish and amphibians or reptiles and birds. The fossil record has failed to yield the host of transitional forms demanded by the theory of macro-evolution. Rather, the fossils show an abrupt appearance of very distinct groups of animals. Take, for example, the supposed"fish-to-amphibian" transition. The general assumption has been that the earliest amphibians evolved from the order of fish, the Rhipidistia. However, there are major differences between the earliest assumed amphibians, the Ichtyostega, and its presumed fish ancestor. The differences are not simply a few small bone changes but are enormous structural differences as can be seen in Figure 1. The first amphibian had well-developed fore- and hind limbs which were fully capable of supporting terrestrial motion. The transitions between the two are strictly hypothetical, and no transitional fossils have ever been found ... only imagined and artistically drawn. The mechanism for the supposed macro-evolution of the fish to the amphibian is purely hypothetical.

You must have missed my last source to the transitional specimen of the bird/dinosaur unearthed in China, but let's look at one of the earliest transitional phases, the poorest preserved in fossil record, the move from sea to dry land. I assume your source was referring to the 20 million year gap in fossil records known among scientist's as "Romer's gap" where on the one end of the gap, we have fully functioning terrestial creatures walking about, and on the other end we have paddle-like feet for swimming? Well luckily, just such a species has emerged in 2002 to have characteristics that describe it as the "first walker." Pederpes finneyae as it is called, is the first known tetrapod to possess feet that were angled slightly forward to enable walking. Previous tetrapod feet were angled backwards to enable swimming. Furthermore, crude bone plates in the fossil are indicative of a primitive pelvis and femurs ... a feauture not found in fish.

Mr. Pederpes



I won't bore you with a scienctific journal article but here's a regular news article ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2089873.stm

Now going back to what Misteropus was really saying when there was no difference between Micro/Macro evolution, is this simply another example of "micro"evolution? Another individual species god created that is pretty damn close to the other species but juuuussssttt doesn't cross the species barrier? Unfortunely that argument can continue ad nauseum at which point it would be pointless to continue this argument as a whole since it would transcend the bounds of logic and rationality.

My prediction ... in another 100 years or so, the church will accept the theory of evolution as it applies to all creatures EXCEPT humans. Hubris reigns supreme in God's chosen.

Here's an interesting fun fact for everyone ... does anyone know the year in which the church officially adopted the heliocentric theory?












1822! Darwin has a few more years to go I'm afraid.

___________________
Retro ...

You know, it still surprises me when an individual claims that they truly do believe that God is the creator of all.

Very nice post Occ. However, it's probably falling on blind eyes (I was goign to say "deaf ears", but considering how we are on the internet...). I do believe I remember woahnellie from an argument a long time ago. Even with significant proof and data, she refused to cave on her beliefs.

___________________
aka Tits McGee
aka Chesty LaRue
aka Busty St. Claire

Aaaahhhh christian-baiting - the sport of kings

Talking about that whole evolution / non-evolution thing in the context of trying to get fundamentalist christians to defend their faith, is such a waste of time ... evolution theory is much like christianity in that it relies on people making baseless suppositions as to what did or didn't happen millions of years ago. You're talking their own language.

The way to make fundamentalists see what shit they are shovelling, is the 'fruits of the spirit' argument ... bring it into the present, ask them for proof that they are happier than non believers or those of other religions. It's one of their central beliefs and of course they can't do it because most of them are, at the core, very very small minded and frightened individuals. Dig into it for a few hours with them and you'll touch some REAL sore nerves I guarantee

Anyway back to the thread topic ... check THIS shit out

www.godhatesfags.com

___________________
Kia's Sig-o-matic
-------------
Insert your favourite jap car here
Insert partially dressed bimbo here
Select auto placement of your little Gatecrasher lion left/right/top/bottom
----------
List your 100 top DJs / producers / clubs here
Add URL for your latest dodgy fruity loops production here