http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=800

And look at me, I actually attempted to have a discussion with one of them I should known better, must be the age also all with reading glasses sneaking up on me.

Denis, I never argue with any of you therefore I should have know better. I’m going back to my 3 legged dog and lactose intolerant wife.

“I learned my lesson well, you can’t please everybody so ya got to please youself” Nelson

No. Great Danes and Yorkies all contain the same features, the difference being size and proportion. The issue with the e-coli is that it evolved a new feature that no e-coli possesses. Is a creature that looks like a dog, but eats aluminum, a dog? How about one that has six legs, is that creature a dog? Exactly how different do they have to be to curb your enthusiasm to move the goalposts? Are you looking for a croc-o-duck?

“Look here, another explanation of…”

Oh.

Crap.

You’re a fundamentalist Christian creationist. Damn. I have to hand it to you man, you sucked me in hook line and sinker. Well done.

I really need to trust my instincts more, but I just have this optimistic view of human nature that makes me vulnerable to this kind of Unbiased Debater act. Plus I’m out of practice, I haven’t been arguing with theists online for years, or I would have seen through your performance right off the bat.

But no excuses, you got me. You got me good. Kudos!

My hat’s off to you, have fun! :-)

Again, you seem to have no concept here. Plain and simple, it is still bacteria. That is called a mutation on a mico scale and is observed all the time. Great Danes vs Yorkies? I suppose lactose intolerant individuals are a new species?

Look here, another explanation of this, not proven, that contradicts your article. More speculation…. http://creation.com/observations-of-evolution-point-to-an-ingenious-designer

“Alien technology is interfering with the studies and observations in the here and now, and forcing the results it wants!”

SO now you are making up a new unsupported accusation? DO you have proof? I have made up nothing, I am the skeptic..remember?

“We can’t seem to observe a god, so we don’t use it in our explanations.”

Way off track again. Neither have I……then again how do you know he hasn’t been observed? How would you know if he had been? What would you look for?

“It’s pretty lame to construct a claim that guarantees you won’t be around to accept the humiliation if you’re wrong.

Humiliation if I am wrong? C’mon I picked the Michigan Notre Dame game wrong tis past week! I don’t take this nearly as seriously as you. You get the evidence and I’ll join the rank an file. I have the field, therefore I am not too concerned.

Incorrect. Macroevolution has been observed. Escherichia coli was observed to evolve an entirely new feature wherein it could utilize citrate as a carbon source. This is detailed at:
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.abstract

In addition, the observation of the fossil record is a forensic examination of the changes in populations of life forms over time. If you are prepared to abandon the entire concept of forensics, you are welcome to, but I will not follow you into that darkness.

Indeed, technically every observation is a forensic examination. If we observe an event, it happened in the past. For instance, light takes time to travel from any event to our eyes, and be re-constructed into the image we see. It is the same with any observation to a greater or lesser extent. So the difference between a paleontological study and a crime-scene forensic examination is quantitative in nature, not qualitative. They are both a reconstruction of past events utilizing current evidence.

“We study, test and observe gravity in the here and now. Huge advantage.” Not so! Alien technology is interfering with the studies and observations in the here and now, and forcing the results it wants! See how well Making Something Up works? It can explain anything, provide an ad-hoc rationalization for any insane idea.

No, Time, chance, and selection explain it all. And we can observe time, chance, and selection. We can’t seem to observe a god, so we don’t use it in our explanations. The moment science does observe a god in action, it will have to accommodate and include that new entity in its explanations.

Sorry, the courageous stance comment was a sarcastic rejoinder meant to highlight the idea that it’s pretty lame to construct a claim that guarantees you won’t be around to accept the humiliation if you’re wrong. That’s often seen as cowardly, or insincere.

Really?, neither has macoeveolution but you take it as fact. That is quite a leap for something that has been observed. You don’t have a simple understanding of the observable vs. interpreted.

“gravity is due to alien gravity generators”

Once again you fail to understand. We study, test and observe gravity in the here and now. Huge advantage.

“Then it’s a good thing that the universe happens to be astronomical, and the time frame allows for the improbable.”

Oh, yes I forgot time & chance expalin all. Sounds much like “God did it” to me. Once again, mere specualtion.

“A century from now, eh? That’s a courageous stance.”

Why? The existing theories have no real substance. You take macroeeavolution and I’ll take the field. Is it a bet?

“You have forced naturlstic preconceptions on the evidence which science must do.” No, I have not forced a naturalistic preconception on the evidence. The fact is that no supernatural mechanism has presented itself. If we regularly observed a god creating life ex-nilio, a god would constitute a reasonable and scientific explanation. But such things have not been observed.

We do not presume a supernatural explanation for events for the same reason we do not, for instance, assume the naturalistic explanation that gravity is due to alien gravity generators installed in the core of all planets and stars. We have not observed an alien gravity generator, and so that explanation is not on the table. That does not mean we force an anti-alien-gravity-generator preconception on the issue, because the moment we DO observe an alien gravity generator, that explanation will then be on the table.

“…while the propabilities of time and random chance bringing about such complexity are astronomical and improbable.” Then it’s a good thing that the universe happens to be astronomical, and the time frame allows for the improbable.

“I understand the theories need and its limits.” Is that really for you to say? You have not shown that you understand it.

“I have no doubt another century from now macroevolution will be in the trash heap along with bleeding and flat earth.” A century from now, eh? That’s a courageous stance.

I understand the theories need and its limits. It is the best we can do for now. I have no doubt another century from now macroevolution will be in the trash heap along with bleeding and flat earth.