Author Topic: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...  (Read 8051 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1445
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #522 on: August 07, 2014, 01:49:43 AM »
This what Biblestudent wants you to believe was created by his god:

Gen1:1 Before god(s) began the creation there was only water and darkness, no heaven or earth which had no form, and the breath of the god(s) came upon the surface of the water, and the god(s) said...



Do you want to compare these primitive concepts with reality?

« Last Edit: August 07, 2014, 01:59:57 AM by Foxy Freedom »
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Online wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1864
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #523 on: August 07, 2014, 02:18:48 AM »
^^^Foxy, do you really know enough about BS's beliefs to confidently say that's his view of cosmology?
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline 1makesitwrong

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #524 on: August 07, 2014, 03:28:55 AM »
Bible student, do you believe a god created everything? If so, can you bring your god a computer so it can participate in this debate? You can settle this debate very easily by producing your god to me in person. Please message me when you and your god are ready.
The bible was pronounced dead at the scene

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1284
  • Darwins +93/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #525 on: August 07, 2014, 04:32:32 AM »
I need to ask you the same thing that I just asked PP:

Is this process you describe capable of producing, for example, new functional organs and extremities? If so, how do you know that? What scientific evidence do you have that demonstrates this could account for a soup-to-humans evolution? What experiments have been conducted?

Forgive me if I am wrong but what I see in the link you provided is algae turning into algae??

You're moving the goal posts somewhat, you asked how multicellular organisms come from single celled organisms. The algae is an observable example of this.

Yes the process can produce new organs, did you actually look at either article?

Quote
There are species that form simple sets of four identical cells stuck together, other that form balls of 32-64 not quite identical cells with some specialized functions, up to full-blown multicellular organisms with 50,000 highly specialized cells, including reproductive germ cells.

This has been observed. Organs are collections of cells with specialized functions.

rather than relying on personal incredulity can you offer any solid biological evidence that evolution can not occur?
« Last Edit: August 07, 2014, 04:46:30 AM by Mrjason »

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1445
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #526 on: August 07, 2014, 04:40:51 AM »
^^^Foxy, do you really know enough about BS's beliefs to confidently say that's his view of cosmology?

Let's see how easy it is for me to make a prophecy.

If he really believeth the creation story, this is what he will believeth. But he will doeth not that. He will maketh excuses. He will only believeth the parts of the creation story which suiteth him well. He will denyeth the parts he liketh not.

He will sayeth something like this. "The bible sayeth not that." "The picture beeth wrong." He might also sayeth, if asked, that there beeth only one creation story, not two which giveth different orders of events.

He interesteth himself little in what the bible says, and he interesteth himself little in what science sayeth. He desireth only to protect his personal delusion.

End of prophecy.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2014, 05:54:08 AM by Foxy Freedom »
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2727
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #527 on: August 07, 2014, 08:32:17 AM »
I'm not sure about the "firmament" being a rigid dome. I think the firmament is an invention of the translators of the KJV.

Go into Hebrew/Genesis 1
http://scripture4all.org/

By verse 14, is sayeth:  and he is saying, Elohim, he shall become luminaries in the atmosphere of the heavens, to separate of between the day and of the night, and they become for signs and appointments, and for days and years.

This gives a sense that the atmosphere is the divider, and the sun is in the atmosphere. However, of course, another group of Holy Literalist Suckers reckons that Young Earth Creationists are interpreting it all wrong, and they reckon they can redefine made/create and atmosphere, into 3 creations, and make it all work hunky dory.

http://www.heritagebbc.com/archive3/0221.html

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12294
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #528 on: August 07, 2014, 09:04:27 AM »
BS,

No, you need to explain why a bunch of small changes wouldn't eventually become large changes.


I don't know the answer to that and neither do you !!!!!!!!

The difference is, you're the one claiming that they wouldn't, not him.  He doesn't need to know why they wouldn't accumulate into big changes, because he doesn't claim that they wouldn't in the first place.  You do.  The question pertains to your position, not to his.

But your refusal to contemplate an answer speaks volumes.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #529 on: August 07, 2014, 10:11:20 AM »
BS,

No, you need to explain why a bunch of small changes wouldn't eventually become large changes.


I don't know the answer to that and neither do you !!!!!!!!

The difference is, you're the one claiming that they wouldn't, not him.  He doesn't need to know why they wouldn't accumulate into big changes, because he doesn't claim that they wouldn't in the first place.  You do.  The question pertains to your position, not to his.

But your refusal to contemplate an answer speaks volumes.

That is substantially incorrect. I have not indicated that the transitions did not occur. My position is specifically that the scientific method has not succeeded in producing the "how" it occurred. Therefore, the basis for the assertion that it did occur is an ASSUMPTION...and that is not a scientific basis for deeming it a theory and a fact.

There are certainly aspects of the ToE that are easily identifiable and can be supported by the scientific method. However:

the assertion that microevolution + more micorevolution = macroevolution is not scientifically verifiable.

Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale — what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_47


Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #530 on: August 07, 2014, 10:16:52 AM »
If people are going to claim that evolution is BS, they need to provide alternate explanations for observed phenomena. Stuff like "Yea, the fossil record does seem to indicate a progression in complexity over time, but in fact what you are seeing is actually..."

Irrelevant to the point I am making. Whether some other explanation makes sense or not will do nothing to determine whether the entirety of the ToE is scientific or not.


Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12294
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #531 on: August 07, 2014, 10:23:04 AM »
BS, none of what you wrote has anything to do with what I pointed out about your response to PP.  Your dialogue had the following pattern:

BS - A can't do X!
PP - Why can't A do X?
BS - I don't know why A can't do X, and you don't either!

See the problem?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #532 on: August 07, 2014, 10:26:51 AM »
You continue to make this point for reasons that I can't really understand, because like Newton's theory of Gravity, enough was discovered about gravity, to undermine everyone else's thoughts about gravity.

Would you categorize gravity as a theory and a fact? We do not know "how" gravity occurs just as we do not know "how" macroevolution occurs.

Quote
You have asserted that the belief in the mechanics of evolution is an assumption. It was never an assumption to Darwin or anyone else. It's something we have been forced to believe, by looking at the evidence. We have not been let down, either. As knowledge of DNA increases, faults in the theory are not being found, but instead many mechanisms that make it seem more plausible are being found.

If you are not assuming that the microevo+microevo=macroevolution, then "how" did it occur and please support your claim(s) by way of the scientific method. If you are unable to do this, then the entirety of the ToE cannot be referred to as scientific in nature.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #533 on: August 07, 2014, 10:27:31 AM »
If people are going to claim that evolution is BS, they need to provide alternate explanations for observed phenomena. Stuff like "Yea, the fossil record does seem to indicate a progression in complexity over time, but in fact what you are seeing is actually..."

Irrelevant to the point I am making. Whether some other explanation makes sense or not will do nothing to determine whether the entirety of the ToE is scientific or not.

You're both partially correct (or, to put it succinctly, you're both wrong). Occam's razor dictates that the explanation with the least unlikely assumptions is most likely the correct one. So, if you can present something that has fewer unlikely assumptions than the ToE, your hypothesis could be considered as an alternative. However, trying to toss "god" into the mix makes that impossible. In addition, if you can present a hypothesis for an evolution-related fact that the ToE does not explain, as well as explaining everything the ToE does explain, and it follows Occam's razor and is supported by evidence, you'd probably get a Nobel prize in Biology.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #534 on: August 07, 2014, 10:28:58 AM »
BS, none of what you wrote has anything to do with what I pointed out about your response to PP.  Your dialogue had the following pattern:

BS - A can't do X!
PP - Why can't A do X?
BS - I don't know why A can't do X, and you don't either!

See the problem?

No, I don't see the problem because I never said that "A can't do X."

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #535 on: August 07, 2014, 10:30:17 AM »
If people are going to claim that evolution is BS, they need to provide alternate explanations for observed phenomena. Stuff like "Yea, the fossil record does seem to indicate a progression in complexity over time, but in fact what you are seeing is actually..."

Irrelevant to the point I am making. Whether some other explanation makes sense or not will do nothing to determine whether the entirety of the ToE is scientific or not.

You're both partially correct (or, to put it succinctly, you're both wrong). Occam's razor dictates that the explanation with the least unlikely assumptions is most likely the correct one. So, if you can present something that has fewer unlikely assumptions than the ToE, your hypothesis could be considered as an alternative. However, trying to toss "god" into the mix makes that impossible. In addition, if you can present a hypothesis for an evolution-related fact that the ToE does not explain, as well as explaining everything the ToE does explain, and it follows Occam's razor and is supported by evidence, you'd probably get a Nobel prize in Biology.

Occam's razor cannot be substituted for the scientific method.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #536 on: August 07, 2014, 10:37:43 AM »
If people are going to claim that evolution is BS, they need to provide alternate explanations for observed phenomena. Stuff like "Yea, the fossil record does seem to indicate a progression in complexity over time, but in fact what you are seeing is actually..."

Irrelevant to the point I am making. Whether some other explanation makes sense or not will do nothing to determine whether the entirety of the ToE is scientific or not.

You're both partially correct (or, to put it succinctly, you're both wrong). Occam's razor dictates that the explanation with the least unlikely assumptions is most likely the correct one. So, if you can present something that has fewer unlikely assumptions than the ToE, your hypothesis could be considered as an alternative. However, trying to toss "god" into the mix makes that impossible. In addition, if you can present a hypothesis for an evolution-related fact that the ToE does not explain, as well as explaining everything the ToE does explain, and it follows Occam's razor and is supported by evidence, you'd probably get a Nobel prize in Biology.

Occam's razor cannot be substituted for the scientific method.

And where exactly did I say it could be? That's right... nowhere.
Read what I said and reply to what I said; not what you wish I had said.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6469
  • Darwins +770/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #537 on: August 07, 2014, 10:45:05 AM »
If people are going to claim that evolution is BS, they need to provide alternate explanations for observed phenomena. Stuff like "Yea, the fossil record does seem to indicate a progression in complexity over time, but in fact what you are seeing is actually..."

Irrelevant to the point I am making. Whether some other explanation makes sense or not will do nothing to determine whether the entirety of the ToE is scientific or not.

In this case it does. If the ToE makes no sense to you and your brethren, you need to tell us what we're looking at and why we're misinterpreting it. Merely saying we're wrong and then sitting back and feeling smug accomplishes nothing. We actually think that evolution took place. If you can't provide viable alternatives that are equally adept at explaining the phenomena we see, the evidence we find, then you have nothing to offer but protest, and that is inadequate in this age of information.

The entirety of the ToE is indeed scientific, and we can find no reason to think otherwise. Scientific processes were used to confirm the many millions of pieces of evidence we have. And though we still have more to discover and more to learn, right now nothing we have found points to anything but the ToE as an explanation.

You are saying we're wrong. If we are, you have to show us why. Your words of protest are so generic they would also apply to whether or not Barbie and GI Joe ever had sex or something. Give us specifics. Not just complaints

I kept this entry brief so that you could provide an even shorter useless retort. See, I'll do anything to make this conversation easier for you.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #538 on: August 07, 2014, 10:52:55 AM »
If people are going to claim that evolution is BS, they need to provide alternate explanations for observed phenomena. Stuff like "Yea, the fossil record does seem to indicate a progression in complexity over time, but in fact what you are seeing is actually..."

Irrelevant to the point I am making. Whether some other explanation makes sense or not will do nothing to determine whether the entirety of the ToE is scientific or not.

You're both partially correct (or, to put it succinctly, you're both wrong). Occam's razor dictates that the explanation with the least unlikely assumptions is most likely the correct one. So, if you can present something that has fewer unlikely assumptions than the ToE, your hypothesis could be considered as an alternative. However, trying to toss "god" into the mix makes that impossible. In addition, if you can present a hypothesis for an evolution-related fact that the ToE does not explain, as well as explaining everything the ToE does explain, and it follows Occam's razor and is supported by evidence, you'd probably get a Nobel prize in Biology.

Occam's razor cannot be substituted for the scientific method.

And where exactly did I say it could be? That's right... nowhere.
Read what I said and reply to what I said; not what you wish I had said.

I did read what you said. If you are not using Occam's Razor in place of the scientific method, then how are your comments relevant to this discussion? Occam's Razor offers nothing scientific to confirm that micorevo+microevo=macroevo.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #539 on: August 07, 2014, 10:55:31 AM »
In this case it does. If the ToE makes no sense to you and your brethren, you need to tell us what we're looking at and why we're misinterpreting it.

I never said that you were misinterpreting what you feel the evidence suggests. All I am saying is that what you are interpreting as a basis for what you believe is not scientific.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #540 on: August 07, 2014, 11:02:42 AM »
I did read what you said. If you are not using Occam's Razor in place of the scientific method, then how are your comments relevant to this discussion?

Do you have short-term memory issues? I left two quotes in my post: yours and ParkingPlaces'. Where exactly do you think my comments fit in this discussion?

Occam's Razor offers nothing scientific to confirm that micorevo+microevo=macroevo.

I've already debunked this bullshit. To say that minor changes don't add up is to say that:
You can't move.
You can't die.
You can't live.
Nothing can ever happen.
1+1 does not equal 2.

In addition, saying that small changes can't add up because one negates the next is to say that if you change one floorboard, the entire floor will change. Human DNA is 2-3 meters in length. I'm not sure you can fully grasp what that means. Would it help if I put it in retarded units feet and inches? Here: 2-3 meters is 6'7''-10'. Is that better? This isn't Spider-Man. You don't change one gene and the entire length of DNA of every single cell in the body changes with it. I have already told you this, but, apparently, your memory issues only kick in just in time to blind save you from the facts.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6469
  • Darwins +770/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #541 on: August 07, 2014, 11:06:46 AM »
In this case it does. If the ToE makes no sense to you and your brethren, you need to tell us what we're looking at and why we're misinterpreting it.

I never said that you were misinterpreting what you feel the evidence suggests. All I am saying is that what you are interpreting as a basis for what you believe is not scientific.

I don't quite understand that. If we are not misinterpreting the evidence, where are we going wrong? Not using science? I don't think so. That you claim science isn't being used does not make it so. Science, hard science, is indeed being used.

And if the evidence exists, but we are not looking at it scientifically, does that mean it is impossible to look at that evidence scientifically, or is there some other discipline that we can use to look at the evidence, match it with prior agreed upon realities, and come to some very different conclusion? We would need a lot of help with that because we haven't the slightest idea what you are suggesting. Merely reading the bible, for instance, and assuming that all reality matches the words within, doesn't work, because we see great differences. I mean great as in humongous. The Eden story matches nothing from what we can see.

If you want to change us so that we think and believe like you, you've got to do more than attack our methods. You have to offer alternatives that work within the frameworks we already accept. And I've seen no evidence from you that you have anything to offer other than, like I said before, protest.

Get proactive here, dude. Speak to us in our language. You have to offer alternative explanations for things like the fossil record and the genetic evidence for evolution or we aren't going to change.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3014
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #542 on: August 07, 2014, 11:08:56 AM »
If you are not using Occam's Razor in place of the scientific method, then how are your comments relevant to this discussion? Occam's Razor offers nothing scientific to confirm that micorevo+microevo=macroevo.

Occam's Razor is a handy tool that supplements the Scientific Method by focusing attention on hypotheses that are most in tune with reality as we observe it.  For instance, one could spend a lifetime entertaining hypotheses about sentient plants, genes that morph into purple glitter when they're not being directly observed, or a planet 80 trillion light years away populated entirely by breakdancing unicorns.  The existence or nonexistence of such things, however, doesn't currently contribute anything useful to our knowledge so they can safely be ignored.

So it is with evolution:  We can make useful predictions with it, and use it to combat emergent viral and bacterial infections and develop new drugs.  Adding a god to the mix really doesn't add any value, so until and unless it can explain things better we simply don't need it as part of the explanation.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #543 on: August 07, 2014, 11:12:00 AM »
I've already debunked this bullshit. To say that minor changes don't add up is to say that:
You can't move.
You can't die.
You can't live.
Nothing can ever happen.
1+1 does not equal 2.

In addition, saying that small changes can't add up because one negates the next is to say that if you change one floorboard, the entire floor will change. Human DNA is 2-3 meters in length. I'm not sure you can fully grasp what that means. Would it help if I put it in retarded units feet and inches? Here: 2-3 meters is 6'7''-10'. Is that better? This isn't Spider-Man. You don't change one gene and the entire length of DNA of every single cell in the body changes with it. I have already told you this, but, apparently, your memory issues only kick in just in time to blind save you from the facts.

How does this demonstrate that microevo+microevo=macroevo from a scientific standpoint? I am looking for repeatable tests and experiments that demonstrate a biological process which is capable of creating a liver, a lung, a pancreas, a penis, etc from other cells or living organisms.

You've debunked nothing that is relevant to this discussion.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #544 on: August 07, 2014, 11:17:30 AM »
I don't quite understand that. If we are not misinterpreting the evidence, where are we going wrong? Not using science? I don't think so. That you claim science isn't being used does not make it so. Science, hard science, is indeed being used.

Great. Then please provide examples of repeatable tests and experiments that demonstrate a biological process which is capable of creating a liver, a lung, a pancreas, a penis, etc from other cells or living organisms.

Quote
And if the evidence exists, but we are not looking at it scientifically, does that mean it is impossible to look at that evidence scientifically, or is there some other discipline that we can use to look at the evidence, match it with prior agreed upon realities, and come to some very different conclusion?

What matters is that you follow the scientific method if you are going to label the claims you make about macroevolution as science.


Quote
If you want to change us so that we think and believe like you, you've got to do more than attack our methods.

The only methods I am attacking are the ones that are alleged to demonstrate micro+micro=macro in a scientific manner.


Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1284
  • Darwins +93/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #545 on: August 07, 2014, 11:18:50 AM »
How does this demonstrate that microevo+microevo=macroevo from a scientific standpoint? I am looking for repeatable tests and experiments that demonstrate a biological process which is capable of creating a liver, a lung, a pancreas, a penis, etc from other cells or living organisms.

You have heard of stem cellsWiki right?

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #546 on: August 07, 2014, 11:18:59 AM »
If you are not using Occam's Razor in place of the scientific method, then how are your comments relevant to this discussion? Occam's Razor offers nothing scientific to confirm that micorevo+microevo=macroevo.

Occam's Razor is a handy tool that supplements the Scientific Method by focusing attention on hypotheses that are most in tune with reality as we observe it.  For instance, one could spend a lifetime entertaining hypotheses about sentient plants, genes that morph into purple glitter when they're not being directly observed, or a planet 80 trillion light years away populated entirely by breakdancing unicorns.  The existence or nonexistence of such things, however, doesn't currently contribute anything useful to our knowledge so they can safely be ignored.

So it is with evolution:  We can make useful predictions with it, and use it to combat emergent viral and bacterial infections and develop new drugs.  Adding a god to the mix really doesn't add any value, so until and unless it can explain things better we simply don't need it as part of the explanation.

Noted.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #547 on: August 07, 2014, 11:25:33 AM »
How does this demonstrate that microevo+microevo=macroevo from a scientific standpoint? I am looking for repeatable tests and experiments that demonstrate a biological process which is capable of creating a liver, a lung, a pancreas, a penis, etc from other cells or living organisms.

You've debunked nothing that is relevant to this discussion.

Changes compound over time. This is a fact. E. coli bacteria have been shown to evolve the ability to metabolize citric acid. This is another fact. A fact, I might add, that was proven by a creationist in a futile attempt to debunk evolution. This would not be possible if living beings couldn't develop new structures. I've already said this; either to you or skeptic54768, though I don't really see any difference. You all sound alike to me. You ignore evidence and simple logic for the sake of your beliefs. BibleStudent, meet the One Above All's ignore list.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2727
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #548 on: August 07, 2014, 11:36:04 AM »
Would you categorize gravity as a theory and a fact?

I think in your quest to get an admission that some part of the ToE lacks scientific rigour to your goal-post-moving standard, you forgot to admit that Genesis is a load of crap.

As I said, gravity is a theory, or an abstraction in our minds. A fact is something you have noted after it happens. Facts and bullshit create theories, but a fact is not a theory. You are attempting to pretend that ToE is not a fact, because it's one of your meaningless propaganda goals.

Quote
We do not know "how" gravity occurs just as we do not know "how" macroevolution occurs.

We have a clear idea of how "macroevolution" occurs, but it can't be conveniently demonstrated in a bucket. Millions of years, and a gazillion organisms are necessary. We lack the brute force to do it. If you say that there weren't millions of years, then you move the goal post again, to cover up the crap in the Bible.

Quote
If you are not assuming that the microevo+microevo=macroevolution, then "how" did it occur and please support your claim(s) by way of the scientific method. If you are unable to do this, then the entirety of the ToE cannot be referred to as scientific in nature.

This is one of your propaganda targets, and you have ignored the part where I said it's not an assumption but a conclusion that people have to come to terms with, given the facts available. If you have evidence that God is poking organisms (intelligent design) then shift the goal posts a bit more.

« Last Edit: August 07, 2014, 11:39:35 AM by Add Homonym »
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Online jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2104
  • Darwins +375/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #549 on: August 07, 2014, 11:54:40 AM »
I don't quite understand that. If we are not misinterpreting the evidence, where are we going wrong? Not using science? I don't think so. That you claim science isn't being used does not make it so. Science, hard science, is indeed being used.

Great. Then please provide examples of repeatable tests and experiments that demonstrate a biological process which is capable of creating a liver, a lung, a pancreas, a penis, etc from other cells or living organisms.
Sure thing.  Find a couple and ask them to copulate enough times to cause a pregnancy in the female.

Sit back and observe for the next 9 months the creation of a liver, a lung, a pancreas, a penis, etc.

...you may need to rethink what it is you're asking to be demonstrated.

Quote
The only methods I am attacking are the ones that are alleged to demonstrate micro+micro=macro in a scientific manner.
Just to be clear - are you asking for scientific validation that many small changes that accumulate in a system can and do result in macroscopic changes?  The evidence for that is pretty easy to find - the human enterprise of making stuff is pretty much solid evidence that adding up a bunch of small changes results in a holistically larger change.  And that's all you need, isn't it?  If you agree that small changes do happen, and that small changes do accumulate, and that such accumulated changes can result in macroscopic changes, then you have to accept that small changes in biological systems that accumulate over time can result in macroscopic changes.  You need to propose a mechanism that limits the degree of small changes such that macroscopic changes cannot happen.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6469
  • Darwins +770/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #550 on: August 07, 2014, 12:06:28 PM »
Note: I wrote this awhile ago but didn't notice that it didn't post because of other replies. I just wrote another post, but I still want this in the thread too.

I don't quite understand that. If we are not misinterpreting the evidence, where are we going wrong? Not using science? I don't think so. That you claim science isn't being used does not make it so. Science, hard science, is indeed being used.

Great. Then please provide examples of repeatable tests and experiments that demonstrate a biological process which is capable of creating a liver, a lung, a pancreas, a penis, etc from other cells or living organisms.

Quote
And if the evidence exists, but we are not looking at it scientifically, does that mean it is impossible to look at that evidence scientifically, or is there some other discipline that we can use to look at the evidence, match it with prior agreed upon realities, and come to some very different conclusion?

What matters is that you follow the scientific method if you are going to label the claims you make about macroevolution as science.


Quote
If you want to change us so that we think and believe like you, you've got to do more than attack our methods.

The only methods I am attacking are the ones that are alleged to demonstrate micro+micro=macro in a scientific manner.

You're being about as clear as mud here. YOU need to explain why science wasn't involved in those findings. YOU need to explain why you accept little changes, but not big ones. YOU need to tell us what mechanism prevents evolution when every frickin' time cells duplicate or animals mate changes occur in the transferred genes. You need to be SOOOOOO specific when you say that macroevolution isn't scientific. Too, YOU need to be specific when you say we aren't being scientific when we study evolution. Where is the science faulty? Because we can't do 500,00 or million year experiments? Does that, in an of itself, invalidate the whole thing?

If the bible describes the world as you see it, why doesn't it describe the world I see? How come you can read that book, look out at the real world and see the connection, while I cannot? To me, you are consuming a tiny bit of information (the bible) and fitting it in to your reality with ease, while I am consuming a huge amount of information (science, in general, evolution, specifically, in this case) and finding very, very, very specific examples within the realm of reality the exactly match the things that science tells me. I see NO evidence that the worlds many languages came from that Babel incident, I see no geologic evidence of a worldwide flood, I see no evidence in the history of Egypt, which includes many a reported failure, of any large group of people escaping magically across a sea, I see no evidence that more than half  a million people walked around in the desert for 40 years, I see no evidence of a place like Eden, I see no evidence that humans routinely lived for nearly a thousand years, and we haven't even gotten to that Jesus fella yet.

So if I (and I have) go to fossil beds and find sea going creatures, and the go to another fossil bed and find land dwelling critters, with no sea critters at all mixed in, what am I supposed to think when I read the flood story? How am I supposed to treat the scientific explanation, which matches the evidence? Why should I reject it in favor or your story, that does not match the evidence?

You tell me. Its not my job to simply get stupid and reject everything you dislike. You need to tell me why doing such a thing wouldn't be insane. And just a warning. You're not likely to change my mind by responding with less than 50 words.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.