Creationists: What are the reasons general acceptance of deep time and evolution

[Dizredux]

again, your argument is an argument from silence. Literally. And this reminds me of how when I ask for evidence of macro evolution, all I get is blank stares.

I have given it to you and supported it but you simply reject it,

Macroevolution is speciation and above. If you have speciation you have macroevolution as scientists use the term which is not often.

Dizredux

 

[AV1611VET]

If you have speciation you have macroevolution ...

The devil used to tell us that macroevolution was genera-ation: one genus eventually giving rise to another.

That didn't work though, as evolutionists lost debates by creationists pointing out that no one has ever seen one genus give rise to another.

Now it looks like the devil is telling us macroevolution is species-ation: one species giving rise to another.

So all a scientist has to do is attach a different Linnaean classification to an animal and behold ... macroevolution!

 

[Dizredux]

The devil used to tell us that macroevolution was genera-ation: one genus eventually giving rise to another.

That didn't work though, as evolutionists lost debates by creationists pointing out that no one has ever seen one genus give rise to another.

Now it looks like the devil is telling us macroevolution is species-ation: one species giving rise to another.

So all a scientist has to do is attach a different Linnaean classification to an animal and behold ... macroevolution!

That really doesn't even make nonsense.

Dizredux

 

[Subduction Zone]

The devil used to tell us that macroevolution was genera-ation: one genus eventually giving rise to another.

That didn't work though, as evolutionists lost debates by creationists pointing out that no one has ever seen one genus give rise to another.

Now it looks like the devil is telling us macroevolution is species-ation: one species giving rise to another.

So all a scientist has to do is attach a different Linnaean classification to an animal and behold ... macroevolution!

Wrong.

First the devil has never told us anything.


Second, evolutionists never lost a debate for us not directly observing so called macroevolution. Since the theory does not predict that we would see evolution directly you can't lose a debate when that is not seen. By your logic Christians have lost debates since no one alive has observed someone going to heaven.

But we have observed macroevolution in the fossil record. There are several lines where it can be seen quite well. Of course when it is shown to them creationists try to redefine macroevolution. They don't know it, but they lost any debate long ago. Part of debating evolution would be having an alternative and creationists have never been able to show any evidence for creation.

 

[Dizredux]

NO, you claimed it was a qualified paper. A quick exam of the site shows that it is merely a glamour publisher.

Just out of curiosity, what is a glamour publisher? Don't know if I have run into that term before.

Dizredux

 

[AV1611VET]

That really doesn't even make nonsense.

I'd say it depends on how old you are.

You probably don't have a clue what I'm talking about.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'd say it depends on how old you are.

You probably don't have a clue what I'm talking about.

Age has nothing to do with it, AV.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Just out of curiosity, what is a glamour publisher? Don't know if I have run into that term before.

Dizredux

I suspect it's another term for a "vanity press."

Most publishers pay you for your work -- figuring they'll make the money back (and then some) in sales.

A vanity press, however, charges you to publish your work -- it's how you can be assured that no matter what asinine drivel you put on paper, it'll still be published.

Some people will do just about anything to see their name in print, hence the name.

 

[AV1611VET]

Age has nothing to do with it, AV.

When the Muses* built their respective infrastructures in society, the education system put up pictures in their classrooms (or science books, I can't remember which) showing a fish coming out of the water, becoming a frog, becoming a monkey, then becoming a man.

The one thing that stood in the way of evolution in our schools was the Bible; and the devil had That taken out.

* The Muses are nine (?) specific fallen angels given specific tasks as overseers and guides.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just out of curiosity, what is a glamour publisher? Don't know if I have run into that term before.

Dizredux

I was haing a major brainfart and could not remember the term "vanity press". Though "glamor" is very close. A vanity publication is one that will publish almost anything, as long as the publication fee is paid. Sadly most articles that are free to see online are usually of this type. Anything new and cutting edge you will not be able to see for free.

There is a way of rating journals called its impact factor, and vanity press publications tend to have a very low impact factor. Journals like Nature on the other hand have a relatively high impact factor. The impact factor measures how often the journal or even articles, are sited by other journals.

 

[TLK Valentine]

When the Muses* built their respective infrastructures in society, the education system put up pictures in their classrooms (or science books, I can't remember which) showing a fish coming out of the water, becoming a frog, becoming a monkey, then becoming a man.

The one thing that stood in the way of evolution in our schools was the Bible; and the devil had That taken out.

* The Muses are nine (?) specific fallen angels given specific tasks.

Cool story, AV -- keep believing it; it'll keep you out of trouble.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I suspect it's another term for a "vanity press."

Most publishers pay you for your work -- figuring they'll make the money back (and then some) in sales.

A vanity press, however, charges you to publish your work -- it's how you can be assured that no matter what asinine drivel you put on paper, it'll still be published.

Some people will do just about anything to see their name in print, hence the name.

I just explained my mistake and you were spot on. I did not see your correct terminology before I wrote mine at least. Now if I can just get some coffee I should be hitting all eight cylinders again

 

[Dizredux]

I'd say it depends on how old you are.

You probably don't have a clue what I'm talking about.

I am 71 and you are right, I often do not have a clue of what your are talking about since you seem to delight in being obscure.

Dizredux

 

[Dizredux]

I was haing a major brainfart and could not remember the term "vanity press". Though "glamor" is very close. A vanity publication is one that will publish almost anything, as long as the publication fee is paid. Sadly most articles that are free to see online are usually of this type. Anything new and cutting edge you will not be able to see for free.

There is a way of rating journals called its impact factor, and vanity press publications tend to have a very low impact factor. Journals like Nature on the other hand have a relatively high impact factor. The impact factor measures how often the journal or even articles, are sited by other journals.

I was having cognitive flatulence also. I got confused and was thinking about Guilford press when I reported Wiley being a good resource.

I consider Wiley as being adequate but really don't know a whole lot about them in that I never used them much.

Dizredux

 

[Dizredux]

I was haing a major brainfart and could not remember the term "vanity press". Though "glamor" is very close. A vanity publication is one that will publish almost anything, as long as the publication fee is paid. Sadly most articles that are free to see online are usually of this type. Anything new and cutting edge you will not be able to see for free.

There is a way of rating journals called its impact factor, and vanity press publications tend to have a very low impact factor. Journals like Nature on the other hand have a relatively high impact factor. The impact factor measures how often the journal or even articles, are sited by other journals.

Which is why I reported the impact factor as supplied by the publisher.

Dizredux

 

[createdtoworship]

There is a way of rating journals called its impact factor, and vanity press publications tend to have a very low impact factor. Journals like Nature on the other hand have a relatively high impact factor. The impact factor measures how often the journal or even articles, are sited by other journals.

If "Evol Dev" equals "Evolution and development" then this is the ratings:

3.155 impact factor for 2013, 2.917 -5 year impact factor

http://www.iust.ac.ir/files/mech/pages/pdf/jcr_impact_factors_list_2013.pdf

now if you don't like the impact ratings, then cite a journal that you agree with that has better ratings. (above 10 is considered good), but 3-5 is above average. As the one I showed had 3.155 .


so this papers journal is just fine:

Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution - Erwin - 2001 - Evolution & Development - Wiley Online Library

and it's definition of macro evolution fine as well, given his PhD and employment records of research.

but that is if Evol Dev means Evolution and development, which I assume it does.

 

[createdtoworship]

But we have observed macroevolution in the fossil record. There are several lines where it can be seen quite well. Of course when it is shown to them creationists try to redefine macroevolution. .

I quoted a scientific article in a journal with an above average impact record, and it states the entymology of the word macro evolution:

let me repeat it:


"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level. In contrast to latter views, speciation was not seen as the crux of the distinction between micro- and macroevolution, since Filipchenko saw speciation as continuous with microevolutionary change"
above quote from :
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x/full


so when you say speciation is macro evolution, well thats not the way the original term defined it. So guess who changed it? Not Creationists! Evolutionists!

 

[createdtoworship]

I have given it to you and supported it but you simply reject it,

Macroevolution is speciation and above. If you have speciation you have macroevolution as scientists use the term which is not often.

Dizredux

please see my last post on the original definition of macro evolution, from a journal that rates ok on the impact level as a scientific journal.

but not even most scienctists believe macroevolution is speciation, while they accept some speciation in macro evolution. Micro evolution would be speciation, Macro evolution according to the original definition is above speciation. Now that article does state that speciation is involved but not the reason why macro evolution exists in his eyes. In my eyes it simply does not exist, because it cannot be observed. And evolutionists must change definitions because ape men, and whale dogs and dino birds don't exist. As per the microevotionary and natural selection dictates.

 

[Strathos]

I can.

Perhaps I should have said "you shouldn't."

Yes, you technically can, although you should realize that by doing so, you're being no more intellectually honest than an atheist who quotes words 8-11 of Psalm 14:1 and claims that it means the Bible supports atheism.

There are other ways to define transitional fossils?

I won't know unless you tell me how you're defining them.

As for radiometricdating:

1. This is an intelligent design argument. The believe in the old earth.

So what's the argument here, all modern life forms were created as they are now in the Cambrian era? Because we have tons of fossils from before that, and the fossils we have from that era aren't anything like the creatures we see today.

2. I only use it to see if evolution works in the first place. Is it really that bad to try to understand both sides of the story?

Given that Cambrian fossils are completely morphologically distinct from contemporary organisms, how would they have changed if they didn't evolve?

 

[Dizredux]

I quoted a scientific article in a journal with an above average impact record, and it states the entymology of the word macro evolution:

let me repeat it:


"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level. In contrast to latter views, speciation was not seen as the crux of the distinction between micro- and macroevolution, since Filipchenko saw speciation as continuous with microevolutionary change"
above quote from :
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution - Erwin - 2001 - Evolution & Development - Wiley Online Library


so when you say speciation is macro evolution, well thats not the way the original term defined it. So guess who changed it? Not Creationists! Evolutionists!

Filipchenko was publishing back in the 20's. Do you have the idea that thinking on this has not progressed since then?

Also the article did not necessarily agree with you. It was a discussion on the subject giving different viewpoints.

I guess that you gotta reach, you gotta reach. Any port in a storm so to speak.

Dizredux