Macro: Where is the Evidence ?

Ed Vidence · Jul 21, 2005

gluadys said:
It does. This has been observed.

Macro claims living things gradually evolved and improved over millions of years. This process cannot be observed which is the very excuse Darwinists invoke for the paucity of evidence. If macro was a fact then a commensurate amount of clear objective observable evidence should exist.

I will finish your reply ASAP.

Ed Vidence

mikeynov · Jul 21, 2005

Ed Vidence said:
Macro claims living things gradually evolved and improved over millions of years. This process cannot be observed which is the very excuse Darwinists invoke for the paucity of evidence. If macro was a fact then a commensurate amount of clear objective observable evidence should exist.

I will finish your reply ASAP.

Ed Vidence

You're still saying we can't observe speciation, even though you've been given, literally, over 100 examples of that.

This is the delusion of a typical YEC personified in text - pretend that peer reviewed references don't count, and instead insist that some random atheist's out of context comments on something dictates reality.

Grengor · Jul 21, 2005

Ed Vidence said:
Macro claims living things gradually evolved and improved over millions of years.
Ed Vidence

No, Macro is only micro x 1000000. If something evolves it doesn't have to be better, just different. But with natural selection a general improvement is expected, not required.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
I'm sure you've heard about that before.

GoSeminoles! · Jul 21, 2005

Ed Vidence said:
You mean Darwinian journals.

How could Darwinian sources promote evidence which contradicts and disproves their theory ?

Darwinian peer reviewed scientific journals: A process to make sure what another Darwinist has already spoken for is not contradicted, and any evidence against the theory is not given a microphone.

Ed Vidence

Hey, another lie for Ed! You're really raking in the bling-bling today!

rjw · Jul 21, 2005

Ed Vidence said:
Macro claims living things gradually evolved and improved over millions of years. This process cannot be observed which is the very excuse Darwinists invoke for the paucity of evidence. If macro was a fact then a commensurate amount of clear objective observable evidence should exist.

I will finish your reply ASAP.

Ed Vidence

Gidday Ed Vidence

Ed Vidence said:
Macro claims living things gradually evolved

Not necessarily. Some theories of macro claim gradual evolution. Others do not.

Ed Vidence said:
and improved over millions of years.

I do not know of any generally accepted theory for the mechanism of macro which claimed improvement.

Ed Vidence said:
This process cannot be observed which is the very excuse Darwinists invoke for the paucity of evidence.

What Darwinist actually claims the evidence for macro is scarce because animals evolve over millions of years? I have never heard of this argument. Which Darwinist claims that the evidence for macro is scarce?

Ed Vidence said:
If macro was a fact then a commensurate amount of clear objective observable evidence should exist.

People (including myself), have provided you with objective and observable evidence. In science evidence for something is generally about the only thing that is observable.

Regards, Roland

Wizzletinks · Jul 21, 2005

I'm not sure if anyone posted anything on this yet, but the modern theory of evolution is under no obligation to defend certain quotes by Darwin or any other scientist... There is an abundance of evidence for evolution, you just choose to turn a blind eye to the evidence presented.

Ed Vidence · Jul 21, 2005

gluadys said:
Incorrect. In short lived species macro-evolution has been observed in a matter of years well within human life-spans. It is only the large, long-lived species in which macro-evolution is too gradual to observe directly.

Wrong.

The OP evidence/quotes refute you.

We have found a lot more fossils since Darwin's time and all are supportive of macro-evolution.

The Milton quote refutes you.

Richard Milton: writer, journalist and broadcaster. If I had a nickel for every journalist who manages to screw up when it comes to reporting science, I'd be able to retire early.

Ad hom attack - the Darwinian way: Because you have no answer for his objective evidence the only thing left is to try and poison the well, which leaves the evidence unscathed and even more supported because you argued the man.

The microphone is controlled by your philosophic friends who accept everything you assert as fact and without question.

Is this guy any better informed than the journalists who invented Nebraska Man or Moab Man? Or the journalists who decided a scoop for National Geographic was more important than checking that the fossil they were going to feature was genuine? Doesn't sound like it.

Blaming straw men for Darwinian fraud artists who were caught red-handed.

To assert National Geographic as anything but mainstream Darwinism shows the lengths a Darwinist will go to evade the ugly truth of fraud common among its ranks.

Since macro-evolution has been observed, it is not an assumption.

Darwin refutes you (OP) and your predictible assertion as does Milton report what is established fact (OP): macro is not available to be observed or be made the object of experiment. To evade these facts via shouting about Darwinian peer reviewed journals and link "evidence" is directing one to arguments based upon rhetoric and blatant fraud only held respectable by the perceived weight of educational credentials.

Ed Vidence

rjw · Jul 21, 2005

Wizzletinks said:
I'm not sure if anyone posted anything on this yet, but the modern theory of evolution is under no obligation to defend certain quotes by Darwin or any other scientist... There is an abundance of evidence for evolution, you just choose to turn a blind eye to the evidence presented.

Hello Wizzletinks,

You are correct, non Darwinian theories of macro evolution have been around, ever since Darwin, if not before.

Regards, Roland

rjw · Jul 21, 2005

Ed Vidence said:
Wrong.

The OP evidence/quotes refute you.

The Milton quote refutes you.

Ad hom attack - the Darwinian way: Because you have no answer for his objective evidence the only thing left is to try and poison the well, which leaves the evidence unscathed and even more supported because you argued the man.

The microphone is controlled by your philosophic friends who accept everything you assert as fact and without question.

Blaming straw men for Darwinian fraud artists who were caught red-handed.

To assert National Geographic as anything but mainstream Darwinism shows the lengths a Darwinist will go to evade the ugly truth of fraud common among its ranks.

Darwin refutes you (OP) and your predictible assertion as does Milton report what is established fact (OP): macro is not available to be observed or be made the object of experiment. To evade these facts via shouting about Darwinian peer reviewed journals and link "evidence" is directing one to arguments based upon rhetoric and blatant fraud only held respectable by the perceived weight of educational credentials.

Ed Vidence

Hello Ed Vdence,

Ed Vdence said:
Darwin refutes you (OP) and your predictible assertion as does Milton report what is established fact (OP): macro is not available to be observed or be made the object of experiment. To evade these facts via shouting about Darwinian peer reviewed journals and link "evidence" is directing one to arguments based upon rhetoric and blatant fraud only held respectable by the perceived weight of educational credentials.

In what sense is macro not available to be made the object of experiment?

Regards, Roland

GodsSamus · Jul 21, 2005

gunglepus said:
Macroevolution is just microevolution over a long time.

I'm sorry. That's just hearsay.

Ed Vidence · Jul 21, 2005

Army of Juan said:
What's this "need for Genesis to be wrong"? I wasn't aware of such a thing and from what I understand the people that falsified a literal Genesis had the preassumption that Genesis was true to begin with. I don't think they had a "need" to prove Genesis wrong.

Only apostates and atheists claim to have falsified sudden creation - what else could they claim ?

Both worldviews (militantly against theism) predetermine their conclusions - obviously.

Romans says they knew "for God has shown it to them" (1:19) but they chose to deny the obviousness of intelligent design (1:20) and as a penalty for denying God Creator status He enacted a blinding penalty so "their foolish hearts were darkened". (1:21) The 23rd verse declares what a darkened person must believe - the icons of evolution then are listed. "Image" in verse 23 is the Greek word for "icon". Because Romans was written in 58 AD and its facts are perfectly matched with objects in reality (Darwinists) this is proof of the record being the eternal word of God as God predicted the scientific attempt to erase His Creatorship.

Ed Vidence

Edx · Jul 21, 2005

GodsSamus said:
I'm sorry. That's just hearsay.

No, its not. You Creationists may want to pretend macroevolution is some kind of impossibily that evolution theory doesnt suggest anyway, but dont expect everyone else to agree with your insanity,

Ed

gluadys · Jul 21, 2005

Ed Vidence said:
Wrong.

The OP evidence/quotes refute you.

The Milton quote refutes you.

Wrong. The OP contains no evidence, only quotes. And quotes don't refute anything. Only evidence does.

Ad hom attack -

Not an ad hom attack. I drew attention to his profession because you were quoting him as someone who had professional expertise. He doesn't.

Blaming straw men for Darwinian fraud artists who were caught red-handed.

To assert National Geographic as anything but mainstream Darwinism shows the lengths a Darwinist will go to evade the ugly truth of fraud common among its ranks.

Nebraska Man was never a scientific fraud. It was a genuine fossil discovery of a mammalian tooth which someone opined "might" be human. It was sent to a university to be identified.

Meanwhile a journalist not a scientist wrote a headline story about it in which he played up the "might be human" comment, gave this alleged human the name Nebraska man and published an artist friend's imaginative drawing of "Nebraska man".

About six months later the university reported that it was a peccary tooth.

The Moab Man story takes us deeper into the depths of disreputable journalism. In this case the journalist reporting on the story actually failed to report the conclusion of the investigating scientist that the skeleton was recent and had been buried in loose debris. Instead he published a story which implied the skeleton had been found in solid rock and had to be as old as the rock. That story and the related Malachite Man story have been circulating for years as examples of evidence established science chooses to ignore.

Yes, National Geographic is a mainstream magazine, but they still were embarrassed by being caught with a fake fossil featured in their magazine. That was a genuine hoax, created by Chinese peasants trying to make some money from the keen interest in fossil feathered dinosaurs being found in their region. But note that it was the journalists who were caught by it, not scientists.

I have also just read an atrocious book by another journalist who seems to have lost all her research skills when it comes to writing about evolution.

So I am just a tad sceptical when a journalist is presented as an expert on evolution.

Darwin refutes you (OP) and your predictible assertion as does Milton report what is established fact (OP): macro is not available to be observed or be made the object of experiment. To evade these facts via shouting about Darwinian peer reviewed journals and link "evidence" is directing one to arguments based upon rhetoric and blatant fraud only held respectable by the perceived weight of educational credentials.

Nope. Facts cannot be refuted by quotes.

[Macroevolution] is asserted as fact in direct ratio to the degree Genesis is hated.

Speaking of evidence, you haven't answered my question about how you determined this.

Edx · Jul 21, 2005

Ed Vidence said:
Only apostates and atheists claim to have falsified sudden creation - what else could they claim ?

Love it. Forgot you were supposed to be an atheist yourself, and then started talking about yourself in the third person. Slick.

Ed

GodsSamus · Jul 21, 2005

Edx said:
No, its not. You Creationists may want to pretend macro evolution is some kind of impossibily that evolution doesnt suggest anyway, but dont expect everyone else to agree with your insanity,

Ed

We see a variety of bacteria, such as the bacteria that causes the cold, flu, AIDS (HIV), etc., and they probably share a common ancestor... a bacteria. This does NOT, in ANY way, prove macroevolution. Neither do the variety of sauropods, because their common ancestor was most likely a sauropod.

Edx · Jul 21, 2005

GodsSamus said:
We see a variety of bacteria, such as the bacteria that causes the cold, flu, AIDS (HIV), etc., and they probably share a common ancestor... a bacteria. This does NOT, in ANY way, prove macroevolution. Neither do the variety of sauropods, because their common ancestor was most likely a sauropod.

If you guys had even a rudimentary understanding of taxomony, you'd feel silly now.

Ed

Ed Vidence · Jul 21, 2005

Edx said:
No, its not. You Creationists may want to pretend macroevolution is some kind of impossibily that evolution theory doesnt suggest anyway, but dont expect everyone else to agree with your insanity,

Ed

The OP quotes of Milton and Darwin refute you.

Neither persons are or were creationists.

Question:

Darwin admitted the fossil record contained no evidence of transitional forms.

What evidence was his theory based on then ?

Darwin did not have a science degree so this will be an acceptable out.

Ed Vidence

GodsSamus · Jul 21, 2005

Edx said:
If you guys had even a rudimentary understanding of taxomony, you'd feel silly now.

Ed

Buah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha (Gasps for breath)!!!Is the best defense of your religion insults? If it is, why are you keeping it posed as science?

mikeynov · Jul 21, 2005

GodsSamus said:
We see a variety of bacteria, such as the bacteria that causes the cold, flu, AIDS (HIV), etc., and they probably share a common ancestor... a bacteria. This does NOT, in ANY way, prove macroevolution. Neither do the variety of sauropods, because their common ancestor was most likely a sauropod.

Do you understand the difference between bacteria and virii? Based on this post, I'd say no.

But that's okay - displaying a sub-high school understanding of biology seems a good fit with most of the nonsense you post.

mikeynov · Jul 21, 2005

GodsSamus said:
Buah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha (Gasps for breath)!!!Is the best defense of your religion insults? If it is, why are you keeping it posed as science?

Why are you talking about science when you don't know what the V in HIV stands for?

Good gravy - go to school, leave this board alone. You're embarassing yourself.

Macro: Where is the Evidence ?

Ed Vidence

Guest

Senior Veteran

GrenAce

GoSeminoles!

Guest

Regular Member

Active Member

Ed Vidence

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Ed Vidence

Guest

Senior Veteran

Legend

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Ed Vidence

Guest

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency