Prove it or remove it challenge

[Paterfamilia]

So you were lying?

Ha ha no but I appreciate you asking.

I don't want to have the debate here if you don't mind.

 

[HitchSlap]

Ha ha no but I appreciate you asking.

I don't want to have the debate here if you don't mind.

What's with the "ha ha" in most of your replies?

 

[Paterfamilia]

Then they are separate theories.



The Pope didn't buy Heliocentrism. Your opinions on the matter don't mean squat. What matters is the evidence.

I agree that what matters is the evidence. My beliefs are based on the evidence.

 

[Paterfamilia]

I'm a happy guy. It means I am seriously amused, totally without rancor. If we were splitting a pint you would never see the slightest animosity.

 

[Loudmouth]

I agree that what matters is the evidence. My beliefs are based on the evidence.

What evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm a happy guy. It means I am seriously amused, totally without rancor. If we were splitting a pint you would never see the slightest animosity.

I am still wondering where you got this number from. Was it pulled from thin air?

"10,000,000,000,000 mutations at 1,000,000 to 1 deleterious/neutral to beneficial."--Paterfamilia

 

[HitchSlap]

I agree that what matters is the evidence. My beliefs are based on the evidence.

Then why have your responses been from a position of no evidence? I've already explained that ID/IC has no utility in the SM, and is nothing more than an argument from incredulity/ignorance.

And I'll share a pint any time!

 

[Paterfamilia]

We have plenty of evidence off what you believe about ID HA HA.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We have plenty of evidence off what you believe about ID HA HA.

No one is denying that we know that ID is garbage, simply creationists playing "scientist" as best.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Then why have your responses been from a position of no evidence? I've already explained that ID/IC has no utility in the SM, and is nothing more than an argument from incredulity/ignorance.

And I'll share a pint any time!

No one is denying that we know that ID is garbage, simply creationists playing "scientist" as best.

Yeah right. So clever.

 

[Hoghead1]

You claim that evolutionists "lie," Pater, is precisely what gets creation-science people in trouble and discredits the whole movement. When you can't come up with a solid rebuttal then simply attack your opponent's character, call them names, etc. In real science, you use science to test out and validate your beliefs, not the other way round. But creationists have twisted this around. We deeply believe that the moon is made of blue cheese. Science says otherwise. Therefore, science is a big lie. We believe God created in six days. Science says otherwise. Therefore, since is a lie and blaspheming God, a thing of the Devil. That is the basic strategy of creation science and so it is nowhere near real science.

 

[Hoghead1]

What exactly is your argument, Pater, to back your argument that the mechanisms aren't robot enough to account for macro? If you admit to micro, then you have put in place the mechanism for macro. It would be very strange to have a mechanism that yielded nothing, I think. Also, once you admit micro you are compelled to admit macro. The laws of science do not stop at your stove. If gravity affects you and other creatures it also affects and operates in the the space between you and them. Laws of science are assumed to work everywhere, so it makes sense to assume evolution also works and spans the gap between creatures as well. Put another way, if you deny macroevolution, then you are positing a stopping point for micro. But that stopping point is arbitrary. There is no indication of any stopping point for the changes that can occur through micro-evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

To answer your question, to me it doesn't make any difference. My objection to the theory is that it's still circumstantial with regard to macro evolution, and that the mechanisms aren't robust enough to account for the quantity of diversity that we see in the allotted time.

Directly observed. The first actual instance of direct observation of this was in the early 1900s. And let's see your numbers for the claim that observed mechanisms aren't sufficient.

 

[Paterfamilia]

"You claim that evolutionists "lie," Pater, is precisely what gets creation-science people in trouble and discredits the whole movement. When you can't come up with a solid rebuttal then simply attack your opponent's character, call them names, etc. In real science, you use science to test out and validate your beliefs, not the other way round. But creationists have twisted this around. We deeply believe that the moon is made of blue cheese. Science says otherwise. Therefore, science is a big lie. We believe God created in six days. Science says otherwise. Therefore, since is a lie and blaspheming God, a thing of the Devil. That is the basic strategy of creation science and so it is nowhere near real science."



Yeah I see what you are saying. My blanket statement was intended to be as big as your blanket statement. I offended my own sensibilities saying it, but if you want to make comprehensive slanderous statements about a group of people, you have to expect your group to get tarred with the same brush.

 

[The Barbarian]

Maybe, it would be better for you to just show your evidence, and not worry about tarring anything.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Thank you for your observations and questions.

What exactly is your argument, Pater, to back your argument that the mechanisms aren't robot enough to account for macro? If you admit to micro, then you have put in place the mechanism for macro. It would be very strange to have a mechanism that yielded nothing, I think. Also, once you admit micro you are compelled to admit macro. The laws of science do not stop at your stove. If gravity affects you and other creatures it also affects and operates in the the space between you and them. Laws of science are assumed to work everywhere, so it makes sense to assume evolution also works and spans the gap between creatures as well. Put another way, if you deny macroevolution, then you are positing a stopping point for micro. But that stopping point is arbitrary. There is no indication of any stopping point for the changes that can occur through micro-evolution.

Would you mind listing a source? Because I am finding several papers that dispute your claims.

 

[bhsmte]

I put 10 bucks on "magical poofing".

You bet!

Ha ha ha.

 

[Hoghead1]

I'm not in the business of making slanderous claims abut anyone, Pater. If you are referring to what I said about creation science. that is no slander, that is definitely how it operates. Now if you feel I am on the wrong track here, then you should give your case, attempt a solid rebuttal to what I have said, rather than casting undue dispersion on my character, which is all you did.

 

[Paterfamilia]

I'm not in the business of making slanderous claims abut anyone, Pater. If you are referring to what I said about creation science. that is no slander, that is definitely how it operates. Now if you feel I am on the wrong track here, then you should give your case, attempt a solid rebuttal to what I have said, rather than casting undue dispersion on my character, which is all you did.

Not at all sir, my objections were directed to other members. Please look at response #996.


My only request of you was any references you might have for your statements concerning the likelihood of crossover from micro to macro evolution. The usual naturalist contention is that there is no difference in the process, but rather a continuous accumulation of micro mutations that eventuate a speciation distinction.

There are some studies that dispute that.

 

[Hoghead1]

Sorry I misread you, Pater. OK, so tell me about these studies you believe dispute my line of reasoning or that generally found in science. What is your case?