Punctuated Equilibrium isn't science!
- Thread starter Novaknight1
- Start date
Tip #113: When you use CAPS, it makes your statement more true.
Does it bother you that you are making false statements, or is it ok as long as it's for a "greater good"?
Does it bother you that you are making false statements, or is it ok as long as it's for a "greater good"?
Upvote
0
Mechanical Bliss
Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
Novaknight1 said:
So you've abandoned the micro-/macro-evolution dichotomy and simply refuse to even allow the change in allele frequencies of a population of organisms to be referred to evolution even though it is evolution simply because of the word being used? Is it that much of an emotional issue for you?
Furthermore, if you define evolution as the development of new species, this has been observed, and I am certain that this has been pointed out to you before. Why you ignored it is beyond me. By the position of your own goalposts, your position has been refuted because "change from 1 species to another" has been directly observed. No doubt this will cause a goal post change because intellectual honesty does not seem to be on the near horizon.
I'm trying to be nice, I really am. But it really is getting difficult to maintain any level of patience with you. You have ignored a number of posts (most recently issues dealing with radiometric dating), so you should probably go back and address the things you have not yet if you want to be taken seriously here. Instead you continue to make aggressive one-liner posts that continually demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about and have no intention of trying to learn anything. You keep making empty claims over and over but you never actually address any of the responses.
Seriously, if you don't want to get flippant replies and want to be taken seriously by people here, then you need to change your behavior by not ignoring posts and start engaging in something more than a one sided discussion consisting of your one liners which essentially amount to mindless "preaching" in the end. But then again, if you don't want to learn or engage in any meaningful discussion, then it would be advisable for you to stop posting in this part of the forum.
Upvote
0
Mechanical Bliss
Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
Arikay said:Tip #113: When you use CAPS, it makes your statement more true.
Does it bother you that you are making false statements, or is it ok as long as it's for a "greater good"?
Yes the whole lying for the cause mentality of creationism is disturbing, especially coming from fundamentalist Christians who often try to paint themselves as superior morality-possessing people while everyone else is a dirty heathen and incapable of telling the truth. That is honestly how many of them come across. Their goal isn't really about creationism but rather conversion, but why they think that their credibility will remain intact for that purpose after being caught in lies is beyond my understanding.
But Arikay...you're on the verge of your 12,000 th post!!!!!!!
Congrats! That's pretty amazing.
Upvote
0
Those germ theorists keep using bacteria and Virii to prove their theory, thats not germ theory. Until I see a giant germ eating a building, I wont believe it.
Upvote
0
Novaknight1 said:
Well, I think you've just demonstrated that you have not read anything about PE and have no clue what it really says.
Upvote
0
Not really, it just means I make more repeat replies to people that wont listen to begin with.
Upvote
0
theFijian said:
Yup, very much so. Unfortunately for creationism, most creationists don't seem to know this.
Upvote
0
michabo
reason, evidence
Sure it does. Evolution is necessary to provide the diversity of life after the few representatives of the "kinds" were taken on the ark. In fact, this evolution is radically faster and more effective than any evolutionist would consider.Novaknight1 said:
To take it further, even Hovind accepts that Alaskan rabbits have evolved sufficiently that they are no longer able to breed with other rabbits. So he admits that, using the biblical definition, evolution can result in new "kinds".
Upvote
0
Deamiter
I just follow Christ.
michabo said:
I very much doubt this. The biblical definition of 'kinds' seems to be "whatever the first created animals were" rather than the definition of species. It's been made pretty clear to me (from what I've read and seen on his tapes at least) that the biblical definition of kinds is untestable, though not entirely dishonest (as you seem to be suggesting).
Novaknight: If it really makes you feel better, you could use the terms micro and macro evolution and then discuss what the difference is elsewhere. When I say that a species evolved into another one (as in my earlier example about fish from a lake transplanted to a stream) I mean that they mutated enough (as measured in their genome) to be incapable of inbreeding. As that seems to be the general consensus on the definition of 'species' (though there are a few exceptions) this truly IS an example of the creation of a new species.
This really is an example of evolution. Note that by accepting this as true (that evolution exists) you are not bound to accepting that the Earth is older than 6000 years or the theories of common descent that say we evolved over time from other animals. You only need to accept the observation that populations CAN mutate enough to become separate species (which is called evolution). Does that make more sense?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Kinds seems to be either ill-defined (allowing claims that evolution can't cross Kinds boundaries without needing to look at evidence. Or it is the kindergarten versions of animal names.
Upvote
0
Arikay said:
Maybe you have something there.
The Bow-Wow kind, the Gee-Gee kind, the Moo Cow kind, the Baa Lamb kind - that might work...........let's see there were seven of each of those kinds saved, throw in a pair of the Incy-Wincy kind and we're almost set.
What I don't understand about the whole kinds thing, and the extremely rapid speciation that would be require post-flood to give us the huge diversity of species that we see in modern times, is that none of this extremely rapid speciation- with new forms appearing almost daily- is mentioned at all in the books after Genesis.
You'd think that some of the later characters descended from Noah would have noticed and at least said something. "Hey, you'll never guess what I saw yesterday - it was a bit like an Incy-Wincy, but instead of walking it could FLY!! I wonder what we could call it? How many legs? Not sure, I didn't get close enough to find out"
Upvote
0
No, but I do know a LOT about science. I have a few science books, and I believe Evolution's not science.
Upvote
0
Novaknight1 said:
You couldn't tell the difference between a modern human and chimp skull. You support a theory that publishes, researches, explains and knows nothing. You make the same, previously refuted claims over and over. No, you don't know anything about science.
Upvote
0
Icebrc
Active Member
Novaknight1 said:
Sorry to interject here in the middle of a thread, but I am curious what makes you believe that you know a "LOT" about science?
You say you have a few science books, but what are they? Who did the publishing, editing and of course writing?
What journals have you read or have a subscription to?
Have you taken any post-secondary science classes? more specifically those that are relevent to Evolutionary Theory?
Also, knowing a lot about science does not mean one knows a lot about Evolution, as science is a very broad field. I'm sure partical physicists are lacking in their understanding of the processes of anti-biotic resistance in bacteria, just as I'm sure Microbiologists (on average) are lacking in their understanding of partical acceleration.
And I'm not just saying this in response to you, but rather I have seen claims made before (on other BBS that I have been a part of) and it often appears that people who say they know a "LOT" about science gather much of it from popular science.
okay, back to watching.
Peace.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
It publishes nothing because anything that goes against Evolution is called religious. It researches nothing because a lot of science is biased toward Evolution. It knows nothing because it doesn't believe what scientists want them to say. And EVOLUTION is what doesn't explain anything. It doesn't explain how matter was created, how the Big Bang occured, or anything. Where did the laws come from?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
