Macro Evolutionists...

[Missileman]

You present two lapses in logic there. Your first logical fallacy is appeal to popularity. Therein lies your second fallacy - and the crux of the situation. You will hold NO scientist as 'credible' unless his findings and opinion are soundly aligned with yours. In essence, you've made no point; no counter argument.

You cannot - nor can the saints in your chosen religion provide even close to 'reasonable' explanation of the probability and likelihood of the simultaneous 'mutation' of a creature to form a heart, and circulatory system - AND blood to travel those highways.



Think for ten seconds about your religion - I'm NOT here to convince you you're wrong, by the way - the Faith you have in your god, and the circumstances around your religion are nobody's business but your own. You make your peace with your faith and how you live your life. But think for TEN seconds and ask yourself "Does it pass ANY common sense test for something to magically, randomly, accidentally, 'better' its condition given nothing but time and probability?






Macro and Micro are useful in identifying learned, inner-species adaptation and what you believe "A can become B. Just give it time, and eventually, magically, randomly, A will make its way to become B. I can't prove it. I don't even have much evidence. Since I refuse to believe A and B were part of a design, NO answer pointing out my err in logic will appease me."

Look at my Avatar. The avatar is a photo of a CH47 Chinook helicopter. Very complex piece of machinery. Yet, no amount of time, heat, pressure, magic, random chance will ever make that CH47 EVOLVE from, say, a much smaller OH58 KIOWA Helicopter. I bet you agree with me.

Yet, you can look at the human body and have NO problems with believing OUR complex 'machine' created itself through the same methods? Tell me where the common sense is in THAT.

There is nothing more ironic than someone trying to discredit evolution by calling it a religion. ROFLMAO

BTW, when was the last time a CH47 gave birth to an offspring where a variation might occur?

[pete311]

lol.....by "creationist" do you mean the ideologically distorted view of Christianity held by the typical atheist?.......we tend more to discuss the ideologically distorted view of science held by macro-evolutionists......

There are is no such thing as a macro-evolutionist. It's made up. No one in the scientific community uses Macro and Micro in their research. The terms are abused by creationists.

I suspect you didn't bother to read any of those links.....if so, you would be aware that there is nothing in any of them that explains why butterflies exist.....in fact, the only reference to evolutionary origin mentioned proves my point rather than yours....from that link....

Evolution is not a philosophy, it doesn't deal in "why" something exists or not.

the larval stage of butterflies is not a stage of origin.....it is illogical.......there is no way for it to have "evolved" as a method of survival without the creature of origin becoming extinct.....in layman's terms.....there is no way a flying creature would "evolve" into a crawling creature because it was better adapted to survive, yet reproduce as a threatened flying creature.......it wouldn't live long enough to reproduce.....and if it COULD live to reproduce there wouldn't be any cause for it to evolve in the first place......

How are you sooooooo sure? You fail to account for the millions of species have gone extinct over the past billion years. The problem is your brain has only been functioning for maybe 30-40 years? Humans have a hard time imaging such lengths of time.

You present two lapses in logic there. Your first logical fallacy is appeal to popularity.

The irony is overwhelming.

Therein lies your second fallacy - and the crux of the situation. You will hold NO scientist as 'credible' unless his findings and opinion are soundly aligned with yours. In essence, you've made no point; no counter argument.

I hold any scientist as credible if they are published in a peer reviewed journal or textbook.

You cannot - nor can the saints in your chosen religion provide even close to 'reasonable' explanation of the probability and likelihood of the simultaneous 'mutation' of a creature to form a heart, and circulatory system - AND blood to travel those highways.

As if you've actually tried to research, gimmie a break. You are lost in your own head. Anything you can't figure out on your own, must end up with a witch doctor explanation. Do you even know how to use google? All these questions have resources you can read about in seconds using this neat tool called Google. Don't you think its weird that most of the animals in this world have VERY similar biological processes? From the smallest mouse to the largest elephant, they all have circulatory systems and guess what, they range in complexity! You can go further smaller and older and see how primitive systems work. dmp your refusal to read anything is sad. I don't know if you are really dumb or what. how many times can I say it, read read read read read read read read. do you know how to read? why don't you do it!?

Macro and Micro are useful in identifying learned, inner-species adaptation and what you believe "A can become B. Just give it time, and eventually, magically, randomly, A will make its way to become B. I can't prove it. I don't even have much evidence. Since I refuse to believe A and B were part of a design, NO answer pointing out my err in logic will appease me."

You refute something you don't understand. Even you must see that is a problem.

Look at my Avatar. The avatar is a photo of a CH47 Chinook helicopter. Very complex piece of machinery. Yet, no amount of time, heat, pressure, magic, random chance will ever make that CH47 EVOLVE from, say, a much smaller OH58 KIOWA Helicopter. I bet you agree with me.

Yet, you can look at the human body and have NO problems with believing OUR complex 'machine' created itself through the same methods? Tell me where the common sense is in THAT.

Evolution is a theory of living creatures, a helicopter is not biologically active, you are so confused.

lol.....by "creationist" do you mean the ideologically distorted view of Christianity held by the typical atheist?.......we tend more to discuss the ideologically distorted view of science held by macro-evolutionists......

There are is no such thing as a macro-evolutionist. It's made up. No one in the scientific community uses Macro and Micro in their research. The terms are abused by creationists.

I suspect you didn't bother to read any of those links.....if so, you would be aware that there is nothing in any of them that explains why butterflies exist.....in fact, the only reference to evolutionary origin mentioned proves my point rather than yours....from that link....

Evolution is not a philosophy, it doesn't deal in "why" something exists or not.

the larval stage of butterflies is not a stage of origin.....it is illogical.......there is no way for it to have "evolved" as a method of survival without the creature of origin becoming extinct.....in layman's terms.....there is no way a flying creature would "evolve" into a crawling creature because it was better adapted to survive, yet reproduce as a threatened flying creature.......it wouldn't live long enough to reproduce.....and if it COULD live to reproduce there wouldn't be any cause for it to evolve in the first place......

How are you sooooooo sure? You fail to account for the millions of species have gone extinct over the past billion years. Not every creature is destined to evolve to survive. Humans certainly won't evolve from their own stupidity. The problem is your brain has only been functioning for maybe 30-40 years? Humans have a hard time imaging such great lengths of time.

You present two lapses in logic there. Your first logical fallacy is appeal to popularity.

The irony is overwhelming.

Therein lies your second fallacy - and the crux of the situation. You will hold NO scientist as 'credible' unless his findings and opinion are soundly aligned with yours. In essence, you've made no point; no counter argument.

I hold any scientist as credible if they are published in a peer reviewed journal or textbook.

You cannot - nor can the saints in your chosen religion provide even close to 'reasonable' explanation of the probability and likelihood of the simultaneous 'mutation' of a creature to form a heart, and circulatory system - AND blood to travel those highways.

As if you've actually tried to research, gimmie a break. You are lost in your own head. Anything you can't figure out on your own, must end up with a witch doctor explanation. Do you even know how to use google? All these questions have resources you can read about in seconds using this neat tool called Google. Don't you think its weird that most of the animals in this world have VERY similar biological processes? From the smallest mouse to the largest elephant, they all have circulatory systems and guess what, they range in complexity! You can go further smaller and older and see how primitive systems work. It's not hard to imagine a primitive system mutating over millions of years. dmp your refusal to read anything is sad. I don't know if you are really dumb or what. how many times can I say it, read read read read read read read read. do you know how to read? why don't you do it!? It takes time man! Scientists spend decades learning this stuff and you want to be convinced on an internet forum in one statement. It ain't gonna happen.

Macro and Micro are useful in identifying learned, inner-species adaptation and what you believe "A can become B. Just give it time, and eventually, magically, randomly, A will make its way to become B. I can't prove it. I don't even have much evidence. Since I refuse to believe A and B were part of a design, NO answer pointing out my err in logic will appease me."

You refute something you don't understand. Even you must see that is a problem.

Look at my Avatar. The avatar is a photo of a CH47 Chinook helicopter. Very complex piece of machinery. Yet, no amount of time, heat, pressure, magic, random chance will ever make that CH47 EVOLVE from, say, a much smaller OH58 KIOWA Helicopter. I bet you agree with me.

Yet, you can look at the human body and have NO problems with believing OUR complex 'machine' created itself through the same methods? Tell me where the common sense is in THAT.

Evolution is a theory of living creatures, you are so confused.

[jimnyc]

There are is no such thing as a macro-evolutionist. It's made up. No one in the scientific community uses Macro and Micro in their research. The terms are abused by creationists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

[pete311]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

jimmy you are better than this, did you even read it? look at the "misuse" header. furthermore, i said you don't find it in biology textbooks or peer reviewed journal studies. wiki is not a resource scientists use.

[jimnyc]

jimmy you are better than this, did you even read it?

Glanced mostly. I've heard the terms for years, so when you said it was made up, I did a quick search to see if it were true, and that was the first link that came back. Seems the origin of "macroevolution" goes back to a Russian scientist. I would then think his work on the subject would make him a "macro evolutionist". No? I'm sure you'll correct me and I'll take your word - this is one subject I honestly don't know anything about.

[pete311]

Glanced mostly. I've heard the terms for years, so when you said it was made up, I did a quick search to see if it were true, and that was the first link that came back. Seems the origin of "macroevolution" goes back to a Russian scientist. I would then think his work on the subject would make him a "macro evolutionist". No? I'm sure you'll correct me and I'll take your word - this is one subject I honestly don't know anything about.

In respect, I will correct my statement. The term is not made up (at least not within this thread), but the "misuse" section does explain what I was talking about.

[jimnyc]

In respect, I will correct my statement. The term is not made up (at least not within this thread), but the "misuse" section does explain what I was talking about.

I did go back and read the "misuse" section after you pointed it out, and see what you're saying. I'll defer to those of you that know a LOT more than me on this subject, which is very little.

[PostmodernProphet]

There are is no such thing as a macro-evolutionist. It's made up. No one in the scientific community uses Macro and Micro in their research. The terms are abused by creationists.




Evolution is not a philosophy, it doesn't deal in "why" something exists or not.



How are you sooooooo sure? You fail to account for the millions of species have gone extinct over the past billion years. The problem is your brain has only been functioning for maybe 30-40 years? Humans have a hard time imaging such lengths of time.



The irony is overwhelming.


I hold any scientist as credible if they are published in a peer reviewed journal or textbook.



As if you've actually tried to research, gimmie a break. You are lost in your own head. Anything you can't figure out on your own, must end up with a witch doctor explanation. Do you even know how to use google? All these questions have resources you can read about in seconds using this neat tool called Google. Don't you think its weird that most of the animals in this world have VERY similar biological processes? From the smallest mouse to the largest elephant, they all have circulatory systems and guess what, they range in complexity! You can go further smaller and older and see how primitive systems work. dmp your refusal to read anything is sad. I don't know if you are really dumb or what. how many times can I say it, read read read read read read read read. do you know how to read? why don't you do it!?



You refute something you don't understand. Even you must see that is a problem.



Evolution is a theory of living creatures, a helicopter is not biologically active, you are so confused.

???....I'm sorry, pete.....I honestly can't see anything here worth responding to....everything I said in the last post still stands.......

[pete311]

???....I'm sorry, pete.....I honestly can't see anything here worth responding to....everything I said in the last post still stands.......

Only on broken legs

[PostmodernProphet]

Only on broken legs

not until you show something's broken......so far you haven't even tried......all you gave me was a denial you've already backtracked on, a refusal to answer the ultimate question and a personal insult......

[darin]

What's clear is this: Pete can't create any original thought. When confronted by the facts, he repeats what he's said earlier. Furthermore, there are a few folks in here who have enough faith to look at a cake and assume it was formed through random chance, magic, alignment of the elements etc. There are reasonable people here, too, who look at the cake and conclude it MUST have a baker.

I applaud you guys for your faith in magic/random chance/ANYTHING but a 'Designer'. Your faith is admirable - but the sad part is, you won't ever seek 'truth' when 'truth' disagrees with you. The concept of intelligent design bothers you mostly because it points out your willing, adamant ignorance.

[Missileman]

What's clear is this: Pete can't create any original thought. When confronted by the facts, he repeats what he's said earlier. Furthermore, there are a few folks in here who have enough faith to look at a cake and assume it was formed through random chance, magic, alignment of the elements etc. There are reasonable people here, too, who look at the cake and conclude it MUST have a baker.

I applaud you guys for your faith in magic/random chance/ANYTHING but a 'Designer'. Your faith is admirable - but the sad part is, you won't ever seek 'truth' when 'truth' disagrees with you. The concept of intelligent design bothers you mostly because it points out your willing, adamant ignorance.

Why do you continually insist on comparing animate and inanimate objects? You have to realize it's nothing more than a giant strawman.

Still waiting for you to produce a pregnant helicopter.

[pete311]

What's clear is this: Pete can't create any original thought.

Says the man who lives by an ancient book.

When confronted by the facts, he repeats what he's said earlier. Furthermore, there are a few folks in here who have enough faith to look at a cake and assume it was formed through random chance, magic, alignment of the elements etc. There are reasonable people here, too, who look at the cake and conclude it MUST have a baker.

It's now crystal clear you have a mental impairment. Either that or you are a malfunctioning robot because you just keep repeating the same stupid lines. You really have nothing to say. After all this time you still think Evolution Theory has something to do with the origin of life. You'd know that if you had done 1 minute of research. Yes, if I see a cake, I'd conclude it was made by a baker. What is your point?

Still waiting for you to produce a pregnant helicopter.

Or a pregnant cake

[PostmodernProphet]

What's clear is this: Pete can't create any original thought.

score......if he can't find something to paste that responds to your question, he pastes something that doesn't respond to your question and pretends he did......

[PostmodernProphet]

Why do you continually insist on comparing animate and inanimate objects?

like organic chemicals and one celled organisms?.....