# Why every rational person must accept evolution



## orogenicman (Jan 26, 2014)




----------



## orogenicman (Jan 27, 2014)

Nothing but crickets chirping...

Interesting.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 27, 2014)

Evolution is two centuries of research and science. What else can match the facts on the ground?


----------



## jwoodie (Jan 27, 2014)

Two centuries of "research and science" and all they can come up with is an alleged fish with alleged nostrils?  Dogs have been selectively bred for two millennia, resulting in the greatest variation in size (100x) of any species that has ever existed.  Guess what?  They are all still dogs.  

"Research and science" doesn't have a clue as to how one species can transform into another species, other than to assert that it magically happens "over millions of years."  Instead, it resorts to attacking the straw man of "Creationism" in order to bolster its currently popular theory.


----------



## hunarcy (Jan 27, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> Two centuries of "research and science" and all they can come up with is an alleged fish with alleged nostrils?  Dogs have been selectively bred for two millennia, resulting in the greatest variation in size (100x) of any species that has ever existed.  Guess what?  They are all still dogs.
> 
> "Research and science" doesn't have a clue as to how one species can transform into another species, other than to assert that it magically happens "over millions of years."  Instead, it resorts to attacking the straw man of "Creationism" in order to bolster its currently popular theory.



I'd be very impressed if evolutionists could demonstrate how the eye was developed.


----------



## Mudflap (Jan 27, 2014)

I don't have a problem with evolution in the sense that horses evolved from a small horse to a larger horse, or that a flower adapted to living in a swamp as opposed to a more arid climate. But I don't believe a flower evolved into a horse. I can accept evolution in that context. 

The mystery is where the horse and flower came from.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgyTVT3dqGY



Because you don't know what rational means?

It is entirely possible to be rational and reject evolution, especially if you happen to approach reality from the premise that the mind is the fundamental building block of reality. You might not agree with that view, but you cannot dismiss it as irrational.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 27, 2014)

hunarcy said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > Two centuries of "research and science" and all they can come up with is an alleged fish with alleged nostrils? Dogs have been selectively bred for two millennia, resulting in the greatest variation in size (100x) of any species that has ever existed. Guess what? They are all still dogs.
> ...


 
I'd be very impressed if just once a creationist would actually address the contents of an OP.  I'm not holding my breath.  After all, they believe that the Flintstones is a documentary.


----------



## chikenwing (Jan 27, 2014)

I'd be very impressed if just once a creationist would actually address the contents of an OP. I'm not holding my breath. After all, they believe that the Flintstones is a documentary.

Don't expect much,rational escapes you as well. There were several points addressed,but all you got as a retort is insults,yep you get what you deserve


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 27, 2014)

chikenwing said:


> I'd be very impressed if just once a creationist would actually address the contents of an OP. I'm not holding my breath. After all, they believe that the Flintstones is a documentary.
> 
> Don't expect much,rational escapes you as well. *There were several points addressed*,but all you got as a retort is insults,yep you get what you deserve


 
None of which were germane to the facts presented in the OP video.


----------



## chikenwing (Jan 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be very impressed if just once a creationist would actually address the contents of an OP. I'm not holding my breath. After all, they believe that the Flintstones is a documentary.
> ...



Really,like what and how,just saying it doesn't cut it.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 27, 2014)

chikenwing said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > chikenwing said:
> ...


 
Have you watched the video?  All the way through?


----------



## chikenwing (Jan 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Yep


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 27, 2014)

So if you don't agree that a cell jump started itself and all the intricaies needed for life, simutaneously, survived for long enough to self generate and so on and so on, then you must be a Biblical creationist? There's only two choices? Extreme faith or extreme faith?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 27, 2014)

chikenwing said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > chikenwing said:
> ...


 
Great, so tell me where, in this thread, anyone has addressed or discussed the facts presented in the video.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 27, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> So if you don't agree that a cell jump started itself and all the intricaies needed for life, simutaneously, survived for long enough to self generate and so on and so on, then you must be a Biblical creationist? There's only two choices? Extreme faith or extreme faith?


 
If you are wanting a discussion of abiogenesis theory, you are in the wrong thread.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> If you are wanting a discussion of abiogenesis theory, you are in the wrong thread.


I was going for the bigger picture and poiting out how people can misuse science as a pseudo religion while criticizing competing faiths. It isn't rational. You can't consider evolution by chance unless you consider its' origins.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 27, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > If you are wanting a discussion of abiogenesis theory, you are in the wrong thread.
> ...


 

Evolution is not a matter of chance because natural selection does not occur by chance. Since science is not faith-based, it cannot criticize "competing faiths".  That said, it certainly can and does criticize willful ignorance, and should continue to do so.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 27, 2014)

chikenwing said:


> I'd be very impressed if just once a creationist would actually address the contents of an OP. I'm not holding my breath. After all, they believe that the Flintstones is a documentary.
> 
> Don't expect much,rational escapes you as well. There were several points addressed,but all you got as a retort is insults,yep you get what you deserve



I would be even more impressed if the OP had a point.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be very impressed if just once a creationist would actually address the contents of an OP. I'm not holding my breath. After all, they believe that the Flintstones is a documentary.
> ...



I didn't watch the video, I addressed your attack on rational thinking.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Science is not faith based but faith can and does try to misuse it. Science can't prove how life or the universe started so it takes faith to assume it's natural.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



In a thread full of stupid statements this absolutely takes the cake.

Tell me something, High and Mighty King of Stupid Statements, how is natural selection not random? When Darwin postulated natural selection he saw it as the result of a process, not a process in and of itself. In other words, it is a fucking result, not a way to get somewhere.

Evolution is the process, and it is random. The only possible way to start with a random process and obtain a non random result is by adding an intelligent filter into the process before the result that deliberately eliminates the randomness. 

What, exactly, works in your version of evolution to eliminate that randomness? Who is guiding it?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 27, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


 
Never say never.  What takes faith is to believe, in the face of all that science has discovered about the natural world, that life is anything but a natural occurrence.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 27, 2014)

Math and physics tells us that our universe came into being by a big bang. The equations = that is in fact so.

As the universe cooled atoms formed and then they organized into bigger forms of matter. Stars through fusion fused different elements that made our planets and us.

How did elements like protons come to be? Through the energy released by the tear in space that was launched outwards by the big bang. This is where universes outside of ours does make sense.


----------



## Mudflap (Jan 27, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Math and physics tells us that our universe came into being by a big bang. The equations = that is in fact so.
> 
> As the universe cooled atoms formed and then they organized into bigger forms of matter. Stars through fusion fused different elements that made our planets and us.
> 
> How did elements like protons come to be? Through the energy released by the tear in space that was launched outwards by the big bang. This is where universes outside of ours does make sense.



I can agree with what happened after the Big Bang, but go back to before the Big Bang. Where did whatever-it-was-that-banged come from?


----------



## Steven_R (Jan 27, 2014)

Asking what happened before the Big Bang is like asking what's North of the North Pole. The question just doesn't make sense. The math breaks down, and whatever our universe was really isn't what the universe is now because spacetime didn't exist as we can define it. There are a couple of vague ideas involving multiverses or branes colliding, but frankly the Cosmologists just don't have enough data to come up with anything like a solid hypothesis.


----------



## westwall (Jan 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








  "Natural selection does not occur by chance"  How _DOES_ it occur then?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 27, 2014)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


 
Non-randomly, by definition.  Jeez.  That is why it is called natural "selection".  If you want details you can either pay me, or take a class.  I am not an charity for academic cases such as yourself.


----------



## rdean (Jan 27, 2014)

If the occult were real, then Republican economic policies would have a chance of working.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 28, 2014)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Fake scientists always think evolution isn't random because they think the fact that they are alive proves it isn't random. They really need to pay more attention when that idiot Dawkins explains how random mutations work, that is the only thing about evolution he really gets.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 28, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Damn, that cleared up how stupid you are.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 28, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Math and physics tells us that our universe came into being by a big bang. The equations = that is in fact so.


Then go ahead and post it. Hint: there would be no theories on origins if it were a proven fact. That's why I called it faith.

You do know that the term 'big bang' was a term of derision because the scientists of the day believed that physics and math favored a static state universe and that the Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre came up with the theory to prove a creation event?


----------



## Mudflap (Jan 28, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> Asking what happened before the Big Bang is like asking what's North of the North Pole. The question just doesn't make sense. The math breaks down, and whatever our universe was really isn't what the universe is now because spacetime didn't exist as we can define it. There are a couple of vague ideas involving multiverses or branes colliding, but frankly the Cosmologists just don't have enough data to come up with anything like a solid hypothesis.



I understand there's nothing north of the north pole, but for something to explode there needs to be something there. Where did that something come from?


----------



## 007 (Jan 28, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


And exactly what magical force is guiding this "natural selection?"


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 28, 2014)

007 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


 
The environment in which species live is not a magical force.  Jeez, I am surrounded by idiots!


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 28, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> The environment in which species live is not a magical force.  Jeez, I am surrounded by idiots!


Not so fast Einstein. Explain how that environment happened on its' own and life jump started into existence. And without trying to flood us with google links.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 28, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > The environment in which species live is not a magical force. Jeez, I am surrounded by idiots!
> ...


 
Well, Mr. Weasel, it's simple, really.  First off, the theory of evolution says nothing about how life originated, so that part of your query is a red herring and irrelevant to the discussion.  As for how "that environment happened on its own", really?  You seem to believe that ecosystems cannot function without outside intervention.  What evidence would lead you to that apparent conclusion?


----------



## chikenwing (Jan 28, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Bwhahahahah


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 28, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Well, Mr. Weasel, it's simple, really.  First off, the theory of evolution says nothing about how life originated, so that part of your query is a red herring and irrelevant to the discussion.  As for how "that environment happened on its own", really?  You seem to believe that ecosystems cannot function without outside intervention.  What evidence would lead you to that apparent conclusion?


Yes, I know evolution doesn't directly address origins. However, there is the mindset that the answer is natural and it becomes a natural answer vs biblical creationism dichotomy. I said nothing about ecosystems being directed so you're making my point. 

The method that made it all happen exists somehow and science doesn't have the answer. So it becomes a faith vs faith thing.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jan 28, 2014)

As a self-styled rationalist myself I would say you can reject the whole of science if you want and embrace religion to your hearts content. 

Your opinion doesn't matter.


----------



## Steven_R (Jan 28, 2014)

Except that the people who reject science get to vote for school boards and lawmakers. If it was just a question of them plugging their ears and yelling "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" whenever science is discussed, this wouldn't be an issue, but they want their brand of "truth" forcefed to your kids.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 28, 2014)

The whole of science doesn't have all the answers. You don't need to be religious to know it.


----------



## Steven_R (Jan 28, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> The whole of science doesn't have all the answers. You don't need to be religious to know it.



No one ever claimed science has all the answers. Science just tries to answer the question of "How?" It leaves "Why?" to philosophers and religion.

The problem comes when people try to work the other side of the street instead of sticking to their own objectives and methodologies.


----------



## chikenwing (Jan 28, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> Except that the people who reject science get to vote for school boards and lawmakers. If it was just a question of them plugging their ears and yelling "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" whenever science is discussed, this wouldn't be an issue, but they want their brand of "truth" forcefed to your kids.



Just the same as you do,you want what you want,its no different.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 28, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > The whole of science doesn't have all the answers. You don't need to be religious to know it.
> ...


Or when people assume too much. I'm not religious.


----------



## Steven_R (Jan 28, 2014)

chikenwing said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Except that the people who reject science get to vote for school boards and lawmakers. If it was just a question of them plugging their ears and yelling "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" whenever science is discussed, this wouldn't be an issue, but they want their brand of "truth" forcefed to your kids.
> ...



Of course it is because using the scientific method and peer review and two centuries of mounting evidence in biology, geology, physics, and genetics is exactly the same thing as pointing to a Bronze Age creation myth.


----------



## Steven_R (Jan 28, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



No one is claiming you are, but philosophy can't answer scientific questions any more than science can answer philosophical questions.


----------



## PainefulTruth (Jan 28, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> Asking what happened before the Big Bang is like asking what's North of the North Pole. The question just doesn't make sense. The math breaks down, and whatever our universe was really isn't what the universe is now because spacetime didn't exist as we can define it. There are a couple of vague ideas involving multiverses or branes colliding, but frankly the Cosmologists just don't have enough data to come up with anything like a solid hypothesis.



They don't have any data or evidence about anything pre-Big Bang.  That said, evolution is a virtually proven "theory".  Virtually proven means that there's massive evidence for it and no rational evidence against it.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 28, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Well, Mr. Weasel, it's simple, really. First off, the theory of evolution says nothing about how life originated, so that part of your query is a red herring and irrelevant to the discussion. As for how "that environment happened on its own", really? You seem to believe that ecosystems cannot function without outside intervention. What evidence would lead you to that apparent conclusion?
> ...


 
It only becomes a "natural answer vs biblical creationism dichotomy" in the minds of biblical creationists.  Scientists understand that no dichotomy exists, as do many non-literalist Christians.



			
				weasel said:
			
		

> I said nothing about ecosystems being directed so you're making my point.


 
The environments in which life exist on this planet ARE ecosystems.  That you said nothing about them doesn't negate that fact.



			
				weasel said:
			
		

> The method that made it all happen exists somehow and science doesn't have the answer. So it becomes a faith vs faith thing.


 
God of the gaps argument.  Congratulations.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 28, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> The whole of science doesn't have all the answers. You don't need to be religious to know it.


 
Scientists are the ones suggesting that we have all the answers. But we have many answers, and aren't about to deny the answers that we do have. You don't need to be a scientist to understand this.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 28, 2014)

chikenwing said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Except that the people who reject science get to vote for school boards and lawmakers. If it was just a question of them plugging their ears and yelling "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" whenever science is discussed, this wouldn't be an issue, but they want their brand of "truth" forcefed to your kids.
> ...


 
If you have such serious issues with science, you should get off the internet, sell your computer, turn off your lights, and buy a horse and buggy.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 28, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Actually, you are the idiot. Not your fault, you were told by another idiot that natural selection somehow magically makes evolution non random. Funny thing, you are both wrong.



> The mechanisms of evolution&#8212;like natural selection and genetic drift&#8212;work with the _random_ variation generated by mutation.
> Factors in the environment are thought to influence the rate of mutation  but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation.   For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation  rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant  to those chemicals.  In this respect, mutations are random&#8212;whether a  particular mutation happens or not is generally unrelated to how useful  that mutation would be.
> Scientists generally think that the first explanation is the right one and that directed mutations,           the second possible explanation, is not correct.


Evolution 101: Mutation Is Not "Directed"


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 28, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > The whole of science doesn't have all the answers. You don't need to be religious to know it.
> ...



Another idiot talking about something he doesn't understand, what a surprise.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 28, 2014)

I am curious.....when you talk about the science of evolution, are you referring to the fact that we have 37,000 different kinds of beetle instead of just one.....

or are you referring to the argument that human beings evolved from single celled organisms?......


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 28, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> It only becomes a "natural answer vs biblical creationism dichotomy" in the minds of biblical creationists.  Scientists understand that no dichotomy exists, as do many non-literalist Christians.


Wrong. I've had many people assume I'm a Christian because I don't accept a natural answer for the universe.


> The environments in which life exist on this planet ARE ecosystems.  That you said nothing about them doesn't negate that fact.


I didn't say otherwise. I was talking about how it came into existence.


> God of the gaps argument.  Congratulations.


Anything is possible but God. Congratulations.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 28, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > It only becomes a "natural answer vs biblical creationism dichotomy" in the minds of biblical creationists. Scientists understand that no dichotomy exists, as do many non-literalist Christians.
> ...


 
Whether or not you are a Christian is irrelevant to the fact that Scientists understand that no dichotomy exists, as do many non-literalist Christians.



			
				orogenicman said:
			
		

> The environments in which life exist on this planet ARE ecosystems. That you said nothing about them doesn't negate that fact.


 


			
				weasel said:
			
		

> I didn't say otherwise. I was talking about how it came into existence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 28, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> I am curious.....when you talk about the science of evolution, are you referring to the fact that we have 37,000 different kinds of beetle instead of just one.....
> 
> or are you referring to the argument that human beings evolved from single celled organisms?......


 
Is there a difference?


----------



## Darkwind (Jan 28, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Why do you keep calling them facts?  Have you personally proved them?


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 28, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Whether or not you are a Christian is irrelevant to the fact that Scientists understand that no dichotomy exists, as do many non-literalist Christians.


Golly, really? I notice you capitalized scientists in caps, that's wierd. I said many people do, not all people are scientists and not all scientists are alike. How many other stupid comments are you going to make?


> You queried about "how that environment happened on its own".  Are you having problems remembering what you said?


Nope. And you engaging in stupidity doesn't answer the question as to whether it happened naturally or not. 


> The issue is not whether or not it is possible that "god did it".  The issue is whether it is probable that "god did it, knowing what we know about the natural world today.


Exactly! You are a man of faith, I knew it. It's probable even though science can't answer the question? That isn't a scientific statement, it's a doctrine of faith.


----------



## chikenwing (Jan 28, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



 Painting with a shot gun ,assuming way beyond what is rational,and this is about critical thinking!!! LOL.

Not once have I mentioned anything anti science,but people like this one just love to assume what will fit their narrative.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 28, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > I am curious.....when you talk about the science of evolution, are you referring to the fact that we have 37,000 different kinds of beetle instead of just one.....
> ...



do you believe that science is based upon a specific method and that something must be falsifiable in order to qualify as a scientific object of study?.......if so, there's a difference......


----------



## 007 (Jan 28, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


I didn't ask about the environment. I asked what "force" was guiding the "selection?" Where is the intelligence behind it coming from? Some MAGICAL FORCE? Explain it.

You have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

B,bye.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 28, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


 
There over 350,000 described species of beetles (not 37,000) is due to the fact of evolution.  All multicellular life on Earth is derived from earlier evolved single celled life is due to the fact of evolution.  So no, there is no difference.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 28, 2014)

007 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > 007 said:
> ...


 
And I gave you the answer - natural selection.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 28, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > chikenwing said:
> ...


 
Some of them, yes.  You?


----------



## ZenBubba (Jan 29, 2014)

I'm surprised macroevolution wasn't mentioned in the video. I would have liked to kow by which mechanism it operates. I wasn't aware that evolutionary scientists had determined that.


----------



## Politico (Jan 29, 2014)

hunarcy said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > Two centuries of "research and science" and all they can come up with is an alleged fish with alleged nostrils?  Dogs have been selectively bred for two millennia, resulting in the greatest variation in size (100x) of any species that has ever existed.  Guess what?  They are all still dogs.
> ...



Don't hold your breath.  They can't even figure out how the human body works. As far as evolution goes. I don't have to believe anything without proof.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 29, 2014)

Politico said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...


 
Right.  That's why there have been no advances in medicine in the last 150 years.  Oh wait...


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 29, 2014)

ZenBubba said:


> I'm surprised macroevolution wasn't mentioned in the video. I would have liked to kow by which mechanism it operates. I wasn't aware that evolutionary scientists had determined that.


 
Probably because you haven't been paying attention.


----------



## Politico (Jan 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > hunarcy said:
> ...



Yeah right. Please show us the cure for cancer or diabetes. Not the half assed medicine that some doctor uses as a band aid to make people's eventual demise a little less painful.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 29, 2014)

Politico said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...


 
There are cures for many cancers. Diabetes treatments are vastly better than they were just 20 years ago, and I expect that there will be a cure in the next 10-20 years. If you didn't know this, I can only assume you've been asleep for the past 30 years.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 29, 2014)

*Republicans get their science from a talking snake. Fact.*


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 29, 2014)

Matthew said:


> *Republicans get their science from a talking snake. Fact.*


And you thought that would make you look better? I think it makes your side look more dogmatic and intolerant.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Do you believe it proper to consider a non-falsifiable proposition, such as "all multicellular life on earth is derived from an earlier evolved single celled life" to be scientific?.....


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 29, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


 
What makes you believe it is non-falsifiable or non-scientific?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > ]
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 29, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 29, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> It is being proven. Get over it.


You remind me of the devout atheist I once had a conversation with. He got frustrated and said "You believe in fairy tales while I believe in scientific facts that haven't been proven yet".


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 29, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > It is being proven. Get over it.
> ...


 
You remind me of a flat Earther.  Congratulations.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 29, 2014)

Well, we have had religion in one form or the other for nearly the whole existance of mankind. However, real science has been something we have had only for the past few hundred years. And in that past few hundred years, nearly one hundred percent of the advances in understanding the universe around us has taken place. 

How many tens of thousands of years have they prayed, danced, and chanted around sick people. Yet, only in the past couple of hundred years have we really understood the basics of how the human body works. And that has been through the work of scientists, not shamans, whether tribal or modern priests.


----------



## westwall (Jan 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


----------



## westwall (Jan 29, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, we have had religion in one form or the other for nearly the whole existance of mankind. However, real science has been something we have had only for the past few hundred years. And in that past few hundred years, nearly one hundred percent of the advances in understanding the universe around us has taken place.
> 
> How many tens of thousands of years have they prayed, danced, and chanted around sick people. Yet, only in the past couple of hundred years have we really understood the basics of how the human body works. And that has been through the work of scientists, not shamans, whether tribal or modern priests.








Untrue.  "Real" science began with the  ancient Greeks and it has been expanded upon since then.  Archimedes could hold his own in any mathematical, or engineering discussion, in any university today.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 29, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, we have had religion in one form or the other for nearly the whole existance of mankind. However, real science has been something we have had only for the past few hundred years. And in that past few hundred years, nearly one hundred percent of the advances in understanding the universe around us has taken place.
> 
> How many tens of thousands of years have they prayed, danced, and chanted around sick people. Yet, only in the past couple of hundred years have we really understood the basics of how the human body works. And that has been through the work of scientists, not shamans, whether tribal or modern priests.


Again, it's the scientist vs superstition mentality. You do know that many scientists are theists don't you?

Scientists and Belief | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project
A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 29, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Well, we have had religion in one form or the other for nearly the whole existance of mankind. However, real science has been something we have had only for the past few hundred years. And in that past few hundred years, nearly one hundred percent of the advances in understanding the universe around us has taken place.
> ...


 
Which is completely irrelevant.  No scientist sits in his laboratory and declares "God did it".  If you don't understand why by now, you never will.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 29, 2014)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Well, we have had religion in one form or the other for nearly the whole existance of mankind. However, real science has been something we have had only for the past few hundred years. And in that past few hundred years, nearly one hundred percent of the advances in understanding the universe around us has taken place.
> ...


 
Not really.  Archimedes would have his pointy hat handed to him by today's mathematicians and engineers.


----------



## westwall (Jan 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...








Proving yet again how little you know about science.  Ever heard of the Archimedes Codex?  Turns out the guy who you think would have his pointy hat handed to him invented heuristics (basically integral calculus) over 1500 years before it was reinvented.

Your level of ignorance seems to know no bounds.





Revealing the lost codex of Archimedes. [VIDEO]


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 29, 2014)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


 
Gee, I waited and waited for that video to support your claim.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.But it didn't.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 29, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Again, it's the scientist vs superstition mentality.



unfortunately, many who believe what they say is based on science are actually basing it on their own superstitions.....for example, those who claim that science has evidence that human being evolved from single celled organisms.....


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Which is completely irrelevant.  No scientist sits in his laboratory and declares "God did it".  If you don't understand why by now, you never will.


It's completely relevant, about half of the scientists are not on board with your faith.


----------



## westwall (Jan 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...









I guess we'll just have rely on your favorite wiki then....


"Ancient[edit]





 Archimedes used the method of exhaustion to compute the area inside a circle
The ancient period introduced some of the ideas that led to integral calculus, but does not seem to have developed these ideas in a rigorous and systematic way. Calculations of volumes and areas, one goal of integral calculus, can be found in the Egyptian Moscow papyrus (c. 1820 BC), but the formulas are only given for concrete numbers, some are only approximately true, and they are not derived by deductive reasoning.[1]

From the age of Greek mathematics, Eudoxus (c. 408&#8722;355 BC) used the method of exhaustion, which foreshadows the concept of the limit, to calculate areas and volumes, while *Archimedes (c. 287&#8722;212 BC) developed this idea further, inventing heuristics which resemble the methods of integral calculus.*[2] The method of exhaustion was later reinvented in China by Liu Hui in the 3rd century AD in order to find the area of a circle.[3] In the 5th century AD, Zu Chongzhi established a method that would later be called Cavalieri's principle to find the volume of a sphere.[4] Greek mathematicians are also credited with a significant use of infinitesimals. Democritus is the first person recorded to consider seriously the division of objects into an infinite number of cross-sections, but his inability to rationalize discrete cross-sections with a cone's smooth slope prevented him from accepting the idea. At approximately the same time, Zeno of Elea discredited infinitesimals further by his articulation of the paradoxes which they create."




History of calculus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 29, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Which is completely irrelevant. No scientist sits in his laboratory and declares "God did it". If you don't understand why by now, you never will.
> ...


 
What faith would that be?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 29, 2014)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


 
All of which can be done today by a 12 year old.  Next.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 29, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:
			
		

> untrue....the test concluded that multiple yeast cells clumped together.....molecularly, they remained single yeast cells.....the same was true of the bacteria being experimented on......a cluster of 64 single celled bacteria remained just that, 64 different single celled bacteria.....they did not reproduce as a single 64 celled organism, but as additional single celled bacteria that had the capacity to clump together......


 
You are missing the point here. What the experiment did was show the key steps in the transition from single cellular to multicellular life. It was a definitive experiment, one that others are now conducting.

Now, let me ask you a question (I know you won't answer it because people like you never do). If multicellular life didn't arise from single cellular life (and there is plenty of evidence that it did), where did it come from?


----------



## westwall (Jan 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...









Really?    *YOU* can't do simple percentages and you claim to be a PhD geologist!  Archimedes was a GENIUS.  That means, give him an hour, and the proper source material, and he would be conversant with whatever you presented him.  

You've been alive for at least 50 years and _*STILL*_ can't do simple math.

You are so clueless it amazes me.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> What faith would that be?


Secularism.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 29, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > What faith would that be?
> ...


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> You are missing the point here. What the experiment did was show the key steps in the transition from single cellular to multicellular life. It was a definitive experiment, one that others are now conducting.


well no.....what the experiment did was show that if you shake a bottle of yeast, those that stick to each other will settle on the bottom of the beaker......they started as single cells, they ended as single cells....it wasn't some "key transition"......transition implies movement or change......they didn't change and while there was movement, it was simply because heavy objects don't float nearly as well as light objects.....




> Now, let me ask you a question (I know you won't answer it because people like you never do). If multicellular life didn't arise from single cellular life (and there is plenty of evidence that it did), where did it come from?



???....why wouldn't "people like me" answer?........multicellular life was created, separately and distinctly different from single celled life.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 29, 2014)

now, while we're asking questions....you made the statement that there is plenty of evidence that multi cellular life arose from single cellular life.....since you haven't yet produced any such evidence, why don't you?.......


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 29, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> now, while we're asking questions....you made the statement that there is plenty of evidence that multi cellular life arose from single cellular life.....since you haven't yet produced any such evidence, why don't you?.......


 
Why don't you take a biology class, get a library card, and/or read the professional literature?  I'm not your tutor.  If you want me to be, send me a private message and we can discuss the fee.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 29, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Again, it's the scientist vs superstition mentality.
> ...



Everything did. The human body is made up of unimaginable collection of cells...

So if there's many that make up us who's to say we didn't come from just one????


----------



## westwall (Jan 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > now, while we're asking questions....you made the statement that there is plenty of evidence that multi cellular life arose from single cellular life.....since you haven't yet produced any such evidence, why don't you?.......
> ...









*YOU* made the assertion.  *YOU* claim to be a scientist.  * YOU **defend your thesis*!  That's how science works buddy boy!


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 29, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > You are missing the point here. What the experiment did was show the key steps in the transition from single cellular to multicellular life. It was a definitive experiment, one that others are now conducting.
> ...


 
Ahem:

"Analysis showed that the clusters were not just groups of random cells that adhered to each other, but related cells that remained attached following cell division.That was significant because it meant that they were genetically similar, which promotes cooperation. When the clusters reached a critical size, some cells died off in a process known as apoptosis to allow offspring to separate.The offspring reproduced only after they attained the size of their parents.

"A cluster alone isn't multi-cellular," Ratcliff says. "But when cells in a cluster cooperate, make sacrifices for the common good, and adapt to change, that's an evolutionary transition to multi-cellularity."In order for multi-cellular organisms to form, most cells need to sacrifice their ability to reproduce, an altruistic action that favors the whole but not the individual, Ratcliff says.For example, all cells in the human body are essentially a support system that allows sperm and eggs to pass DNA along to the next generation.Thus multi-cellularity is by its nature very cooperative."Some of the best competitors in nature are those that engage in cooperation, and our experiment bears that out," says Travisano.




> Now, let me ask you a question (I know you won't answer it because people like you never do). If multicellular life didn't arise from single cellular life (and there is plenty of evidence that it did), where did it come from?


 


			
				PostmodernProph said:
			
		

> ???....why wouldn't "people like me" answer?........multicellular life was created, separately and distinctly different from single celled life.....


 
Really?  And your evidence is?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 29, 2014)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


 
I am a scientist. It is not my thesis. It is a conclusion based on decades of research by scientists all over the globe. First of all, I did provide you with evidence in the form of at least three links to articles about real scientific research on the matter. If you want more information, again, take a biology class, get a library card, and/or read the professional literature? I'm not your tutor. If you want me to be, send me a private message and we can discuss the fee.

The reason why I say this is because if your goal here is to learn something, you now know the best places where you can go to learn more. But I don't believe that learning is your goal here. In which case, don't waste my time.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 29, 2014)

A scientist can see a cell divide into many cells with a microscope.

A living thing develops from sperm and egg. This entity then divides and expands into the creature be it a human, ape, monkey, pig, dog, etc. We see a single cell ---> muilicelliure being all the time.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 29, 2014)

Matthew said:


> A scientist can see a cell divide into many cells with a microscope.
> 
> A living thing develops from sperm and egg. This entity then divides and expands into the creature be it a human, ape, monkey, pig, dog, etc. We see a single cell ---> muilicelliure being all the time.



Thathas nothing to do with evolution.


----------



## westwall (Jan 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








YOU are the one representing it.  That means you get to defend it, that's what a scientist does (and which I have done on this board numerous times) and  I already am very familiar with evolutionary theory thank you very much.


----------



## westwall (Jan 30, 2014)

Matthew said:


> A scientist can see a cell divide into many cells with a microscope.
> 
> A living thing develops from sperm and egg. This entity then divides and expands into the creature be it a human, ape, monkey, pig, dog, etc. We see a single cell ---> muilicelliure being all the time.








Anybody can do that matthew.


----------



## Political Junky (Jan 30, 2014)

Politico said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...


So, you have proof of creationism?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 30, 2014)

westwall said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > A scientist can see a cell divide into many cells with a microscope.
> ...



True...Let's all go get a microscope and watch the cells divide. Showing that we all may of developed from something so simple.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 30, 2014)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


 
You are confuse.

Seismic FAQ - Main Page

Who has to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one they have always supported. Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim. Evolutionary scientists had the burden of proof for half a century after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists. It is up to creationists to show why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is right, and it is not up to the evolutionists to defend evolution. The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did. The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence prove that both evolution and the Holocaust are facts. In other words, it is not enough to have the evidence. You must convince others of the validity of your evidence. And when you are an outsider this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Why don't you take a biology class, get a library card, and/or read the professional literature?  I'm not your tutor.  If you want me to be, send me a private message and we can discuss the fee.


???....so far, you're the one demonstrating a lack of knowledge regarding biology.....not to worry, I will stay and tutor you at no charge......

now, back to the discussion, why did you run away from the discussion regarding the inability to falsify your beliefs regarding macro-evolution?.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Everything did. The human body is made up of unimaginable collection of cells...
> 
> So if there's many that make up us who's to say we didn't come from just one????



/shrugs.....if the test is "who's to say", its obviously a faith choice rather than science......I can respect that......I simply don't share your faith choice.......my problem is with those who mistakenly believe their faith choice is supported by scientific evidence......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Ahem:
> 
> "A cluster alone isn't multi-cellular," Ratcliff says. "But when cells in a cluster cooperate, make sacrifices for the common good, and adapt to change, that's an evolutionary transition to multi-cellularity.



except the claim that it is a transition is simply a statement of belief.....as he admits, its still a clump of individual single celled organisms......one cell dies, another cell replaces it.....we are left with the fact that there is no evidence of a single celled organism ever becoming a multi-celled organism../...




> ]
> 
> Really?  And your evidence is?



I freely admit that what I believe is a faith choice.....the scientific method does not require evidence of faith choices......obviously since faith is defined as the belief in something in the absence of evidence.......which causes one to question why you don't recognize that the things you believe in the absence of evidence are also faith choices......why is it you pretend they are science?......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> It is a conclusion based on decades of research by scientists all over the globe.


except, as already demonstrated, it has never achieved the status of being falsifiable......what do you call it again when a large group of people share a common faith choice?........I believe its called religion........


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Showing that we all may of developed from something so simple.



???....that isn't an observation of evolution.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> than the one almost everyone else accepts.



ah, _ad populum_......what if I point out the majority of people in the world believe that a deity created the heavens and the earth and everything in it.....would that then mean I win the debate?.....


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Showing that we all may of developed from something so simple.
> ...



That just shows that a single cell can develop into a more complex organism.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Seismic FAQ - Main Page
> 
> Who has to prove what to whom?



from the same source, about six inches up the page.....


> What is the scientific method?
> The scientific method is a fundamental procedure for conducting science composed of four basic steps. I have seen this worded in many different ways, but they all fundamentally mean the same thing. Here it is in my own words:
> 
> Observation - This is the process of taking measurements of the subject in question and defining the nature of the problem.
> ...



are you selective about what you use from your sources?......

this one is appropriate as well


> Dressing up a belief system in the trappings of science by using scientistic language and jargon, as in "creation-science," means nothing without evidence, experimental testing, and corroboration.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

Matthew said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



it proves that a stem cell can perform the task it was designed to perform......


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 30, 2014)

Better then having your whole belief system based on belief.  Most scientist looked at either the development of a fetus or of natural selection to prove evolution as the best theory.

Humans have a tail bone and look very much like most animals within the first weeks of development. Think about it.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 30, 2014)

What's great about evolution is you have real observations.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Seismic FAQ - Main Page
> ...


 
The theory of evolution is mainstream science.  So what is your point?


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 30, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Better then having your whole belief system based on belief.  Most scientist looked at either the development of a fetus or of natural selection to prove evolution as the best theory.
> 
> Humans have a tail bone and look very much like most animals within the first weeks of development. Think about it.


Wow. That one was done away with many decades ago. Goes to show you the biggest criticizers of faith are faithful themselves. Opposing religions and all that.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you take a biology class, get a library card, and/or read the professional literature? I'm not your tutor. If you want me to be, send me a private message and we can discuss the fee.
> ...


 
So you will be lying for Jesus, then.  As a matter of fact, of the two of us,  I am the ONLY one demonstrating any knowledge of biology on this thread.  As for your other lie that I ran away from anything, unlike you, I don't live in a vacuum.  You want me to provide you with evidence of macroevolution that 1) I have already provided, and 2) is redundant in the first place since there is already a mountain of evidence available for your perusal if you'd only get off your sorry ass and look for it.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 30, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Better then having your whole belief system based on belief.  Most scientist looked at either the development of a fetus or of natural selection to prove evolution as the best theory.
> ...



Honestly how do you explain the many different kinds of the same species of insects or birds? Darwin noticed exactly this with the difference of the beaks for the same kind of birds for each of the islands he visited.

Tell me exactly how it was done away with?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Ahem:
> ...




There is no "except". Dismissing it as a belief doesn't make it so, nor does it make it wrong.



			
				orogenicman said:
			
		

> Really? And your evidence is?


 


			
				PostmodernProph said:
			
		

> I freely admit that what I believe is a faith choice.....the scientific method does not require evidence of faith choices......obviously since faith is defined as the belief in something in the absence of evidence.......which causes one to question why you don't recognize that the things you believe in the absence of evidence are also faith choices......why is it you pretend they are science?......


 
So you freely admit that you have no evidence for your beliefs. Yet you expect me to have evidence for mine. Interesting hypocrisy.

Mainstream science is not pretend science. You didn't know this? Huh.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 30, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Honestly how do you explain the many different kinds of the same species of insects or birds? Darwin noticed exactly this with the differences of the beaks for the same kind of birds for each of the islands he visited.
> 
> Tell me exactly how it was done away with?


Well, my main point is that you get put into a category if you don't accept a secualr cause for everything. I have no religion but for me the evidence points to a creator. Exactly who, what, where, when or why I don't know. 

What you mention is nothing more than natural selection. If the birds on an island have tougher nuts to crack the stronger beaked birds will prevail, and so forth. Some people call that micro-evolution. The debate hinges around macro-evolution. How that happens, I don't know either. 

For me, there seems to be a driving force behind life. It doesn't just exist, it thrives whenever and wherever it can. Lifeforms can be found in some of the most hostile places on Earth, not long ago seemingly impossible. Wherever life has an opportunity it exists.

The fact that it happens can be studied, tested and all that. But to simply dismiss the drive behind it and random chance doesn't work for me, like the universe itself. So I'm a theist but with no religion, I have no problem saying "I don't know".


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > It is a conclusion based on decades of research by scientists all over the globe.
> ...


 
Except that it has.  Except that you are not qualified to make that assessment.  Except that you have provided no evidence to support that claim.  Except that when you resort to calling science a matter of faith, you lose the argument.  Isn't there a rule in your faith about bearing false witness?  Yes, I think there is.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > than the one almost everyone else accepts.
> ...


 
Then I would point out that what the majority of the people in the world (billions of which are highly undereducated) believes with regard to faith is irrelevant with respect to what scientists know to be true based on 150 years of scientific discovery.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 30, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly how do you explain the many different kinds of the same species of insects or birds? Darwin noticed exactly this with the differences of the beaks for the same kind of birds for each of the islands he visited.
> ...


 
What debate, where?  Natural selection is not random.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


 
Designed to perform?  By who?


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> What debate, where?  Natural selection is not random.


You can't read. I said as simply as I could the debate was about what the driving force was, not that it doesn't happen. 

Either it was/is guided along or it was/is programed that way or it's all a natural occurance. Not every person, including scientists believe it's totally secular. You are coming across very bullheaded and arrogant and it doesn't help make you look smarter.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jan 30, 2014)




----------



## orogenicman (Jan 30, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > What debate, where? Natural selection is not random.
> ...


 
Well, no, there is no debate.  The driving force is natural selection.  Full stop.  This is not me being bullheaded.  This is me telling you what the facts are.  If anyone here is bullheaded, it is those who cannot accept that fact despite the overwhelming evidence.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Well, no, there is no debate.  The driving force is natural selection.  Full stop.  This is not me being bullheaded.  This is me telling you what the facts are.  If anyone here is bullheaded, it is those who cannot accept that fact despite the overwhelming evidence.


Natural selection is the process, that's not what I'm talking about. I can't use simpler words. There is no evidence that life and it's mechanisms happens on its' own, your bullheaded assertions are a poor substitute for science. You can't explain how it all started and it just happens isn't intellectually honest.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 30, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Well, no, there is no debate. The driving force is natural selection. Full stop. This is not me being bullheaded. This is me telling you what the facts are. If anyone here is bullheaded, it is those who cannot accept that fact despite the overwhelming evidence.
> ...


 
There is no evidence that life cannot happen on its own.  It is not bullheadedness that leads to this conclusion.  Why?  Because for life not to be able to happen on its own, there has to be evidence that 1) that is the case, and 2) that something specific assists it in happening.

Got anything like that?



> You can't explain how it all started and it just happens isn't intellectually honest.


 

God of the gaps argument.  Next.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> There is no evidence that life cannot happen on its own.  It is not bullheadedness that leads to this conclusion.  Why?  Because for life not to be able to happen on its own, there has to be evidence that 1) that is the case, and 2) that something specific assists it in happening.
> 
> Got anything like that?
> 
> God of the gaps argument.  Next.


Anything but God argument. I'm not out to prove anything to a fundamentaist atheist. I said why I am convinced there is a God and apparently it makes your panties bunch up. For me, there has to be a reason something happens. Things don't happen on their own. apparently for you, magic is good enough and you cloak it with condescention.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Better then having your whole belief system based on belief.



why do you think your belief system is any different?......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> The theory of evolution is mainstream science.  So what is your point?



that an ad populum argument does not win a debate.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> So you will be lying for Jesus, then.  As a matter of fact, of the two of us,  I am the ONLY one demonstrating any knowledge of biology on this thread.  As for your other lie that I ran away from anything, unlike you, I don't live in a vacuum.  You want me to provide you with evidence of macroevolution that 1) I have already provided, and 2) is redundant in the first place since there is already a mountain of evidence available for your perusal if you'd only get off your sorry ass and look for it.


 a shift from ad populum to ad hominum.....does not bode well for your success in this debate.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Honestly how do you explain the many different kinds of the same species of insects or birds?



its called evolution......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> There is no "except". Dismissing it as a belief doesn't make it so, nor does it make it wrong.



agreed....the point is, believing in something in the absence of evidence is faith, not science.....



			
				orogenicman said:
			
		

> So you freely admit that you have no evidence for your beliefs. Yet you expect me to have evidence for mine. Interesting hypocrisy.


nothing hypocritical on my part....I don't expect you to have evidence of your beliefs......I only expect you to have evidence if you claim it's science......on which you should agree, if you are not hypocritical......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Except that it has.



if it is falsifiable then you should be able to provide an example of at least one successful experimentation......we both know you aren't going to be able to do that......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> with respect to what scientists know to be true based on 150 years of scientific discovery.



and yet, therein lies the problem......since it has never been demonstrated it remains nothing other than an opinion.....it has not been proven even once by the scientific method.....it is not "known to be true" and to claim it is remains nothing more than a statement of your religious doctrine......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> What debate, where?  Natural selection is not random.


??...it is, by definition, random......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Designed to perform?  By who?
> ...


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> the overwhelming evidence.



unfortunately, none of which is available yet......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> There is no evidence that life cannot happen on its own.



and there is no evidence it ever has.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> God of the gaps argument.  Next.


as opposed to a Science with gaps argument?.....


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 30, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > There is no evidence that life cannot happen on its own. It is not bullheadedness that leads to this conclusion. Why? Because for life not to be able to happen on its own, there has to be evidence that 1) that is the case, and 2) that something specific assists it in happening.
> ...


 

It isn't even a "god or not" issue, though a lot of people would like to believe that it is.  It is a "what's the evidence" issue.  You people somehow believe that for evolution to be true, that means it is saying that there is no god.  What I am telling you is that whether or not god is real, evolution is a fact.  A lot of people, including scientists, who agree that evolution is a fact, are religious.  The father of genetics, Gregor Mendel, was an Augustinian friar.

And Mr. Weasel, natural selection is not magic.  Talking snakes - that's magic.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> You people somehow believe that for evolution to be true, that means it is saying that there is no god.


I can't speak for anyone else, but I can clearly state that this is NOT what I believe.....my argument is simply this.....if you want to claim that macro-evolution is science, it has to comply with the requirements of the scientific method......at this point, it certainly does not......


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > You people somehow believe that for evolution to be true, that means it is saying that there is no god.
> ...


 
Simply making this claim of yours, that macroevolution does not comply with the requirements of the scientific method doesn't make it so.  Now it is your turn to provide compelling evidence that your claim is the right one.  I eagerly await your response (this should be good).


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Simply making this claim of yours, that macroevolution does not comply with the requirements of the scientific method doesn't make it so.  Now it is your turn to provide compelling evidence that your claim is the right one.  I eagerly await your response (this should be good).



I already have, but I have no problem doing it again.....

my claim is that macro-evolution does not comply with the requirements of the scientific method.....

the requirements of the scientific method are (from the website you cited).....



> What is the scientific method?
> The scientific method is a fundamental procedure for conducting science composed of four basic steps. I have seen this worded in many different ways, but they all fundamentally mean the same thing. Here it is in my own words:
> 
> Observation - This is the process of taking measurements of the subject in question and defining the nature of the problem.
> ...



if no test can be conducted to verify or refute the predictions made, then the hypothesis is not falsifiable under the scientific method.....

no test can be conducted to verify or refute the claims of macro-evolution.....

therefore, macro-evolution does not meet the requirements of the scientific method.....

I believe that satisfies the condition you set down, does it not?......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

> Falsifiability, particularly testability, is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The concept was made popular by Karl Popper in his philosophical analysis of the scientific method. Popper concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is "scientific" only if it is, among other things, falsifiable. That is, falsifiability is a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for scientific ideas. Popper asserted that *unfalsifiable statements are non-scientific*, although not without relevance. For example, meta-physical or religious propositions have cultural or spiritual meaning, and the ancient metaphysical and unfalsifiable idea of the existence of atoms has led to corresponding falsifiable modern theories. A falsifiable theory that has withstood severe scientific testing is said to be corroborated by past experience, though in Popper's view this is not equivalent with confirmation and does not guarantee that the theory is true or even partially true.


Falsifiability


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

> (this should be good).



it was good for me, was it good for you?.....


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Simply making this claim of yours, that macroevolution does not comply with the requirements of the scientific method doesn't make it so. Now it is your turn to provide compelling evidence that your claim is the right one. I eagerly await your response (this should be good).
> ...


 
Except that your claims (and your conclusion) above are demonstrably false, which would be apparent to you if you would spend an evening studying even a fraction of the vast amount of data available on the topic.  The fact is that macroevolution is a valid part of the scientific theory of evolution.  No amount of wiggling on your part is going to ever change that fact.

Start here:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Except that your claims (and your conclusion) above are demonstrably false



I expect then you intend to demonstrate?......do you have hidden somewhere an experiment that has demonstrated that a single celled organism has evolved into a multi-celled organism?......please share it with us.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent



I'm not debating an article......state your argument in your own words or admit you are wrong.....at least pick one of your 29+ and defend it.....


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
> ...


 
ENOUGH!  I'm not going to play your games.  You don't get to ignore the facts and then declare someone wrong.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

are any of your "29+ evidences" anything that amounts to more than circular reasoning?....."we have concluded that X is caused by macro-evolution, therefore X is proof of macro-evolution"......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> ENOUGH!  I'm not going to play your games.



my game is honest debate and you're not going to play.....



orogenicman said:


> You don't get to ignore the facts


so......show me a fact.....



orogenicman said:


> and then declare someone wrong.



logic declares you are wrong......your refusal to defend your claims by providing evidence seals it....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

come on.....give it a try....you ought to be able to find at least one of the 29+ that you think isn't a circular argument.......maybe.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 30, 2014)

how about atavisms......you guys like atavisms, right?.....of course, then you'd have to explain why you don't think humans evolved from a species of Siamese twins......


----------



## westwall (Jan 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > ENOUGH!  I'm not going to play your games.
> ...







Can you believe he claims to be a PhD geologist?  Me neither...


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> are any of your "29+ evidences" anything that amounts to *more* than circular reasoning?......


 
Indubitably. But you didn't bother to read them, or to point out which are circular reasoning and why, so obviously you don't know it for yourself.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > ENOUGH! I'm not going to play your games.
> ...


 
When you decide to be honest, do let me know.



orogenicman said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I suggest you review the thread.



orogenicman said:


> and then declare someone wrong.


 


			
				PostmodernProph said:
			
		

> logic declares you are wrong......your refusal to defend your claims by providing evidence seals it....


 
Again, here we have you willfully ignoring the mountain of evidence discovered by thousands of scientists, and you dare to declare your ignorance to be logical. That's just tragic.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 30, 2014)

westwall said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 
Show me where I have ever claimed to have a PhD.  I know you aren't even though you claim to be.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 31, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > are any of your "29+ evidences" anything that amounts to *more* than circular reasoning?......
> ...


lol....I've read and debated them on boards like this many times......you?.....can you even articulate a defense for your argument or are you limited to pointing and saying "look over there, those guys could win a debate with you if they were here!".........

the problem with debates like that is that after I spend the time disproving one of these "29+ evidences" folks like you simply sit back and say "yeah? So what! There's 28 more where that came from"......meanwhile you add nothing to the conversation......I'm tired of simply proving the guy who wrote the article didn't understand what he was saying......I want live meat......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 31, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> I suggest you review the thread.



I suggest you show me a single experiment.....

to say you are basing it on expectations, then to manufacture the expectations and claim success is circular reasoning....

if a human tail is an atavism showing that we evolved from a creature with a tail, what does an occasional sixth finger tell us of our distant ancestors?....where is the six fingered fossil?.....for that matter, where is the tailed fossil?.....

why are bones in whales fins evidence they used to have legs......why can't it simply be evidence that their designer thought their fins would work better with more structural support?.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 31, 2014)

remember that the scientific method requires repetitive testing.....if an hypothesis is tested and fails, it disproves the hypothesis.....

so if one argues that atavisms are evidence of macro-evolution, and someone experiments (or in your case, observes) that a particular atavism contradicts the claim of macro-evolution, then it proves the hypothesis false......just as the identification of a black swan disproved the hypothesis "all swans are white" in Popper's example.....as contradictions disprove the hypothesis it must be amended and retested.....until it finally becomes....."all those atavisms which have not already been shown to NOT be evidence of macro-evolution are still evidence of macro-evolution"........see what's happening here?.....

all evidences, except those which do not support my conclusions, support my conclusions........circular reasoning......


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 31, 2014)

Plate tectonics also can't be tested in the lab within the same way as it happens in nature.
Relativity over long distances can't be tested in lab...
String theory = can't be tested in lab
The theory concept of the big bang can't be recreated
A large percentage of modern science is this way...

Of course another thing called god also can't either.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 31, 2014)

plate tectonics can be measured with instruments.....everything about the Big Bang that happened following its "bang" can be measured with instruments.....

relativity, string theory, and that which happened BEFORE the Big Bang, like macro-evolution aren't falsifiable.....


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 31, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



The problem with people like you is that you refuse to accept any evidence presented to you (which is yet another reason why I mostly no longer bother), being totally anti-evolution, refuse to present any alternative theory (or the evidence to support it) that better explains the evidence you refuse to acknowledge, claim to have logic on their side while clearly not understanding anything about the topic at hand, claim to disprove any evidence presented while not actually providing any evidence of said refutations....

In other words, there is no debate here. There is only you demonstrating your dishonesty. Shall I continue?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 31, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> plate tectonics can be measured with instruments.....everything about the Big Bang that happened following its "bang" can be measured with instruments.....
> 
> relativity, string theory, and that which happened BEFORE the Big Bang, like macro-evolution aren't falsifiable.....



Relativity (both general and special) have been tested many times and found to be true many times.  String theory hasn't been tested, but scientists are working on developing experiments for those theories.  To suggest that "before the Big Bang" is not falsifiable is a meaningless statement if the intention here is to suggest that that means that the Big Bang theory is also not falsifiable, since the Big bang is not about what came before.  Furthermore, since the big bang occurred at t=0, to suggested that there was anything prior to t=0 is meaningless.  Macroevolution is falsifiable.  If you can find a dog giving birth to a cat, THAT would falsify macroevolution.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 31, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Shall I continue?



the question is, when will you start.....


----------



## westwall (Jan 31, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...








Uh oh, you've forgotten your carefully created "history" already!  I haven't.  In fact I know exactly where that post is.....  want to see it?


----------



## westwall (Jan 31, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








The problem with people like you is you don't KNOW what evidence is.  Scientific evidence is measurable and falsifiable.  That's the POINT OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD!  It is not SUBJECTIVE!

You present opinion and computer models as if they are evidence.  THEY ARE NOT!


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 31, 2014)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



By all means.  Show me the post where I claimed to be a PhD in geology. (this should be good).


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 31, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Shall I continue?
> ...



I already have.  Your problem is that you never have (started, that is).


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 31, 2014)

is this the best you have to offer?.....


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 31, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> is this the best you have to offer?.....



Is the fact that you have never answered any of my questions the best YOU have to offer?  Oh dear.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jan 31, 2014)

apparently we are both reading different threads......but to be fair.....what question do you wish answered that you believe has not been?....


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 31, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> apparently we are both reading different threads......but to be fair.....what question do you wish answered that you believe has not been?....



Apparently you have selective amnesia.  Too bad for you.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 1, 2014)

/shrugs....no matter....from what I see you'll probably be starting another thread to repeat the same claims disproven here.......we will have more opportunity to discuss it.....


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 4, 2014)

What, exactly, do you believe has been disproven here? Don't be coy. Give us the specifics of your claim.


----------



## Politico (Feb 4, 2014)

Neither has been disproven or proven. Theories can't be.


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 4, 2014)

Politico said:


> Neither has been disproven or proven. Theories can't be.



A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.  A scientific theory is an explanation of an observed phenomenon, while a scientific law is a mathematical description of an observed phenomenon.http://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html


----------



## Politico (Feb 4, 2014)

Only someone who was there can definitively say how we came to be. Since is umm no one here on the internets was their theories are just that. Trust me I want to know the real answer. Unfortunately there will never be one.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 4, 2014)

Politico doesn't know shit about science. Just another conservative moron.


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 4, 2014)

Politico said:


> Only someone who was there can definitively say how we came to be. Since is umm no one here on the internets was their theories are just that. Trust me I want to know the real answer. Unfortunately there will never be one.



That's like saying we can't determine the guilty party in a murder case if someone wasn't there to witness the crime.  Of course, that notion simply isn't  true.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 4, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> What, exactly, do you believe has been disproven here? Don't be coy. Give us the specifics of your claim.


the claim that macro-evolution meets the requirements of the scientific method.....


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 4, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > What, exactly, do you believe has been disproven here? Don't be coy. Give us the specifics of your claim.
> ...



You'd have to be scientifically pre-literate (and willfully ignorant) to believe that you've disproven anything in that regard, particularly as you've still not given us any specifics that support your claim, nor given us an alternative that better explains the facts.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 4, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I have shown the definition of the scientific method....
I have isolated that aspect of the scientific method which is not met by the claim of macro-evolution....
my statement is well proven.....

to counter the argument you merely need to show an experiment that contradicts it......

at that point you ceded the argument.....

the alternative that better explains the facts is that macro-evolution does NOT meet the requirements of the scientific method....


----------



## Steven_R (Feb 4, 2014)

Tiktaalik rosae ring any bells?

Based on the evidence at hand, paleontologists predicted they would find a transitional fossil with characteristics of both fish and amphibians at such and such  time period. Sure enough, they did. They had a hypothesis and made a testable prediction.


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 4, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Thank you for giving me a definition about which I am already aware, Mr. Obvious.



			
				PostmodernProph said:
			
		

> I have isolated that aspect of the scientific method which is not met by the claim of macro-evolution....
> my statement is well proven.....



That's a laugh. Well proven? You have made an unsupported claim and called it well proven. In order to disprove macroevolution, you have to discredit 150 years of hard-won and completely accepted scientific research. You haven't even come close to doing that for ANY of the evidence.


			
				PostmodernProph said:
			
		

> to counter the argument you merely need to show an experiment that contradicts it......



Not at all. Evolution is an accepted scientific paradigm here. As such, it needs no defending. You are the one who needs to counter the argument with valid scientific evidence that refutes it. Have at it, pal.



			
				PostmodernProph said:
			
		

> the alternative that better explains the facts is that macro-evolution does NOT meet the requirements of the scientific method....



Science doesn't work that way. Even were it conceded that you somehow miraculously refuted the theory of evolution, such a refutation is not enough. The facts are still in evident. As such, you need to present an argument that better explains those facts than does the theory of evolution. Got ANYTHING like that? Anything at all?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 4, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> That's a laugh. Well proven? You have made an unsupported claim and called it well proven. In order to disprove macroevolution, you have to discredit 150 years of hard-won and completely accepted scientific research. You haven't even come close to doing that for ANY of the evidence.


I have pointed out that macro-evolution has never been subject to experimentation.....you have had plenty of opportunity to provide evidence of an experiment, but have not been able to.....one would think that with 150 years of research they ought to have been able to conduct at least one experiment, don't you think?....

the problem is, in this one area of scientific study you have chosen to suspend the requirements of the scientific method.......the reason for that is your faith demands it.....




> Science doesn't work that way.


I think we all agree with how science works....the issue is, why don't you acknowledge the way science works has not been applied to this question.....


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 4, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > That's a laugh. Well proven? You have made an unsupported claim and called it well proven. In order to disprove macroevolution, you have to discredit 150 years of hard-won and completely accepted scientific research. You haven't even come close to doing that for ANY of the evidence.
> ...


 
 And I have shown time and time again that you are a liar.




			
				orogenicman said:
			
		

> Science doesn't work that way.


 
 I think we all agree with how science works....the issue is, why don't you acknowledge the way science works has not been applied to this question.....[/QUOTE]

 I don't think you have a clue as to how science works.  Otherwise, we would not be in disagreement here.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 4, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> And I have shown time and time again that you are a liar.


 

lol....you haven't even articulated a single argument....all you have done is claim superiority without demonstrating it.....(wait, that's another failure of the scientific method isn't it).......



> I don't think you have a clue as to how science works.  Otherwise, we would not be in disagreement here.



really?.....which one of understands the scientific method......


----------



## Politico (Feb 5, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Only someone who was there can definitively say how we came to be. Since is umm no one here on the internets was their theories are just that. Trust me I want to know the real answer. Unfortunately there will never be one.
> ...



What a ridiculous apple orange comparison.


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 5, 2014)

Politico said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...



Crime scene investigations are, by definition, scientific investigations.  They use the exact same scientific method that scientists use in investigating ANY phenomenon, whether it is a star, a rock, a fossil, or a disease.  The comparison is completely appropriate.


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 5, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > And I have shown time and time again that you are a liar.
> ...


 
 All you have shown us here is your willingness to ignore evidence and refuse to answer questions.  Which makes your arguments dishonest.



			
				orogenicman said:
			
		

> I don't think you have a clue as to how science works. Otherwise, we would not be in disagreement here.[/quote=profguy]really?.....which one of understands the scientific method......



I do.  You don't.


----------



## Politico (Feb 5, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No it's not.


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 5, 2014)

Politico said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...



Non-responsive.  Care to elaborate?


----------



## Barb (Feb 5, 2014)

Bill Nye the science guy versus creationist 

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI#t=6604"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI#t=6604[/ame]


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 5, 2014)

The only real problem I saw with Bill Nye's presentation is that he inadequately addressed Ham's claim about the inconsistency of radioisotopic dating methods. Ham gave an example where scientists allegedly dated a rock formation to several hundred million years but dated a log found in the formation to 45,000 years using carbon dating. His answer should have been that no scientist would have dated a log found in hundreds of millions of year old rock using radiocarbon dating, since that method is only valid up to 45,000-50,000 years. So no wonder the log didn't show an older date. However, if they had used a more appropriate method on the log, the dates would have been much more consistent.


----------



## Politico (Feb 5, 2014)

Yes as soon as you return from your evidence collecting trip at the beginning of time I will be glad to.


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 5, 2014)

I forgot to add, the other issue I had was that when Bill Nye presented his fossil, and Ham completely ignored it, I would have tossed it right over his head!


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 5, 2014)

Politico said:


> Yes as soon as you return from your evidence collecting trip at the beginning of time I will be glad to.



Care to go with me?


----------



## Politico (Feb 5, 2014)

If in some fantasy world you could actually make the trip sure.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 5, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> All you have shown us here is your willingness to ignore evidence and refuse to answer questions.  Which makes your arguments dishonest.


 
I'm still waiting for you to engage in the argument......pointing your finger in vague directions is not debate.......and for the fourth time, if you think I have not answered a question simply ask it again and I will......


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 8, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > All you have shown us here is your willingness to ignore evidence and refuse to answer questions. Which makes your arguments dishonest.
> ...



That's because you assume that there is an argue to engage in.  There is no question here.  Evolution is a fact.  The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.  If you want to have a religious discussion, I suggest you start a thread in the religion forum.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 8, 2014)

Viruses changing and evolving is one of the best cases of evolution.  Wonder why we have to keep up with different viruses coming out every few years?


----------



## mamooth (Feb 8, 2014)

900,000 year old almost-human footprints found in England.

900,000 year old footprints of earliest northern Europeans discovered - Telegraph

49 footprints from 5 individuals, including 2 children, from the _homo antecessor_ group. _homo antecessor_ may be an ancestor of both neanderthals and modern humans, or maybe not. That's still not determined. This find pushes back the timetable for the spread of human-types into England from 700,000 years to 900,000 years.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 8, 2014)

Do you think they made pottery, wooden like stick homes and cooked their food on fire?


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 8, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Do you think they made pottery, wooden like stick homes and cooked their food on fire?



I seriously doubt that they make pottery.  Shelter and cooking on fire.  It's a possibility.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 8, 2014)

The earliest date for pottery is 29,000 BC. So stone tools only for that group. 

No fire either, as that didn't come around in Europe until around 400,000 years ago.


----------



## westwall (Feb 8, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> I forgot to add, the other issue I had was that when Bill Nye presented his fossil, and Ham completely ignored it, I would have tossed it right over his head!








Why ruin a perfectly good fossil?  Make sure it hits something soft!


----------



## westwall (Feb 8, 2014)

mamooth said:


> The earliest date for pottery is 29,000 BC. So stone tools only for that group.
> 
> No fire either, as that didn't come around in Europe until around 400,000 years ago.







Earliest evidence maybe.  I have no doubt that man was using fire long before then.


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 8, 2014)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > The earliest date for pottery is 29,000 BC. So stone tools only for that group.
> ...



The earliest evidence of intentional use of fire comes from a site in the Kalahari Desert and is dated to a million years ago.

Earliest evidence of man-made fire - Telegraph


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 8, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> That's because you assume that there is an argue to engage in.  There is no question here.  Evolution is a fact.  The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.  If you want to have a religious discussion, I suggest you start a thread in the religion forum.



what you claim about evolution has been shown to be unscientific......I suppose you may be right about them belonging in the religion section......so long as you only raise them there, I will agree to debate you there.....however, if you make the mistake of making your religious claims in the science forum again, I will again challenge them here as unscientific.....


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 8, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > That's because you assume that there is an argue to engage in. There is no question here. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. If you want to have a religious discussion, I suggest you start a thread in the religion forum.
> ...


 
 My stepfather always said "never lie, and never steal".  Lying for Jesus in this case is probably the worst kind of lying because it entails bearing false witness.  So why do you do it?  Are you really that desperate to hold onto your delusions?  If you truly have faith, why lie?  Be a man.  Stop lying.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 9, 2014)

/shrugs....show me an experiment......


----------



## Vox (Feb 9, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



you know there is a rule - if you think everyone around is an idiot and only you are the genius, you are probably sitting in a locked up psych room


----------



## Vox (Feb 9, 2014)

Matthew said:


> What's great about evolution is you have real observations.



observations ONLY.

which falls extremely short to satisfy the classic requirements of the scientific method


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 9, 2014)

Vox said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > 007 said:
> ...



Well, obviously since many others here and around the world agree with me that evolution is a fact and that the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution, your pretend rule is more likely to be wishful thinking.  Congratulations.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 10, 2014)

I raise your ad populum by 3 billion Christians......


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 10, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> I raise your ad populum by 3 billion Christians......



The majority of which also believe in evolution.  Next.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 10, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > I raise your ad populum by 3 billion Christians......
> ...



as do I.....what percentage believe man evolved from a single cell organism?......


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 10, 2014)

To the person who goes by the username Warrier102 who gave me a bad reputation with the message "evolve this, bitch", thanks for proving that there are still cowards in this world.


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 10, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



What percentage that believe in evolution DON'T believe that multicellular life evolved from single celled life?  You do realize, of course, that both life forms evolve via DNA, right?  Do you not believe that said DNA is the thread that connects all life on this planet?  If not, why not?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 10, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Do you not believe that said DNA is the thread that connects all life on this planet?



of course, that's the reason God created it.....you believe fairies brought it wrapped in cabbage leaves, right?.......


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 10, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Do you not believe that said DNA is the thread that connects all life on this planet?
> ...



Since you agree that DNA is the thread that connects all life on this planet, and since you have stated that you believe in evolution, what is the problem here, bubba?


----------



## westwall (Feb 10, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







Ummmm, doesn't selection _imply_ intelligence?


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 10, 2014)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Only if you consider an ice age, a plague, mountain building, or getting stranded on a tropical island to be intelligent.


----------



## westwall (Feb 10, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...









It is my contention the evolution is purely by chance.  You claim otherwise.  You are implying intelligence by your response.  I am not.  See the problem here?  Mr. "rational".


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 10, 2014)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Utter nonsense.  The orbit of the Earth around the sun is not random.  Does that imply intelligence?  No.  Get a clue.


----------



## westwall (Feb 10, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...










What causes evolution?


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 10, 2014)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Has your memory deteriorated that badly? Really?


----------



## westwall (Feb 10, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








You claim to be rational and know what you're talking about.  So, use your OWN words and let's here what you have to say.  You're sounding more like a creationist every minute.


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 11, 2014)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Try reading what I've already posted, dozens of times.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 11, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



the fairy tales you believe are included within the topic of "evolution".......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 11, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



obviously there's nothing random about natural disasters, right?........


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2014)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Here you go, Walleyes, should be simple enough for you;

Evolution 101: Mechanisms of Change


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Depends on the time frame. An extreme flood in one year is a random event. But there will be x number of floods like that at this locality in ten thousand years, and that is not random. You can extend that analogy to most disasters, including meteor impacts.


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 11, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



What fairy tales, where?


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 11, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Many natural disasters can, in fact be predicted, such floods, sometimes even the intensity of the floods.  If they can be predicted, they are not random.  And even if the can't currently be predicted, that doesn't default them as being random.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 11, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Depends on the time frame. An extreme flood in one year is a random event. But there will be x number of floods like that at this locality in ten thousand years, and that is not random. You can extend that analogy to most disasters, including meteor impacts.



of course it is.....you don't believe the weather is controlled by someone, do you?......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 11, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Many natural disasters can, in fact be predicted, such floods, sometimes even the intensity of the floods.  If they can be predicted, they are not random.  And even if the can't currently be predicted, that doesn't default them as being random.



the fact that one can observe long term random events and predict short term results does not make the long term events any less random....."oh, there was an earthquake!.....there may be a tsunami!" doesn't make the earthquake non-random....one might determine that someday there will be a major earthquake somewhere along the San Andreas fault......where and when it happens remains random........

it isn't the fact they cannot be predicted that makes them random.....the fact that they simply occur whenever and whereever they occur without direction makes them random......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 11, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



the claim that human beings evolved from single celled organisms......for that matter, the claim that any multi-celled organism evolved from single celled organisms.....


----------



## Vandalshandle (Feb 11, 2014)

The fact is that all _rational_ people _do_ accept evolution....


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 11, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



You do like to argue in circles, don't you?


----------



## westwall (Feb 11, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...









Wow, you can't write anything in your own words can you?  It is amazing that silly people like you wish to be respected and have your opinions valued, yet you are unable to carry on a conversation.

Amazing, simply amazing.


----------



## westwall (Feb 11, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...










You're digging yourself ever deeper.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 12, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



circles require closure.....since you refuse to engage, this argument has never been completed.....


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 12, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



You seem to believe that you and I are the epicenter of this argument.  That is a rather narrow-minded assumption.  There is a vast body of knowledge available to you and to anyone else who is interested.  I suggest you take advantage of it and stop expecting people to do your homework for you.  If you can't be bothered to explore it, then I can only conclude that answers to your questions are not truly what motivates you.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 13, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> You seem to believe that you and I are the epicenter of this argument.



????....hardly......though I have been consistent in inviting you in.......


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 13, 2014)

I find it interesting that in 13 pages of posts you have yet to address anything in the OP.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 13, 2014)

and I find it interesting that you could read my posts for thirteen pages and still think that.....


----------

