You noticed that too, huh? And repeating dismissive lines like, "Go prove (the unprovable)."
Each proposition holds it's own burden of proof, and in order to be a scientifically valid proposition it must be falsifiable.
Re-read TRH's last post.
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
So let him publish a paper disproving evolution in a proper biology journal and see if the field agrees with him. That's how it's done.
There are many ways to falsify evolution, TRH is suggesting this guy take up the challenge and publish his findings in a proper peer review journal. By proper journal, he means a top scientific biological journal, not "The Journal for Creationist Research".
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
The word 'God' is used an awful lot, but what does it mean? Can anyone explain?
Why bother?
Some things don't need 'splainin'.
Like air:
Geno
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
Hawk, just for discussion, you don't think God ever intervenes?
I was only addressing the first two chapters of Genesis where it clearly states that God gave the job of bringing forth all the living creatures to the natural world ("the waters and the earth") that he created and set into motion. Immediately thereafter, the Bible is full of unambiguous accounts of God's direct interactions with man.
You noticed that too, huh? And repeating dismissive lines like, "Go prove (the unprovable)."
Each proposition holds it's own burden of proof, and in order to be a scientifically valid proposition it must be falsifiable.
Re-read TRH's last post.
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
So let him publish a paper disproving evolution in a proper biology journal and see if the field agrees with him. That's how it's done.
There are many ways to falsify evolution, TRH is suggesting this guy take up the challenge and publish his findings in a proper peer review journal. By proper journal, he means a top scientific biological journal, not "The Journal for Creationist Research".
He doesn’t have findings. He isn’t claiming a theory as to how it happened. He isn’t even claiming to be a creationist. He is just telling them that no one has ever explained an adequate theory at the molecular level as to how all this is supposed to work. It’s all mumbo jumbo hand waiving “takes a lot of time” junk. IF YOU ACTUALLY LISTEN TO HIM, he quite explicitly says that as a scientist, he is open to any actual explanation that stands the rest of science, but so far at the level he knows and where it all has to begin, it’s all junk.
He lightly mocks biologists as well and says that they view the whole process from “30,000 feet” without understanding what must happen at the molecular level. He also says that the evidence is overwhelming for micro evolution but no one has gotten there for macro evolution yet as far as anything he has seen.
He isn’t an origin of life researcher. He isn’t a biologist. He is just some who knows the science necessary better than anyone and understands that all the current explanations are junk sold as science to a gullible public.
He isn’t an origin of life researcher. He isn’t a biologist. He is just some who knows the science necessary better than anyone and understands that all the current explanations are junk sold as science to a gullible public.
He isn’t an origin of life researcher. He isn’t a biologist. He is just some who knows the science necessary better than anyone and understands that all the current explanations are junk sold as science to a gullible public.
m
That’s just stupid, like a lot of your arguments on this subject. The guy builds stuff at the molecular level. He built a car so small that fifty thousand of them would fit on the width of a human hair. He understands what is necessary for the changes necessary at that level for evolution to work better than any man alive most likely.
The difference between him and evolutionary biologist is like that difference between an architect who conceived a grand stadium with so many attractions and the electrical engineer responsible for designing all the wiring and making sure it works. That is the guy who knows at the ground level if something the architect conceived is doable.
Maybe not those contributing to the discussion, but as Antelope Sniper pointed out to me years ago, there are many members following these threads and not participating . We dont know if they have changed their position one way or the other.
We might ask, why is the speed limit 55? Do we need a speed limit? Was there always a speed limit? Who created it? And all the rest of the questions. Or, we could just drive the speed limit.
Are you so old someone's taken away your carkeys? Are you really this far out of touch?
Connecticut was the first state to pass a speed limit law back in 1901.This law limited the legal speed of motor vehicles to 12 mph in cities and 15 mph on country roads.
You should be old enough to remember the 1973 oil embargo, so you should remember the politics behind the implementation of the old double nickle, and IT'S SUBSEQUENT REPEAL in the late 80's. Most of Colorado's 75 mph, and Wyoming's 80 mph. Much of the argument for repeal was based on SCIENCE falsifying the safety claims of the 55mph proponents.
So to answer your question, the 55mph speed limit is now gone because SCIENCE.
By your method of thinking we should still have a 15 mph speed limit, because one that rule was made, no one should ever question it and just blindly obey.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
[quote=JoeBob]He isn’t an origin of life researcher. He isn’t a biologist. He is just some who knows the science necessary better than anyone and understands that all the current explanations are junk sold as science to a gullible public.
That’s just stupid, like a lot of your arguments on this subject. The guy builds stuff at the molecular lHe built a car so small that fifty thousand of them would fit on the width of a human hair.evel. He understands what is necessary for the changes necessary at that level for evolution to work better than any man alive most likely.
The difference between him and evolutionary biologist is like that difference between an architect who conceived a grand stadium with so many attractions and the electrical engineer responsible for designing all the wiring and making sure it works. That is the guy who knows at the ground level if something the architect conceived is doable.
Uhh, sure he did....
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
He lightly mocks biologists as well and says that they view the whole process from “30,000 feet” without understanding what must happen at the molecular level. He also says that the evidence is overwhelming for micro evolution but no one has gotten there for macro evolution yet as far as anything he has seen.
If he doesn't understand that "micro" and "macro" evolution are the same thing, just over different time scales, I question his sincerity to the quest for truth.
Pair this with the statement highlighted by TRH:
Quote
He isn’t an origin of life researcher. He isn’t a biologist.
And you have a non-biologist too ignorant to understand evolution declaring it can't happen, and because he's not smart enough to intelligently design a living cell in a lab it must to be intelligently designed......yea.....
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
If you don't understand that "micro" and "macro" evolution are the completely different, you've no business engaging in a discussion of evolution.
Micro evolution is the e.coli examples you've cited, with variations developing within a species in response to environment or random chance.
But the species remains e. coli, no matter how long it's been in existence.
Macro evolution is the development of a new species through changes to an earlier species, an alleged example bein ape to man.
Macro evolution is a term used by Young Earth Creationist in an attempt to deny the greater reality of evolution.
By definition "Macro Evolution" is just evolution on a geologic time scale. So if you grant micro evolution, but deny macro evolution, you are by default denying the existence of geologic time scales, which of course is the position of the biblical literalist YEC's.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Aren't you the one that was saying a genetic mutation has the same chance of being passed on to offspring as it did occurring in the parent? Everyone is entitled to discuss even when absolutely definitively wrong. Cheers.
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
If you don't understand that "micro" and "macro" evolution are the completely different, you've no business engaging in a discussion of evolution.
Micro evolution is the e.coli examples you've cited, with variations developing within a species in response to environment or random chance.
But the species remains e. coli, no matter how long it's been in existence.
Macro evolution is the development of a new species through changes to an earlier species, an alleged example bein ape to man.
Most people of your opinion classify the division in equidae into its three surviving member species (horse, donkey, and zebra) as an example of micro evolution. Do you consider this an example of micro evolution, i.e., the sort of evolution that you accept?
If you don't understand that "micro" and "macro" evolution are the completely different, you've no business engaging in a discussion of evolution.
Micro evolution is the e.coli examples you've cited, with variations developing within a species in response to environment or random chance.
But the species remains e. coli, no matter how long it's been in existence.
Macro evolution is the development of a new species through changes to an earlier species, an alleged example bein ape to man.
Macro evolution is a term used by Young Earth Creationist in an attempt to deny the greater reality of evolution.
By definition "Macro Evolution" is just evolution on a geologic time scale. So if you grant micro evolution, but deny macro evolution, you are by default denying the existence of geologic time scales, which of course is the position of the biblical literalist YEC's.
Calling "young earth creationists" anyone who makes a distinction between microevolution and macro-evolution is simply a term fundamentalist Neo-Darwinists employ in an attempt to avoid answering the real hard evidentiary questions to which they do not have answers and which their theory is powerless to explain. Micro-evolution is a presently observable and thoroughly proven phenomenon. Macro-evolution by natural selection is an assumption extrapolated from the reality of micro-evolution which assumption is unlikely to be true and is contradicted by a mass of evidence. Rather than confront the discontinuity and contradictions, fundamentalist Neo-Darwinists employ ad hominem invective in a desperate effort to deflect scrutiny from the very real problems in their theory. Their pre-existing fundamentalist religious commitments (atheism) demands if of them.
If you don't understand that "micro" and "macro" evolution are the completely different, you've no business engaging in a discussion of evolution.
Micro evolution is the e.coli examples you've cited, with variations developing within a species in response to environment or random chance.
But the species remains e. coli, no matter how long it's been in existence.
Macro evolution is the development of a new species through changes to an earlier species, an alleged example bein ape to man.
Macro evolution is a term used by Young Earth Creationist in an attempt to deny the greater reality of evolution.
By definition "Macro Evolution" is just evolution on a geologic time scale. So if you grant micro evolution, but deny macro evolution, you are by default denying the existence of geologic time scales, which of course is the position of the biblical literalist YEC's.
The two terms have an accepted definition, which is exactly as I have stated it.
e. coli from a billion years ago is still just e. coli. And it will be e. coli a billion years from now. The passage of time's got nothin to do with it.
e. coli ain't gonna turn into a different species.
