Bird flu, evolution and creationism ...

Originally posted by Halitose
Observation. Scientists have been breeding fruit flies and bacteria for over a hundred years. They have never not produced variations of themselves -- nothing even closely resembling a new organism has ever emerged.

Oh don't tell me, I know. We haven't been observing them long enough. Given enough time the fruit fly will evolve into bee and the b ...[text shortened]... ile. Perhaps you would desist from glibly claiming everything you believe in as fact.

btw. Try to stop making mistakes in your examples (esp the coelocanth one), then you can complain about others failings, okay?

Originally posted by sonhouse
May I ask you what eternal plan will be derailed if Macroevolution turns out to be true? Can you start planning now what you will say if it is ever proven to be true? Kind of like what the moon hoaxers are going to have to say when the footprints are photographed from one foot away. I am not necessarily saying that macroevolution is a done deal, just wonder ...[text shortened]... are yourself for the eventual proof that may very well be forthcoming in the next decade or two.

Somethig that is false cannot just suddenly turn out to be true. Things just don't work that way.

I'll give the same response as when you prove to me one day that 1+1=0.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Somethig that is false cannot just suddenly turn out to be true. Things just don't work that way.

I'll give the same response as when you prove to me one day that 1+1=0.

Strange that you think something patently false is true then.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Strange that you think something patently false is true then.

I guess he has his reasons.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Strange that you think something patently false is true then.

I have never entertained the thought that macroevolution is true!

😠

Originally posted by Halitose
Observation. Scientists have been breeding fruit flies and bacteria for over a hundred years. They have never not produced variations of themselves -- nothing even closely resembling a new organism has ever emerged.

Oh don't tell me, I know. We haven't been observing them long enough. Given enough time the fruit fly will evolve into bee and the b ...[text shortened]... ile. Perhaps you would desist from glibly claiming everything you believe in as fact.

No, no, no no, no! My "fact" does not rely on fossil evidence. I told you it was deductively factual (as opposed to inductively). I'll demonstrate:

1) Given something that will vary (i.e. an organism)
2) Given a selective pressure which can determine which variation is best (i.e. natural selection)
3) From 1) and 2) macroevolution will occur.

Macroevolution is just an accumulation of micrevolutions. Your observation is hardly compelling since, there may be no "selective pressure" for any macro-variations in the fruit flies (and most of the microevolutions that have been recorded were not to the flies reproductive benefit).

In rejecting macroevolution you just ignorantly propound a distorted creationist argument (albeit a weak one). Even ID'ers accepted evolution. They just objected to the improbability.

Oh by the way, how did Darwin interpret fossil evolution according to evolution if he wasn't aware of evolution at the time? How did he escapte this circular argument?

Originally posted by Halitose
Observation. Scientists have been breeding fruit flies and bacteria for over a hundred years. They have never not produced variations of themselves -- nothing even closely resembling a new organism has ever emerged.

Oh don't tell me, I know. We haven't been observing them long enough. Given enough time the fruit fly will evolve into bee and the bacterium into a multicellular organism.

I wish you would at least try to understand evolution before disputing it. Every new generation is a new organism. Every new species is a variation of whatever came before.
No evolution does not imply that a fruit fly will evolve into a bee or a bacterium into a multicellular organism. In fact the probability of the first is nearly zero. The second has a very low probability so yes its needs lots of time and the right conditions.

That is exactly the problem. When describing macroevolution, you flaunted that lovely word -- "fact". This "fact" of yours rests on the "forensic" fossil evidence of the two or three so called "missing links". But the fossil evidence itself is circular in its reasoning, since it is by the theory of evolution that we interpret the fossil record you can't then turn around and claim these fossils as the very proof of macroevolution. You want intelligent argument, stew on that one for a while. Perhaps you would desist from glibly claiming everything you believe in as fact.
Evidence for macroevolution does not depend on "missing links" at all and your whole circular fossil evidence argument falls over when you realise that most of Darwins evidence was based on the study of currently living organisms not on fosils.
One definition of "fact" I found on google is: An observation that all (or almost all) scientists agree is correct. So evolution is fact.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I have never entertained the thought that macroevolution is true!

😠

And that's precisely why you'll never realise it is.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
And that's precisely why you'll never realise it is.

Because it is patently false?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Because it is patently false?

Nope, because you'll never accept evidence if it contradicts your beliefs.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Nope, because you'll never accept evidence if it contradicts your beliefs.

That actually goes for the Evolutionary Scientist.

They always see what they want to see.

I cannot interpret the evidence through the glasses of an Atheist, because I have my own special pair of glasses.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I cannot interpret the evidence through the glasses of an Atheist, because I have my own special pair of glasses.

😵-^- 🙄


(feck it)

Originally posted by dj2becker
That actually goes for the Evolutionary Scientist.

They always see what they want to see.

I cannot interpret the evidence through the glasses of an Atheist, because I have my own special pair of glasses.

Evidence is FACT. Not belief, not heresay, not anything else. FACT.

I base my judgements of what is real or not based on fact, nothing to do with any beliefs.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Evidence is FACT. Not belief, not heresay, not anything else. FACT.

I base my judgements of what is real or not based on fact, nothing to do with any beliefs.

Evidence is FACT.

WRONG. "Spagetti" can be used as evidence of a "Spagetti Monster" but that does not make it a FACT!

Evidence needs to be interpreted. Two people can look at the same evidence and reach two totally different conclusions! They way they enterpret the evidence depends on their worldview.

I base my judgements of what is real or not based on fact, nothing to do with any beliefs.

No wonder you are so confused.😛

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Evidence is FACT.

WRONG. "Spagetti" can be used as evidence of a "Spagetti Monster" but that does not make it a FACT!

Evidence needs to be interpreted. Two people can look at the same evidence and reach two totally different conclusions! They way they enterpret the evidence depends on their worldview.

I base my judgements of what is rea ...[text shortened]... r not based on fact, nothing to do with any beliefs.

No wonder you are so confused.😛[/b]

You have no idea.

Spaghetti IS fact, we can show it exists. Quite whether a flying spaghetti monster exists or not is subject to debate. The existance of spaghetti is not evidence of a spaghetti monster, but a spaghetti monster would be evidence of spaghetti.

No wonder you're so confused about everything.

[edit; at least learn how to spell.]

[edit; actually thinking more about it, this is just the type of 'logical' jump that you'd make deej. As a scientist, i would point out that the pre-requisites for a flying spaghetti monster exist (i.e. spaghetti and flight). However, i'd also point out that neither is spaghetti alive, nor does it possess the necessary complexity (currently) to obtain life over time (as a virus does, if a selection pressure existed). But, no, you feel free to jump to whatever conclusions you feel necessary to justify your own existance.]