Is there evidence for MACRO-evolution?

Hooblah2u2 · Aug 17, 2009

Macro-evolution according to Biology Online:

Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of species, over geologic time resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

I haven't seen a transitional fossil that hasn't turned out to be similar to this:
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie030.html

Spit out your "evidence" for macro-evolution. Good luck, there is none.

Sorry didn't mean to leave the sig.

thegreatkazoo · Aug 17, 2009

CK, close this thread.

You shouldn't try to troll people into an already debunked statement.

Crimson King · Aug 17, 2009

This topic has a week to prove results. Have fun.

omnicloud7strife · Aug 17, 2009

Hooblah2u2 said:
Macro-evolution according to Biology Online:

I haven't seen a transitional fossil that hasn't turned out to be similar to this:
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie030.html

Spit out your "evidence" for macro-evolution. Good luck, there is none.

Sorry didn't mean to leave the sig.

Well, we can breed dogs into wolves, and wolves into dogs. I suppose, if we tried hard enough, we could continue to breed backwards until we found something that you would agree is evidence.

The truth of the matter is, evolution takes a long period of time. Perhaps hundreds and hundreds of years. You can't "see" the evidence for it, because you're going to be dead before it happens. Not to suggest that you'll die young, but that even if you live to be old, it is unlikely to happen in your lifetime.

An example of evolution is the panda bear. It's more closely related to raccoons than bears. Why? I have no idea. I could go look it up, but you feel there's no evidence, and I doubt that I can convince you there is evidence.

A piece of evolution is the appendix. YOU don't use it. But, other animals do. Does that mean that other animals were grown from us? I doubt it. Does it mean we came from something, at some time, that used an appendix, and we have grown to cooking our food, and thusly grown away from it being needed? Perhaps. I feel that's more likely than we have a stray organ inside us.

Why are there so many types of whale? Or, of shark? What about ants? There's so many different types of ants out there, each one doing things slightly different, but working at the same goal of expanding the colony.

I assume you are looking for some comparison of skeletons that shows a logical, gradual progression from species A to species B. That might not exist. I can tell you, however, that evolution has been known to happen in leaps, not slowly. A mutation makes one creature more likely to survive. It passes on its genes. And so on. It can happen suddenly, with very little progression.

I think you are looking for evolution as described by Darwin. While it is widely accepted that the idea of evolution is accurate, the method of it is still under debate in the scientific community. Many feel that it's sudden. And, I believe that number is growing.

However, let us look at the idea of intelligent design, shall we? Personally (and, I do hate being personal), I feel that the universe, and everything in it, is random. Perhaps even lucky. But, let us say, for discussions sake, that there is, or was, a powerful being, or entity, named.... Jeff.

Jeff creates the universe, exactly the way he wants it. He puts every star in the sky, every mountain is set to just such a height, every creature in the world is set up to live under the normal conditions. Jeff's sitting there, sipping his all powerful beer now. Relaxing. However, things change on the planet. But, Jeff thought of that. Gave creatures the ability to adapt, grow, change. Jeff figured that self improvement was useful for all creatures, and survivability was crucial to maintaining any kind of balance.

It's rather easy, in fact, to argue that intelligent design has a very, very strong argument in favor of evolution, because if there's a designer, it could design change right into whatever it designed.

I'm not saying you should believe in evolution. I'm not saying you shouldn't. I'm telling you why I feel evolution is the stronger case. And, I'm trying to show you why, if you think there's a Jeff out there, of some kind, it's still possible, and wouldn't corrupt your thought that Jeff created everything.

I hope you understand what I'm saying, and you can respond however you'd like, and if you have questions, I'll be happy to answer them, as best I can. If you would LIKE me to look up some evidence, or reasoning, please, feel free to tell me to do so. But, you were the one who said, "There is no evidence for Macro-Evolution," so I figured I'd not waste both your time and mine by finding things that you just wouldn't believe.

Maybe I changed your mind. I hope so. If not, oh well. We can keep debating.

I'd like to shout out to CK, for re-opening this thread. I wanted to respond for a little while, and had several thoughts on it. Mostly, though, this is stream of consciousness. I just sat down and wrote.

Anyways, happy debating. ^_^

~Omni~

Crimson King · Aug 17, 2009

One of the biggest arguments FOR intelligent design is the eye. The eye, like a camera lens, is extremely complicated, and according to most IDists, it is the end-all proof that a creator exists since the parts that make it up are useless except within its context. While that in and of itself is a fallacy, IDists miss one crucial thing: if a creator created everything, he is a failure. Look up the statistics of people with vision issues. Also, look up how likely it is for your visual to get worse with age. If a creator created everything as it is, wouldn't he have created the eye without flaws?

balladechina212 · Aug 17, 2009

Crimson King said:
One of the biggest arguments FOR intelligent design is the eye. The eye, like a camera lens, is extremely complicated, and according to most IDists, it is the end-all proof that a creator exists since the parts that make it up are useless except within its context. While that in and of itself is a fallacy, IDists miss one crucial thing: if a creator created everything, he is a failure. Look up the statistics of people with vision issues. Also, look up how likely it is for your visual to get worse with age. If a creator created everything as it is, wouldn't he have created the eye without flaws?

This again goes back to the age-old question: If there is a creator, why does he allow natural disasters? I'm not going to answer that question because I'm sure that in itself has been debated enough. This eye question would be answered and debated the same way.

Crimson King · Aug 17, 2009

Natural disasters are occurrences in nature that clash with other occurrences in nature. Plate moving is a normal thing that happens, but on occasions, it will cause earthquakes as a result of the moving. Tornados are simply the mixing of hot and cold winds into a high pressure system (hurricanes also involve pressure systems) that creates a cyclonic wind that is quite damaging. All of these, if created, are built into the design, unless the creator lacked foresight. Regardless, they aren't done by overall flaws, but just natural events that clash when put together.

With eye issues, it's actually the degradation of the eye or ailments born into the individual that cause the problems with eyes. My horrible eyesight comes from my mother who is **** near blind without the aid of laser surgery + glasses.

Kewkky · Aug 18, 2009

First of all, artist representations of how animals look like thanks to the fossils found, can't always be taken in 100% accuracy. They're that, representations of how they envision the animals to have looked like, not that they DID look like that... Still, the point is to provide a basic form so we can visualize at least how big it was, how fast they were, what types of plants/meat they ate, in what areas they lived, etc... We may be off in a couple of these aspects, but close enough to give us an idea of what the animal in question actually was like. Until the day when mankind successfuly clones a dinosaur from anything they have found or will find, we can only speculate about how they were like, according to what has been found until the point the artist's animal design was made... You may want to ask me "Why are some designs agreed that they are THE representation of the animals (like a couple of the dinosaur's)?", and I'd have to answer with "Because they're the ones the vast majority (if not all) of archaeologists, paleontologists and other kinds of scientists agree on"... Otherwise, there'd be more than just one universal model of a T-Rex, for example.

Second, the fact that things seem to be designed by an all-powerful engineer of sorts, doesn't mean that they are. If his mind is all-knowledgeable, why do we fail at so many things (like sight, which is the example used so far)? Why, if he wishes the best for us, his children, does he allow so much suffering to happen in this world? Why does he give equal love to a tyrant such as the african governor that was starving his people AND the poor who are being pushed around by a tyrant? What about our many flaws, weren't we made in his image? If so, is he flawed then? So many questions that I can't have answered to the degree that I wish... Does that mean that omnipotent beings are like macro-evolution fossils, that they both can't be proven because of lack of evidence?

It's not that you have to SEE to believe, sometimes the answer is quite obvious when we think about it. If you have fossils proving macro-evolution of some species (the Homo and Australopithecus edition!), why deny the same for others that have been argued to have gone through the same events? Any heavy climactic change will trigger the need for organisms to adapt to their new atmosphere, or else they will die out... And there's been evidence that lots of heavy climactic changes have been happening in the past hundreds of thousands of years, why deny that which would make sense otherwise?

GOD! · Aug 18, 2009

Crimson King said:
One of the biggest arguments FOR intelligent design is the eye. The eye, like a camera lens, is extremely complicated, and according to most IDists, it is the end-all proof that a creator exists since the parts that make it up are useless except within its context. While that in and of itself is a fallacy, IDists miss one crucial thing: if a creator created everything, he is a failure. Look up the statistics of people with vision issues. Also, look up how likely it is for your visual to get worse with age. If a creator created everything as it is, wouldn't he have created the eye without flaws?

Darwins own argument. I remember reading this in some book somewhere.

Besides the eye there are things like protein production in DNA, blood clotting, and the nervous system which are incredibly complex. When DNA synthesizes a certain protein, that protein itself is used in the process (protein that was already formed).

To question a creator, you have to know he exists, so in this section we'll say yes to that.

For the record, the bible says that people were made perfect. And then we sinned, and then God himself made us age.

God can't be with sin. When we broke the one law he gave us (he always wants people to have a decision to follow him or not, strangely enough), we became imperfect. The bible said that God would walk with Adam and Eve (metaphorical or otherwise) in the evenings. Once we sinned, we couldn't be around him anymore. It's like darkness and light which the bible explains is like God and sin: God is light, and sin literally can't be around him. We die if we look at God's face, and that is because his nature destroys all sin and our bodies are sinful.

When God made us age, I think it was because he wanted a chance to be with us again. We have a while to make a decision. We enjoy life. And then we spend forever with him, which is our design as people. That's why I think aging is a blessing, though sometimes I don't know.

Just my thoughts.

And this is assuming that God the creator exists, of course. So don't flame me, this was to answer a question that needed a creator.

balladechina212 · Aug 18, 2009

The fundamental problem with this argument is that it is nearly impossible to explain faith to someone who has none. Almost all of the arguments on the creationist side, as GOD! said, require that one believe in a God first. For example, the reason that we do not question the natural disasters, the horrific moral acts, and the degradation of our eyes is that WE DO NOT KNOW GOD'S WILL. Therefore, by believing in that, we can believe in a creator yet still accept these bad things. However, if you do not believe in God to begin with, then I can't expect you to understand my argument.

This is why I think it is pointless to argue topics such as creationism vs. macro-evolution.

Oh and for my fellow believers, evangelism is has a time and place, and sometimes we have to realize that our current setting may not be appropriate for that. In addition, evangelism is not ultimately up to us to convince people these "truths" that we believe in. I think you guys know who it is up to.

Crimson King · Aug 18, 2009

GOD! said:
Darwins own argument. I remember reading this in some book somewhere.

Besides the eye there are things like protein production in DNA, blood clotting, and the nervous system which are incredibly complex. When DNA synthesizes a certain protein, that protein itself is used in the process (protein that was already formed).

To question a creator, you have to know he exists, so in this section we'll say yes to that.

For the record, the bible says that people were made perfect. And then we sinned, and then God himself made us age.

God can't be with sin. When we broke the one law he gave us (he always wants people to have a decision to follow him or not, strangely enough), we became imperfect. The bible said that God would walk with Adam and Eve (metaphorical or otherwise) in the evenings. Once we sinned, we couldn't be around him anymore. It's like darkness and light which the bible explains is like God and sin: God is light, and sin literally can't be around him. We die if we look at God's face, and that is because his nature destroys all sin and our bodies are sinful.

When God made us age, I think it was because he wanted a chance to be with us again. We have a while to make a decision. We enjoy life. And then we spend forever with him, which is our design as people. That's why I think aging is a blessing, though sometimes I don't know.

Just my thoughts.

And this is assuming that God the creator exists, of course. So don't flame me, this was to answer a question that needed a creator.

So, it basically comes down to god not being powerful enough to fix the fact that we sinned, directly, so to do that he had to create a long, long, long process to which Jesus would be born (who was also god), die, and we'd have all our sins forgiven, or at least forgivable. Occam's Razor says no. The eye is like it is THROUGH evolution. It started with creatures that live in complete darkness and have ultra-sensitive light spots. Through millions of years, this light spot became impossible as we moved out of dark areas, like the oceans. Once we adapted enough to actually see, the species that could see better became dominant species.

Feel free to get your start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye There are TONS of linked articles worth reading as well as further reading that makes a lot more logical sense than some creator who allowed us to sin, which contradicts either his all-loving nature or his all-knowing nature.

balladechina212 · Aug 18, 2009

So, it basically comes down to god not being powerful enough to fix the fact that we sinned, directly, so to do that he had to create a long, long, long process to which Jesus would be born (who was also god), die, and we'd have all our sins forgiven, or at least forgivable.

If you had a child, and you promised him that you would buy him a Wii + Brawl ( :chuckle:

) if he behaved, but he didn't, would you still buy it for him? You MIGHT eventually forgive him after he acts good for a while and get him his present but it's not like you're going to fix his bad behavior for him. I mean, you COULD, and go ahead and buy him his gift. In the same way, God probably could have done the same and just fixed it, so I don't think his power should be questioned here; rather, it is his will - again I use this word like I did in my previous post - that should be analyzed. This is all assuming that you don't want to spoil your child lol, and in the same way, I guess God did not want to spoil us (but who am I to know what He wants, this is all speculation).

some creator who allowed us to sin, which contradicts either his all-loving nature or his all-knowing nature.

Love is a complicated subject to talk about. Not many people can adequately define this concept. In my opinion, love can be harsh at times if you have the opposing person's well-being in mind. Sometimes, it's loving to teach someone a lesson if you know that they will benefit from it. Just my opinion.

In these debates, scientific-minded people always win, because they have facts, but never quite enough facts to prove that God does not exist. However, faith-minded people never stood a chance to begin with, because they BELIEVE in something they cannot prove, so they can never win this debate. Does that make them wrong? No, not unless the other side can find empirical proof that these faith-based assumptions are false.

Crimson King · Aug 18, 2009

balladechina212 said:
If you had a child, and you promised him that you would buy him a Wii + Brawl () if he behaved, but he didn't, would you still buy it for him? You MIGHT eventually forgive him after he acts good for a while and get him his present but it's not like you're going to fix his bad behavior for him. I mean, you COULD, and go ahead and buy him his gift. In the same way, God probably could have done the same and just fixed it, so I don't think his power should be questioned here; rather, it is his will - again I use this word like I did in my previous post - that should be analyzed. This is all assuming that you don't want to spoil your child lol, and in the same way, I guess God did not want to spoil us (but who am I to know what He wants, this is all speculation).

I am not an all-loving being as god is claimed to be. Plus, in Jesus' death, sin is dead. This is one of the big tenets of Christianity. So, instead of just undoing the sin, god has to kill his son/self to make it happen. That is illogical, and it hinges on the fact that your version of god is correct and not any other version. What if the Calvinist god is correct? Well, then, we are all screwed, and he created our eyes and every wrong with us to punish us for our eventual sinning.

balladechina212 · Aug 18, 2009

Religion is often a big series of "what if"s. I mean, just ask some Christians why they became Christians at first. Many will say "well, if this is real, and I don't believe it, then I'm going to hell." It's later that they see the bigger picture and this is an acceptable way to look at one's beliefs. We take risks, we believe what we want to believe; and if we're wrong...well...we're screwed.

So begins the endless search for the answer to the question of why we exist.

thegreatkazoo · Aug 18, 2009

Really though?

Okay, there has been a large diversion from the OP which was if there is evidence for Macroevolution.

PGers, want to step up? Here's your chance. Depending on how well you debunk this claim. (and

how long you have been here

), I will personally vouch for you in the DMT to become a DH proper.

C'mon guys, this isn't that hard! :dizzy:

I would do it, but such actions are normally frowned upon when you become a DH proper (viz DHers shouldn't constantly meddle in the PG).

RDK · Aug 18, 2009

Since there's a visible lack of rational debaters on the religion side in this thread, I'm going to go ahead and initiate ~~Devil's~~ Jesus's Advocate for a little bit. Just about everyone in here except for the newbies knows how I feel about intelligent design, so don't go quote-mining me (no pun intended).

Crimson King said:
One of the biggest arguments FOR intelligent design is the eye. The eye, like a camera lens, is extremely complicated, and according to most IDists, it is the end-all proof that a creator exists since the parts that make it up are useless except within its context. While that in and of itself is a fallacy, IDists miss one crucial thing: if a creator created everything, he is a failure. Look up the statistics of people with vision issues. Also, look up how likely it is for your visual to get worse with age. If a creator created everything as it is, wouldn't he have created the eye without flaws?

Not all ID-ists are religious. Intelligent Design is first and foremost a secular theory, and all religious baggage is added on by those with an agenda. Intelligent Design doesn't speak about the actual attributes of the designer like creationism does; it could be anything from the Judeo-Christian God to a highly advanced foreign life form. The question of the designer's identity is left open to each individual, and in any case it isn't provable one way or another until more research is done. The important part is that there is a design pattern present in nature.

Kewkky · Aug 18, 2009

First of all, let's clarify how we can use macro-evolution in my argument...

Macroevolution and modern evolutionary synthesis said:
Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. However, it should be noted that time is not a necessary distinguishing factor – macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in macroevolution occurring over a single generation - especially in plants. One of the most significant applications of this is found in the evolution of the vertebrates, which was mediated by duplications of the hox gene complex.

Important quote, right here. Macro-evolution is a term that is often coined to fit into the argument a person is trying to explain to a more general public, when in and of itself, the word could range widely in both time AND scale. You could call a macro-evolution the way humanity has evolved from one species to the next, just by looking at a chart that shows the amount of changes the organism in context has underwent in a set period of time... Differences between each Homo and Australopithecus member can be seen clearly, but looking at the amount of changes undergone in a set period of time (a bigger concentration of small changes in a period of time, within a large group of the species under study) could be a better definition of the term macro-evolution... Simply put, a lot more changes in a period of time, than in other equal periods of time. These are called micro-evolutions, when there are only small-scale detailed changes within a species, like the ability to change from being cold-blooded to warm-blooded due to atmospheric changes, in order to survive.

The literal definition of macroevolution:

WordNet Search 3.0 said:
macroevolution (evolution on a large scale extending over geologic era and resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups).

Notice that no set timeline has been given to the word to tie itself to, it could be an evolution cycle that lasted over from 10,000 years to 1 million years. The dramatic changes between uni-celular organisms, to multi-celular organisms, to complex systems, to vertebrates... These are all common examples of macro-evolution.

Now, for creationism, it speaks for itself... That we have all been created, part of a great design by a greater being, as what we are now. Most creationists have accepted evolution because of overwhelming scientifical evidence, but still deny the existence of periods of time where macro-evolution occurred.

Until this day, heated debates between macro-evolution and creationism are still happening because neither side has supporting evidence on which to back up their claims. It all boilds down to your personal beliefs, religion is generally followed by creationists, and macro-evolution is generally followed by atheists. (Generalizations used here)

I, myself, am at a conflict between the two:

1) Because I'm a scientist, it makes sense that large groups of organisms would evolve to adapt to new environmental factors, and given the many different fossils found that date millions of years before the dawn of man, it wouldn't surprise me. From the extinction of previous dominant species (like dinosaurs) to the lack of an important resource (desert animals vs tropical animals), there are quite a number of reasons why so many gene pools would be mutated during enough time, so the species could adapt to the constantly-changing environmental factors (transition between the last dinosaur era to the Ice Age's dominant species).
2) As a christian, I cannot deny the word of the Bible because it is God's word. I can't really say my spiritual health is at it's best right now, due to me studying all sorts of scientific branches, expanding my knowledge and feeding my curiosity, and lots of what I read aren't in accordance with the Bible's usual highlights when creationism is mentioned... But what happens after death? What REALLY happened at the start of time? For all we know it could be some deistic view of reality, and God created the universe and set it in motion for evolution to occur.

There are so many different theories that have to do with the start of life, the course of evolution, and the design of the universe and organic physiology in general. But if I had to choose between macro-evolution or creationism by the book, I'd have to go with macro-evolution due to all that I have read up on so far, and what I believe is what has actually happened. I don't think there's been solid, scientifical evidence that Jesus Christ existed, nor has there been any old records that point to the existence of his own self... The closest, most accurate recordings are the Bible's pages, and without enough evidence, it falls on deaf ears to the vast majority of atheistic scientists.

balladechina212 · Aug 18, 2009

Kewkky said:
I don't think there's been solid, scientifical evidence that Jesus Christ existed

Oh by the way I'm leaving this argument, I don't want to spend any more time arguing something that's not going to convince anyone.

But just on a last quick note, I want to say that there is pretty solid historical evidence that Jesus Christ existed. Don't feel like looking it up because I'm done with this thread. Talk to me on more random non-faith-vs.-science topics :D

RDK · Aug 18, 2009

balladechina212 said:
Oh by the way I'm leaving this argument, I don't want to spend any more time arguing something that's not going to convince anyone.

But just on a last quick note, I want to say that there is pretty solid historical evidence that Jesus Christ existed. Don't feel like looking it up because I'm done with this thread. Talk to me on more random non-faith-vs.-science topics :D

This is definitely not going to get you into the Debate Hall.

balladechina212 · Aug 18, 2009

Pshaw, that seems like everyone's ultimate goal. I'm here to learn and hear people's opinions. And I feel like I get enough of that in the PG, then fine, whatever. I'm probably capable of good enough arguments to get into DH but I don't really care that much about it.

thegreatkazoo · Aug 18, 2009

balladechina212 said:
Pshaw, that seems like everyone's ultimate goal. I'm here to learn and hear people's opinions. And I feel like I get enough of that in the PG, then fine, whatever. I'm probably capable of good enough arguments to get into DH but I don't really care that much about it.

Wow, somebuddy's full of sh!. :laugh:

You can learn and hear other people's opinions without being in the PG or the DH. Anyone can read the threads, no?

If you don't care to raise your level of debating, you probably should do us all a solid and leave. That also applies to anyone with similar sentiments, btw.

balladechina212 · Aug 19, 2009

I started two other threads the last couple of days (since joining) and I've been active in those. I can choose to debate on the topics that I want to debate on right? If so, then get off my case please. And who are you to judge my "level of debating"? Just because you have that title under your name does not mean you can go criticize other people's argumentative SKILLS (not their arguments, like you're supposed to in a debate). And I think we went over this before in another thread

I came here to advance my knowledge on subjects that I feel that I am weak in. I've already participated in many MANY conversations about the creationism vs. evolution topic. It was my mistake to get myself wrapped up in something I didn't want to stick with.

thegreatkazoo · Aug 20, 2009

balladechina212 said:
I started two other threads the last couple of days (since joining) and I've been active in those. I can choose to debate on the topics that I want to debate on right? If so, then get off my case please. And who are you to judge my "level of debating"? Just because you have that title under your name does not mean you can go criticize other people's argumentative SKILLS (not their arguments, like you're supposed to in a debate). And I think we went over this before in another thread

You would think that someone who has recently been admitted into the debate hall after 6 weeks of proving himself would know about such skills. You would also think that the said person would know what and what isn't a good argument better than someone who has just joined. Could it be because I do?!?!? :laugh:

Not to toot my own horn, but any criticism I (or any DHer) gives you is probably for the better. We aren't here to berate you, but we will call you out on your bull sh!. It's called constructive criticism--pass it on!

balladechina212 said:
It was my mistake to get myself wrapped up in something I didn't want to stick with.

It probably was. :chuckle:

You may want to get acquainted with this link. It will help you with making your way into the DH. http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=245813

If you have already read it, then disregard the message.

On point: Does no one want to debunk this claim and own Hooblah?

Kewkky · Aug 21, 2009

thegreatkazoo said:
On point: Does no one want to debunk this claim and own Hooblah?

Hmm...

Creationism according to CreationWiki:

Creationism is a belief system which postulates that the universe, Earth, and life were deliberately created by an intelligent being.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen a creationist attack that hasn't turned out to be similar to this:
http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/science/2ndlaw.html

Spit out your "evidence" for creationism. Good luck, there is none.

Sorry didn't mean to leave the sig.

Both creationism and macroevolution have a lack of evidence, and each interprets carbon dating differently apparently (evolutionists date the world millions of years old, creationists date it less than ten thousand years). Each attacks the other that they have their math wrong, or are doing it wrong.

Still... How can you debunk that which scientists are still fighting to prove and prevail? :dizzy:

And I still go for macroevolution.

thegreatkazoo · Aug 21, 2009

I guess no one is becoming a DHer with this thread.

Crimson King · Aug 21, 2009

Kewkky said:
Hmm...

Both creationism and macroevolution have a lack of evidence, and each interprets carbon dating differently apparently (evolutionists date the world millions of years old, creationists date it less than ten thousand years). Each attacks the other that they have their math wrong, or are doing it wrong.

Still... How can you debunk that which scientists are still fighting to prove and prevail? And I still go for macroevolution.

What?

Carbon dating is extremely accurate, and the misconception that it is inaccurate is based on the fact it's only a few thousand years off, not millions of years, as creationist try to lead you to believe. Studies have been done to verify it (http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/libby.htm) whereas the bible/creationism simply rely on the sole fact that theist calculated the Earth through the bible using mostly guesswork and rough dates.

Also, to say that both lack evidence is ridiculous because it implies they both lack the same amount of evidence. Macroevolution has fossils, DNA, and other examples, where as creationism has NOTHING. Until you can prove a god or greater power, ID/Creationism is dead in the water.

Kewkky · Aug 21, 2009

Crimson King said:
What?

Carbon dating is extremely accurate, and the misconception that it is inaccurate is based on the fact it's only a few thousand years off, not millions of years, as creationist try to lead you to believe. Studies have been done to verify it (http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/libby.htm) whereas the bible/creationism simply rely on the sole fact that theist calculated the Earth through the bible using mostly guesswork and rough dates.

Also, to say that both lack evidence is ridiculous because it implies they both lack the same amount of evidence. Macroevolution has fossils, DNA, and other examples, where as creationism has NOTHING. Until you can prove a god or greater power, ID/Creationism is dead in the water.

Creationism asks for solid, clear evidence that macroevolution is real and creationism is not. They've already accepted microevolution as a reality, but not macro, because they haven't been shown experiments where people have been able to mutate a pterodactyl into a bird. And the whole debate will keep going on, until either they die and see God in heaven, or the opposing team finds a way of inducing macroevolution in an organism.

And carbon dating... I know it's accurate, I'm a scientist, I should know about these things. But in places like this and this, creationists criticize evolutionists' ways of interpreting carbon dating and find ways to make it seem like they're right and the others are wrong. And those are just two examples! Google "creationists carbon dating" and you'll have all the articles you desire about this matter. And this is just one example of what they try to debunk and hold onto as "evidence".

Crimson King · Aug 21, 2009

Kewkky said:
Creationism asks for solid, clear evidence that macroevolution is real and creationism is not. They've already accepted microevolution as a reality, but not macro, because they haven't been shown experiments where people have been able to mutate a pterodactyl into a bird. And the whole debate will keep going on, until either they die and see God in heaven, or the opposing team finds a way of inducing macroevolution in an organism.

Creationism can ask for whatever it wants, but a lack of evidence in macroevolution does not add credit to creationism. That's not how science works, nor is that how evolution works. Chickens are closer related to pterodactly's than birds anyway, but the point is, evolution is a process where mutations that benefit pass on, and those that do not, die out. Look up polydactylia (or however it's spelled), the occurrence of extra digits. That's a dominant gene that was common, but with inbreeding of royalty through the ages, it became a sign of low class to have 6 or 7 fingers, so it was weeded out. It was a useless thing anyway, but it has been shown that this is a dominant gene.

Kewkky said:
And carbon dating... I know it's accurate, I'm a scientist, I should know about these things. But in places like this and this, creationists criticize evolutionists' ways of interpreting carbon dating and find ways to make it seem like they're right and the others are wrong. And those are just two examples! Google "creationists carbon dating" and you'll have all the articles you desire about this matter. And this is just one example of what they try to debunk and hold onto as "evidence".

You're 20. You aren't a scientist. Secondly, you cite an angelfire site and a site that has creationism in the title. Creationist operate under the mentality that man is flawed, so with this in mind, he messes up with carbon dating, which most in the scientific community will cite as valid and credible, because man is prone to flaws.

Until creationism can provide any evidence for their claims, I really couldn't care less about their debunking. It's like trying to prove the Holocaust didn't exist but offering not suggestion as to why evidence exists proving it. It's fine if you, and other creationists, wish to discredit evolution; that is a fundamental part of science, but to offer nothing in counterpoint is just laughable and irresponsible.

RDK · Aug 21, 2009

Kewkky said:
because they haven't been shown experiments where people have been able to mutate a pterodactyl into a bird.

Kewkky said:
I'm a scientist

Anything I write after quoting those would be superfluous.

Edit: oops, I just thought of one. Kent Hovind, anybody?

Kewkky · Aug 21, 2009

Wikipedia said:
A scientist, in the broadest sense, refers to any person that engages in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge or an individual that engages in such practices and traditions that are linked to schools of thought or philosophy. In a more restricted sense, scientist refers to individuals who use the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science.

Merriam-Webster said:
1 : a person learned in science and especially natural science: a scientific investigator

wordIQ said:
A scientist is a person who is expert in an area of science and who uses scientific methods in research.

Well, if it implies that I should be well-studied in one of the scientific branches and have undergone some sort of research by using scientific methods, then I can say I'm a scientist, and not the profession. I am studied in particle physics and a bit in astrophysics. Now, if I'm a professional scientist, that's a different story.

And I am not defending creationism, I'm an 'evolutionist'. I linked those websites to show what creationists keep saying about carbon dating being misinterpreted by evolutionists, and also pointed out a possibility of why creationists refuse to give up the debate.

thegreatkazoo · Aug 21, 2009

thegreatkazoo said:
I guess no one is becoming a DHer with this thread.

Bumped for truth. :laugh:

RDK said:
Anything I write after quoting those would be superfluous.

Edit: oops, I just thought of one. Kent Hovind, anybody?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV0qMZJE3Xk

Kewkky said:
And I am not defending creationism, I'm an 'evolutionist'. I linked those websites to show what creationists keep saying about carbon dating being misinterpreted by evolutionists, and also pointed out a possibility of why creationists refuse to give up the debate.

F1zz, TRDS, Dark Peach, want to step up to the plate, pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee?

Kewkky · Aug 21, 2009

thegreatkazoo said:
F1zz, TRDS, Dark Peach, want to step up to the plate, pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee?

Rather than facepalm over and over, just tell me where I am wrong so I can correct myself and avoid repeating the same mistakes over and over! I'm a temp-debater in order to learn how to debate better, increase my awareness on what it is that people perceive that I'm trying to say, and hopefully when I get better and learn what I need, get accepted into the DH. Reading *facepalm* and *headdesk* really isn't helping, you know... Just leaves me wondering what it is that you're facepalming or headdesking to.

Come on, be a good guy... :dizzy:

thegreatkazoo · Aug 21, 2009

Kewkky said:
Rather than facepalm over and over, just tell me where I am wrong so I can correct myself and avoid repeating the same mistakes over and over! I'm a temp-debater in order to learn how to debate better, increase my awareness on what it is that people perceive that I'm trying to say, and hopefully when I get better and learn what I need, get accepted into the DH.

Come on, be a good guy...

AS a DHer, I can tell you

Whether or not you have made a well formed argument
Provide tips on how to do so

However, I cannot give you what to debate, or what sources you would need to debunk an argument. That would be cheating, and nobody likes a cheat.

This, in turn, makes me feel sad that I am on the DH: I can no longer own Hooblah with a BS thread so completely that his rebuttal is an endless amount of logical fallacies. On the same token, it is good that I am a DH, since I can now encourage others to do the same.

Seriously, though, this thread can be destroyed in about an hour...too bad no one want to do it though.

And for Christ's sake, turn off your sig!

Kewkky · Aug 21, 2009

thegreatkazoo said:
AS a DHer, I can tell you

Whether or not you have made a well formed argument

Provide tips on how to do so

This is what I meant, clarify what it is that you're facepalming at, it clearly must be something that I'm doing wrong (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm actually asking for your help).

And for Christ's sake, turn off your sig!

I disabled it a while ago, Crimson King pointed out where I can do it in my CP... Unless it doesn't work and I'm the only one that doesn't see my sig.

thegreatkazoo · Aug 21, 2009

Kewkky said:
Hmm...

Both creationism and macroevolution have a lack of evidence, and each interprets carbon dating differently apparently (evolutionists date the world millions of years old, creationists date it less than ten thousand years). Each attacks the other that they have their math wrong, or are doing it wrong.

Still... How can you debunk that which scientists are still fighting to prove and prevail? And I still go for macroevolution.

Here's one...

Kewkky said:
Creationism asks for solid, clear evidence that macroevolution is real and creationism is not. They've already accepted microevolution as a reality, but not macro, because they haven't been shown experiments where people have been able to mutate a pterodactyl into a bird. And the whole debate will keep going on, until either they die and see God in heaven, or the opposing team finds a way of inducing macroevolution in an organism.

And carbon dating... I know it's accurate, I'm a scientist, I should know about these things. But in places like this and this, creationists criticize evolutionists' ways of interpreting carbon dating and find ways to make it seem like they're right and the others are wrong. And those are just two examples! Google "creationists carbon dating" and you'll have all the articles you desire about this matter. And this is just one example of what they try to debunk and hold onto as "evidence".

Here's another.

Kewkky said:
This is what I meant, clarify what it is that you're facepalming at, it clearly must be something that I'm doing wrong (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm actually asking for your help).

I disabled it a while ago, Crimson King pointed out where I can do it in my CP... Unless it doesn't work and I'm the only one that doesn't see my sig.

Fail times three...get the fail boat ready.

balladechina212 · Aug 21, 2009

Why must you be so hostile? Constructive criticism can be constructive without being outright mean.

Kewkky · Aug 21, 2009

thegreatkazoo said:
Here's one...

If they had the evidence the other side of the debate craved, there wouldn't be a debate in the first place, I'm guessing. And "each has the same lack of evidence as the other" isn't what I meant. You could lack evidence by not having anything to back up your claims, or just having pieces of the claim supported and other more important (or most viewed by the general populace, like fossils, which is what is shown in the OP and what I meant in the first place) parts, not.

Here's another.

Ugh, fine, I won't throw the term 'scientist' around like that anymore.

Fail times three...get the fail boat ready.

This is unfair, I literally couldn't see my sigs because I disabled them in my User CP when Crimson King warned me the first time (I PM'd him and he pointed me out to it), I thought no one could see them as well since no one said anything. The sad thing is, I forget about disabling it manually everytime I make another reply, so the auto sig-disable option would've helped me out a lot...

thegreatkazoo · Aug 21, 2009

balladechina212 said:
Why must you be so hostile? Constructive criticism can be constructive without being outright mean.

If you think I am mean, wait until you see RDK. :laugh:

Consider what I am doing as a friendly service.

Kewkky said:
If they had the evidence the other side of the debate craved, there wouldn't be a debate in the first place, I'm guessing. And "each has the same lack of evidence as the other" isn't what I meant. You could lack evidence by not having anything to back up your claims, or just having pieces of the claim supported and other more important (or most viewed by the general populace, like fossils, which is what is shown in the OP and what I meant in the first place) parts, not.

This is about the most one-sided thread that can be made in a debate forum. If you don't know which one is right, then you are SoL. :laugh:

Kewkky said:
Ugh, fine, I won't throw the term 'scientist' around like that anymore.

You live and you learn.

Kewkky said:
This is unfair, I literally couldn't see my sigs because I disabled them in my User CP when Crimson King warned me the first time (I PM'd him and he pointed me out to it), I thought no one could see them as well since no one said anything. The sad thing is, I forget about disabling it manually everytime I make another reply, so the auto sig-disable option would've helped me out a lot...

Do whatever you need to disable your sig.

Wrath` · Aug 21, 2009

I just read this this thread from page 1 to the end, this is some hilarious stuff.

On topic: Evolution exisists.

thegreatkazoo · Aug 21, 2009

The wrath of Koarin said:
I just read this this thread from page 1 to the end, this is some hilarious stuff.

I concur.

The wrath of Koarin said:
On topic: Evolution exisists.

Yes it does exist.

Care to debunk the OP and be on your way (possibly) to the DH?

Is there evidence for MACRO-evolution?

Smash Apprentice

Smash Master

I am become death

Smash Apprentice

I am become death

Smash Ace

I am become death

Uhh... Look at my status.

Smash Ace

Smash Ace

I am become death

Smash Ace

I am become death

Smash Ace

Smash Master

Smash Hero

Uhh... Look at my status.

Smash Ace

Smash Hero

Smash Ace

Smash Master

Smash Ace

Smash Master

Uhh... Look at my status.

Smash Master

I am become death

Uhh... Look at my status.

I am become death

Smash Hero

Uhh... Look at my status.

Smash Master

Uhh... Look at my status.

Smash Master

Uhh... Look at my status.

Smash Master

Smash Ace

Uhh... Look at my status.

Smash Master

Smash Master

Smash Master

Information

Network