Evolution, a myth for non-theists

Hmm, 3rd or 4th grade?

Try looking it up, Sweetie.

The atheists and agnostics here are very devout, and defend their religion with zeal!

This is the point that Kevn will never understand because he only views the world in black and white. No rational person has "belief" in anything by Kevn's definition of the word. Rational people come to conclusions based on the evidence. Those conclusions are mutable when new evidence and observations are evaluated and incorporated. This applies to atheism in the same way it does to anything else. It's not a religion or even a "belief." It's a conclusion drawn from the evidence or complete lack thereof. There exists no credible evidence of a god or gods or of anything outside of the natural material world. Without it there exists no rational reason to believe in a creator or the supernatural. If credible evidence for such things were to be shown at some point in the future it could change most atheist's minds. Of course I, like most other atheists, doubt that day will ever come. It's so much easier for people like Kevn to ignore all of that and paint everything in simple black and white, most likely because he's simply not capable of seeing the world in any other way.

By the way, Kevn, you've really turned into a first class troll.

I think we've been through this before and you ignored the evidence for confirmation. I think the thread may be on page 2 or 3 by now since I last bumped it.

amended to read "what you understand as "macroevolution"" The problem is you are using an argument that was popular in 1860 to attempt to find a flaw in evolutionary theory.

Your sweet little notion of what the debate between micro and macroevolution is, is about as relevant to modern evolutionary theory as tapdancing mice are to bubblewrap.

Darling.

Thank you, my love... kisses

piss off

I see he has run out of "arguments" again

He's too busy telling me he knows my friend's mind and heart better than I do.

Oh yeah, I saw that. He sure seems to "know" a lot...

clearly he knows a lot about women.

/me tosses troll food out on the forum floor and steps back as the frenzy heats up...

Anyone else wonder why he is feeding himself?

hehe, good one, Sally

Sometimes you are just wrong and not only misinterpret, but misinform. Macro evolution, while the subject of some debate in the scientific community, is indeed and accepted sceintific theory. I am certain the simplest search of the wikipedia would establish this fact.

The debate over macro evolution within the scientific world ceterns around the fact that many suposed macro-evolutionary chages might be better described as simple population genetics (micro evolution). To be technical the process of speciation is the the scientific theory realting to how species arise. It is Speciation that bridges the gap. Again I would imagine all of this is on the Wikipedia page. Thus you misinform when you say that macro eveolution is not scientific.

The test of falsifiety is not whether the expereiments actually exist, but in theory could it be proven wrong. In the case of evolution, it is a theory which could in fact be proven wrong (though all data tends to support that issue). Macro eveolution has, in fact been challenged as a theory from within the Scientific community (not ID people either). I cannot recall precisely but I recall Stephen Gould writing about problems with Darwinian Synthetic Evolution.

I said I was not religious abot evolution, and that I paid no attention to what my high school teachers said. In point of fact I do have a clue, partley because I took paleontology in college, and partly because the debate interests me. As a Buddhist I am constantly put out by the hubris of the christians who see everything as either their way or the science. You emobdoy that because it never occurs to you that both Christianity and evolution could be wrong. And that is one of the failure s of intelligent design.

You see intelligent design requires an intelligence. You say the universe could not not have been randomly put together, fine. But then when asked to prove the existence of the intelligence that did so, you cannot, except by pointing to the so called design of the universe. Thus you are proving that god created the universe, and proving that god exists usig the creation of the universe as evidence. You cannot independetly establish via scientific inquiry the existence of a transcendent intelligence.

As a buddhist I do not beleive in god, the bible, or anyof of the creeation stories. I accept the existence of the divine as being something that can be found within ourselves and within everything around us, but there is no god outside us. Intelligent Desing is dependent on a transcendent intelligence to have done the desigh. Ergo: no transcendent intelligence, no intelligent design.

I really do not understand why these threads continue. Kevn would pick any topic and the side most likely to generate outrage, specifically for the purpose of generating said outrage. He's good at it because he actually believes in the side he takes.

The rest of you know this. You must know this. You've seen it over and over again, you've argued and logic'ed and it never works.

I know for a fact that I'll never talk him into being anything but what he is already. It's why I never address him directly. The rest of you however I still have hope for.

Why continue this? Why give him feedback, ammunition, a foot in the door. Just stop. You won't have lost anything, not a chance to convert him, or to enlighten someone else. A lot of us complain that the forums have gone to hell. Well here's why! Sure, we can blame it on him, but we're keeping it going. Haven't managed to even knock him down a peg. There are no pegs except in our own perceptions and there he's already at rock bottom.

Some of you probably enjoy this banter. But isn't it better when the opposite party actually cares about the debate? is willing to consider theories, insights and new information? When there is a chance they might be able to broaden your own perspective and convert you? Don't settle for this. Don't answer this, don't acknowledge this in anyway. It will then stop filling up the forums, and the interesting and worth while debates conversations points of view will be more visible. people who you would really get some satisfaction from crossing minds with will return and in the end you will get more out of these forums.

This is all there is / It doesn't have to be.
He's ruined the forums / We're letting him.
But he's wrong / and this isn't going to change that.
We don't want lovey "can't we all just get along" crap / This isn't, this is waiting for an opponent who's worth the name.

sadly my scream key is broken. A good scream always feels like it might change the world. But like this sort of pointless debate, it will not. Want drama? scream into an abyss... wait... we are .

MACROEVOLUTION:

n.
Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

GEOLOGIC TIME:

n.
The period of time covering the physical formation and development of Earth, especially the period prior to human history.

MICROEVOLUTION:

n.
Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.


HERE you go Jake

GEOLOGY:

n., pl. -gies.

1. The scientific study of the origin, history, and structure of the earth.
   
2. The structure of a specific region of the earth's crust.
   
3. A book on geology.
   
4. The scientific study of the origin, history, and structure of the solid matter of a celestial body.
   

PALEONTOLOGY:

n.

The study of the forms of life existing in prehistoric or geologic times, as represented by the fossils of plants, animals, and other organisms.

EVOLUTION

SCIENTIFIC THEORY


ORIGIN OF LIFE

I'm not going to waste any more time on your threads, Kevn. They were interesting at first, but... look, you may be well-intentioned, and you write well, but you're a troll. You're posting about the same thing, over and over and over again, using the same arguments, and getting the same responses. You aren't beating a dead horse any more, you're now standing waist-deep in the crater that you've formed where the horse used to be.

Thank you Elspeth,

In a forum it does seem we repeat the same thing several times. Mostly because I'm the only one arguing my side of the debate. Each time someone new comes in I have to answer all their questions, because they didn't read the thread. I hope the horse is good and dead when I'm done

If you'll notice, these heated debates are the longest and most popular because everyone likes the drama. No one cares to read a bunch of the same people agree about what they think is true. It's like singing to the choir, very boring.

The one thing I really don't get is why people complain about threads. I mean couldn't they do as I do and only read those threads that interest them? I ignore most threads, because they don't interest me, but I don't insist they stop, no matter how stupid I think they are.

Lastly, I debate my causes with vigor and it upsets some people. I'm not here to make a bunch of friends to hang around the forum and group attack people who disagree with the group think. I refuse to change my opinions to get to others accept me. I have a RL and I debate on the forum to kill some time. I do hope my points strike a cord in someone, but it's not an issue either way.

Oh look, a person whose whole philosophy is based upon thousands of years of group think, accusing others of it.

*Tapdances*

What exactly do you know of my whole philosophy?

You do stand-up as well?

*Tapdances and applauds*