Genesis Creation vs. Macroevolution Myth

[Alter2Ego]

1. I'm not sure what modern-day scientific community you have been talking to, but the ones I have talked to all discuss the possibility of extraterrestrial life developing based off completely different elements than here on earth. They've also discussed the possibility of computer viruses/robots taking on the characteristics of life to the point of becoming alive in the future. There was also talk of perhaps other forms of life existing on earth that we are unaware from because they developed in an isolated biome-such us 100 miles underground.

ALTER2EGO -to- GROMDOR:

You actually think your speculations, red-flagged above, are effective rebuttals or proof of anything? Anybody can dream up nonsense, insist it is "possible" or "perhaps. . . although we are unaware" and then label it "theory." You are giving the typicial science fiction aka fairytale that I get from pro-evolutionists who don't have proof of anything. Then again, what else is one to expect, considering that the pro-evolution scientists they are following also have the bad habit of making things up as they go?

3. People are still arguing on what "life" is let alone when it started. Are viruses or computer viruses alive? I could mix some organic chemicals in a test tube and say it is life, but people would disagree. I could mix some organic chemicals in a tube and say it is self replicating and people would disagree. I could get some of the previous stuff and have it mobile and self replicating and people would disagree. I could have it be mobile, self replicating, and consuming other organic compounds to sustain itself and people would disagree. But basically all the stuff to start life is here laying in puddles. Why wouldn't it eventually form itself into life given enough time? A monkey can type Shakespeare given enough time, no one argues that. But a bunch of organic compound laying around for a few billion years is impossible, eh? I think that quantifies as an explanation.

ALTER2EGO -to- GROMDOR:

The fact that you had to do the mixing of the chemicals proves the point that life cannot come from non-life. It required the intervention of an intelligent being, in this case, you who did the mixing.

BTW: Be sure and alert me when you get news of a monkey that can type Shakespeare "given enough time." Don't forget; okay?

Edited May 4, 2013 by Alter2Ego

[+Liquid Gardens]

The fact that you had to do the mixing of the chemicals proves the point that life cannot come from non-life. It required the intervention of an intelligent being, in this case, you who did the mixing.

Really? You think that chemicals can only get together and mix via an intelligent being? Ever hear of wind, gravity, volcanos, waves, any other non-intelligent forces, you've somehow missed that these exist? And as requested previously, I also would be curious for how scientifically you've defined what these 'kinds' are, and which species are part of each kind; do you have some chart or list available, complete with some type of evidence by which we can place things into 'kinds'?

And yes, welcome to UM!

I'm a skeptic of skeptics. As soon as one identifys bias , then one must pay careful attention to the others rhetori. There is not as much evidence for materialistic philosophy as some seem to think.

Agreed, you should be a skeptic of skeptics; I'm personally not as skeptical of skepticism though. And is there a non-materialistic philosophy that does not suffer to an even greater degree from lack of evidence than materialism?

In my estimation, the only reason to not accept evolution is a preconception that God must have done it another way (six days of creation).

In addition to that, I had always thought that there was a theistic objection to the implication that we are evolved apes, which I think to some believers implies that we aren't 'special'.

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- RLYEH:

Correction: Evolution theory is inescapably linked to abiogenesis theory (life coming to life by itself). In fact, Charles Darwin proposed abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) theory even after he was debunked by Louis Pasteur and other scientists of his time.

And no Darwin didn't propose spontaneous generation--Which has a specific definition and use that is not synonymous with abiogenesis. I mean your open salvo was how "evolutionists" and scientists are these terrible, dishonest people. Yet here you are either too dumb to realize you don't understand the terms you are talking about or misusing them anyway (surprise surprise a dishonest creationists?!!!!!! Come to find out that is 'bout as common as bears ****ting in woods. Who'd-a thunk!).

ALTER2EGO -to- RLYEH:

In other words, Darwin excluded the Creator and proposed abiogenesis (nonliving matter coming to life by itself, without the intervention of an intelligent God). Even after his abiogenesis theory was debunked by Louis Pasteur and other scientists of the time, Darwin persisted in his abiogenesis theory. And since it is Darwin's version of evolution that modern evolution theory is based on, abiogenesis is what all atheists are stuck with.

Wrong, Darwin proposed a hypothesis. I'll repeat it again because you're a bit daft, evolution does not explain the origin of life.

ALTER2EGO -to- COPASETIC & RLYEH:

I quoted Darwin at Post 27 proposing one of the theories of abiogenesis to his friend, Joseph Hooker. You both read it, you both quoted from the same Post 27, and then you both come back with the above tripe? What makes either of your think your refusal to face reality will change the facts? Below is the weblink to Post 27. I suggest you go back and read it a few times, and then maybe . . . just maybe, it will sink in.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=247255&st=15#entry4759866

[White Crane Feather]

Agreed, you should be a skeptic of skeptics; I'm personally not as skeptical of skepticism though. And is there a non-materialistic philosophy that does not suffer to an even greater degree from lack of evidence than materialism?

It's not that there is a lak of evidence for materialism. The other phlisophical premises do suffer from a lak of empirical proof, but materialism has direct proof to the contrary. Also what is considers 'proof' is rooted in the materialistic premise, which makes materialism very difficult to falsify. But eventhough science is monopolized by materialism, it's actually a very good methodology for inquary, as such it has refuted that which monopolizes it.

You see a theory is supposed to be formed out of what is observed while a hypothesis is a guess that can be falsified. Materialism has been falsified.

I'll explain.

As science has pulled back layers of reality all the way down to the quantum world we have discovered several things.

1) quantum tunneling. At any given moment any a particle can disappear and reappear somewhere else. Though an exponential decrease in probability the further you get away from its expected position, but still non zero stretching away through. the universe. If I fire a particle beam at a barrier some of the particles will go through the barrier and pop out the other side. Note: the word "through" is not quit accurate. The particle dosnt really go through the barrier. It never traverses the space in between it simply apears along the part of its wave distribution that extends through the barrier.

Tunneling is a prooven phenomenon. We base certain technology's off of it (josephson junction), and stars would not shine without it.

Quit obviously ultimate reality dosnt seem to be confined to spacetime as we know it.

2) the planck. Science has prooven that the universe is quantisized. There is a limit to how small things can be. It's as if the universe is pixilated. The smallest unit, the planck, can have absolutely nothing smaller than it, there can be no space In between planck sizes and time to traverse from planck to planck. Still there is obviously a rule or information passing between them. These rules that govern how information is passed on are obviously not subject to the limits that material and matter and energy are. It superceeds material and operates in the background somehow underneath all of it.

3) the delayed choice quantum eraser. With out getting into all of it. Using entangled pairs of photons scientists can proove the retro causality is infact real. At least on quantum scales.

Material is governed by rules of information that operate in the background beyond spacetime as we know it. Even 'things' particles don't seem to actually have a real position ( quantum uncertainty) only a probability of being in a place relative to other things but that wave of probabilities stretches out to the entire universe regardless of the speed of light limits placed upon material. The particle cannot traverse the universe in an instant, but as a wave function it can... And does. The wave function is more fundamental and the natural state until it interacts with something else. In essence nothing has a position unless it is relative to something else.

All this shows us that the materialist assumption is wrong. Fundamental reality is far more complicated than material, and what we perceive of as stuff is simply a manifestation of more fundamental processes. Other philosophical premises may not be able to be prooven, but it has been shown that materialism dies not hold up to Scrutanty.

[Rlyeh]

ALTER2EGO -to- COPASETIC & RLYEH:

I quoted Darwin at Post 27 proposing one of the theories of abiogenesis to his friend, Joseph Hooker. You both read it, you both quoted from the same Post 27, and then you both come back with the above tripe? What makes either of your think your refusal to face reality will change the facts? Below is the weblink to Post 27. I suggest you go back and read it a few times, and then maybe . . . just maybe, it will sink in.

http://www.unexplain...15#entry4759866

You just admitted Darwin hypothesized about abiogenesis, we're getting somewhere. Now can you show us the Evolutionary Theory explains the origin of life?

I suggest you stop confusing yourself.

[Rlyeh]

All this shows us that the materialist assumption is wrong. Fundamental reality is far more complicated than material, and what we perceive of as stuff is simply a manifestation of more fundamental processes. Other philosophical premises may not be able to be prooven, but it has been shown that materialism dies not hold up to Scrutanty.

And what is their assumption? The universe is derived from matter/energy.

You've given 3 examples of physical phenomena and without thinking it out asserted materialism has been refuted. Good job Seeker, keep at it you'll beat that straw man eventually.

Agreed, you should be a skeptic of skeptics; I'm personally not as skeptical of skepticism though. And is there a non-materialistic philosophy that does not suffer to an even greater degree from lack of evidence than materialism?

Seeker is skeptical in the same way Bin Laden was a pacifist. Edited May 4, 2013 by Rlyeh

[+Link of Hyrule]

In addition to that, I had always thought that there was a theistic objection to the implication that we are evolved apes, which I think to some believers implies that we aren't 'special'.

Not for me, and the last time I checked I was among that theistic crowd. I don't see why God using evolution to bring us forth makes us any less special - we are still (according to our beliefs) God's pinnacle of creation

[+Link of Hyrule]

ALTER2EGO -to- COPASETIC & RLYEH:

I quoted Darwin at Post 27 proposing one of the theories of abiogenesis to his friend, Joseph Hooker. You both read it, you both quoted from the same Post 27, and then you both come back with the above tripe? What makes either of your think your refusal to face reality will change the facts? Below is the weblink to Post 27. I suggest you go back and read it a few times, and then maybe . . . just maybe, it will sink in.

http://www.unexplain...15#entry4759866

Yes, Alter2Ego, you did. And if Copasetic's latest post (post #49, on this page - LINK CLICKY) is any indication, then your ability to quote prominent evolutionists appears to be just a tad lacking. You have either read the texts in question and intentionally misquoted them to support your view. Or you haven't read them, and are relying on the say-so of other websites. Either way, we here at UM have a set of behaviours we expect our members to follow. Whether you simply copy-pasted these details from other websites, or whether you did read the original texts and misquoted them, then either way, consider the following:

2. Post content In the interests of keeping the forum as safe and family-friendly as possible please remember the following:

2c. Plagiarism and copyright: If you quote text from an external web site then please always provide a source link. Members are asked to copy only as much as is necessary when quoting material from external sources, do not copy and paste entire articles or web pages.

2d. Accuracy: Do not post material that is knowingly or intentionally false, inaccurate or misleading.

Both of these come from our Terms of Service, which you agreed to abide by when you joined the forum. In the interest of goodwill, I am leaning towards believing you took this information from a Third-party source. In the future, then, I would ask that you quote all your relevant sources. If a third-party website compiled a list of quotes on your behalf, simply using those quotes and attributing them to the original authors is not acceptable. You are still utilising other people's research in presenting your own views. That is still plagiarism, regardless of where the sources originally came from.

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- COPASETIC & RLYEH:

I quoted Darwin at Post 27 proposing one of the theories of abiogenesis to his friend, Joseph Hooker. You both read it, you both quoted from the same Post 27, and then you both come back with the above tripe? What makes either of your think your refusal to face reality will change the facts? Below is the weblink to Post 27. I suggest you go back and read it a few times, and then maybe . . . just maybe, it will sink in.

http://www.unexplain...15#entry4759866

You just admitted Darwin hypothesized about abiogenesis, we're getting somewhere. Now can you show us the Evolutionary Theory explains the origin of life?

I suggest you stop confusing yourself.

ALTER2EGO -to- RLYEH:

And what do you think evolution theory is? All scientific theories are nothing more than groups of hypotheses that can be disproven. So you're right. Darwin hypothesized about abiogenesis, just as he hypothesized about evolution theory.

Definition of "Scientific Theory":

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis."

http://chemistry.abo...a/lawtheory.htm

Definition of "Hypothesis":

"A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true."

http://chemistry.abo...a/lawtheory.htm

[Rlyeh]

Definition of "Scientific Theory":

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis."

http://chemistry.abo...a/lawtheory.htm

Why do I get the feeling you aren't reading your own sources? Take note of the italic part.

Edit: Not sure where the confusion is, abiogenesis is a hypothesis, it has yet to be verified or disproven; the evolutionary theory is a theory, currently it is verified and not disproven.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Rlyeh

[+Link of Hyrule]

ALTER2EGO -to- RLYEH:

And what do you think evolution theory is? All scientific theories are nothing more than groups of hypotheses that can be disproven. So you're right. Darwin hypothesized about abiogenesis, just as he hypothesized about evolution theory.

Definition of "Scientific Theory":

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis."

http://chemistry.abo...a/lawtheory.htm

Definition of "Hypothesis":

"A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true."

http://chemistry.abo...a/lawtheory.htm

And part of that link includes the following: "A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing". Surely that must be of at least equal standing as your unhealthy fascination with the phrase "theories can be disproven". Of course they can, and no one has argued otherwise. But in order for a theory to be disproven, it requires a lot of evidence to the contrary. And a lot of alternative evidence that fits a better set of hypotheses. You can't just sit back and say "it can be disproven therefore it's already wrong and not really based on science". Everything in science can be disproven. Who knows, maybe one day in the future Gravity will be disproven. But at the current time, there is such an abundance of evidence to support gravity, that it would be illogical to ever discount it. Likewise, evolution currently has an amazing abundance of evidence (if it did not, it would not be a Scientific Theory), and until such time as compelling evidence arises to provide an alternative, it is illogical to discount it.

[Alter2Ego]

Yes, Alter2Ego, you did. And if Copasetic's latest post (post #49, on this page - LINK CLICKY) is any indication, then your ability to quote prominent evolutionists appears to be just a tad lacking. You have either read the texts in question and intentionally misquoted them to support your view. Or you haven't read them, and are relying on the say-so of other websites. Either way, we here at UM have a set of behaviours we expect our members to follow. Whether you simply copy-pasted these details from other websites, or whether you did read the original texts and misquoted them, then either way, consider the following:

ALTER2EGO -to- PARANOID ANDROID:

There is nothing lacking in my quotation from the pro-evolution scientists who admitted there is no evidence in the fossils record. You are protesting because you are pro-evolution while insisting you are Christian. Evolution theory is a direct contradiction of the Genesis Creation account that clearly says Jehovah created all creatures according to their kind and says nothing whatever about creatures evolving from a common ancestor.

I cited the sources for my two quotations and quoted them within context. If anything, Copasetic's larger quotation from the same source confirms that the portion I quoted is within context and that the pro-evolution scientists rely on speculations to maintain macroevolution myth. Notice this below from Copasetic's very first quoted source from Post 49 on Page 4 of this thread.

"Now let me step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works."

- David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Palaeontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, pp. 22, 25, Chicago, January 1979.

• A critical analysis of the scientific material in the book: Life - How did it get here? By evolution or by creation?
  

See, also, Troy Britain's "Feedback" article at Talk.Origins Archive: June 2001 Feedback

- J. (catshark) Pieret

ALTER2EGO -to- PARANOID ANDROID:

Did you notice the words "I think" in Raup's quote? That amounts to speculation aka "I don't know."

But on the previous page Raup writes:

We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record

is not nearly as compatible with

darwinian natural selection

as we would like it to be

.

ALTER2EGO -to- PARANOID ANDROID:

Did you see that? Raup is admitting that the fossils record aka "the evidence we find in the geologic record" is not compatible with what they would like it to be and what they are finding in the fossils does not line up with Darwin's false predictions. Darwin predicted that future generations of paleontologists would find evidence of a whale on its way to a bear (macroevolution) and evidence of a squirrel on its way to a bat (macroevolution), besides other nonsense. No such evidence has ever been found.

Note that Raup believes that evolution has occurred; he calls evolution a "fact". And on page 25 he writes:

What appeared to be a nice progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So

Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years

and

we still have a record

which

does

show change but one

which can hardly be look upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection

. [Emphasis in original]

And later on the same page:

So natural selection as a process is okay. We are also pretty sure that it goes on in nature although good examples are surprisingly rare.

It should be obvious by now that what Raup is arguing against is not evolution, but gradual evolution in all cases.

ALTER2EGO -to- PARANOID ANDROID:

Look at Raup admitting that, for the last 120 years, the fossils record does not support Darwin's claims and that the fossils record: "can hardly be look upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection."

In other words, while Raup is admitting that the fossils record does not support macroevolution myth, he manages to contradict himself by insisting evolution did indeed occur. Now, notice what I previously quoted Raup saying, which you are now complaining that I misapplied.

1. "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)

Both of these come from our Terms of Service, which you agreed to abide by when you joined the forum. In the interest of goodwill, I am leaning towards believing you took this information from a Third-party source. In the future, then, I would ask that you quote all your relevant sources. If a third-party website compiled a list of quotes on your behalf, simply using those quotes and attributing them to the original authors is not acceptable. You are still utilising other people's research in presenting your own views. That is still plagiarism, regardless of where the sources originally came from.

ALTER2EGO -to- PARANOID ANDROID:

I know from experience that when moderators stop being neutral because they have a stake in the debate, they will intervene on the side they are on and will then proceed to harass and/or ban those that are debunking their favored position. Been there, experienced that. Since you obviously are taking sides in this debate--because you have decided to put evolution theory ahead of the Genesis creation account--while you allow Copasetic to present portions of the same writings of Raup and allow Copasetic to misapply what Raup is saying while at the same time you single me out for warnings on the open forum, I am done with this thread permanently.

Something tells me I will not be staying at this website very long.

[+Link of Hyrule]

ALTER2EGO -to- PARANOID ANDROID:

I know from experience that when moderators stop being neutral because they have a stake in the debate, they will intervene on the side they are on and will then proceed to harass and/or ban those that are debunking their favored position. Been there, experienced that.

I am remaining entirely neutral in this debate, Alter2Ego (I have my opinions, but I do not let my opinions get in the way of my job). I was going to reply generally to the content of the rest of your post. Instead I'll focus on this and point out that even when my personal opinions differ i do remain impartial. Do you think my Christian beliefs have stopped me from moderating people I happen to agree with on many things? You know what, don't answer that, I don't need to prove my neutrality to anyone. If you have issue with me, contact the site administrator (my employer, if you will - Saru).

Since you obviously are taking sides in this debate--because you have decided to put evolution theory ahead of the Genesis creation account--while you allow Copasetic to present portions of the same writings of Raup and allow Copasetic to misapply what Raup is saying while at the same time you single me out for warnings on the open forum, I am done with this thread permanently.

Something tells me I will not be staying at this website very long.

I have my opinion, but I am remaining neutral. Don't play the victim, Alter2Ego, it doesn't suit. If this is the sensitivity you display to a simple request to provide sources, then perhaps it is true that you won't be staying at this website very long. But that will be your decision to leave, not ours. As far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to stay here as long as you like, provided you post within the site rules. Edited May 4, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[Rlyeh]

ALTER2EGO -to- PARANOID ANDROID:

Did you see that? Raup is admitting that the fossils record aka "the evidence we find in the geologic record" is not compatible with what they would like it to be and what they are finding in the fossils does not line up with Darwin's false predictions. Darwin predicted that future generations of paleontologists would find evidence of a whale on its way to a bear (macroevolution) and evidence of a squirrel on its way to a bat (macroevolution), besides other nonsense. No such evidence has ever been found.

Where did Darwin make such a prediction?

Edited May 4, 2013 by Rlyeh

[darkmoonlady]

If the population of the world consisted of more Native peoples would we be debating on which Turtle the world actually sits on? I guess in reading the umpteenth evolutionary debate thread I keep asking myself that question, why does Christianity think it has THE only alternative that should be included in any debate on evolution. If you bring the fantastical into a scientific debate then shouldn't all fantastical creation stories then be given equal time? (Funny how Christians usually say no on this..hmm?)

[Doug1029]

ALTER2EGO -to- SLAVE2FATE:

There is no such thing as "microevolution" in the real world. The term "microevolution" is a trick-phrase that simply refers to variations of the exact same creature. For instance, wolves can interbreed freely with dogs, redwolves, coyotes, and jackals to produce fertile offspring or variations of themselves because they belong to what the Bible refers to as the same KIND. Their resulting offspring is not evolution but instead are simply variations of their parents. That's what scientists in the pro-evolution camp refer to as "microevolution." In reality, the animal did not evolve at all. It is still the same wolf-like creature it started off as.

There is something in plants called polyploidy. Grasses do this a lot. Something goes awry in meiosis and the chromosome number does not halve. Meaning that a germ cell has a full complement of chromosomes. When this germ cell is fertilized by another polyploid germ cell, the result is a seed with double the number of chromosomes it should have. This plant can reproduce with other polyploids, but not with any plant of its parent's generation. It is, by definition, a new species. Thus, we have a complete new species in one generation with no intermediate "missing links." It is both a new species and a new "kind." The polyploids go on to accumulate new traits so they differ in ways other than just being polyploids. This has allowed grasses to evolve very fast.

One way they evolved is to acquire silicon nodules in their leaves. These are extremely hard and abrasive and wear down the teeth of grazers very rapidly. A response to this change in their environment produced harder enamel on horse teeth - we have the fossil record of those changes.

BTW: If a group of organisms have variations, then they are NOT "the exact same species." That's what evolution is about. If I make a mistake when copying something, then the copy is not the same as the original.

Doug

P.S.: Here's another problem with "kinds:"

The leopard frog is found in a broad horse-shoe shaped arc with one end in Appalachia, the center in Saskatchewan and the other end in the Rocky Mountains. Frogs from opposite ends of this arc cannot interbreed; thus, they are different species, or "kinds." But frogs from any two adjacent puddles CAN interbreed; thus, the entire arc is one species or "kind."

In fact, we don't need fossils to show that one species evolves into another. The leopard frog not only accomplished this, but all the intermediate "variations" are still alive!

Doug

Edited May 5, 2013 by Doug1029

[Copasetic]

ALTER2EGO -to- PARANOID ANDROID:

There is nothing lacking in my quotation from the pro-evolution scientists who admitted there is no evidence in the fossils record. You are protesting because you are pro-evolution while insisting you are Christian. Evolution theory is a direct contradiction of the Genesis Creation account that clearly says Jehovah created all creatures according to their kind and says nothing whatever about creatures evolving from a common ancestor.

I asked you to define kind in some kind of meaningful way. Please go ahead and do that now.

I cited the sources for my two quotations and quoted them within context. If anything, Copasetic's larger quotation from the same source confirms that the portion I quoted is within context and that the pro-evolution scientists rely on speculations to maintain macroevolution myth. Notice this below from Copasetic's very first quoted source from Post 49 on Page 4 of this thread.

No you didn't. You actually didn't quote anything in context and if you think that your short snippet of a quote accurately describes what Raup was saying you've failed miserably to read what he was writing. Like PA pointed out its pretty simple; you've talked yourself into quite the conundrum.

Why? Because you've either quote mined Raup and are trying to misrepresent what he says; in which case you are dishonest or you've just copied your "citation" from someone (I mean lets be honest, that is par for the course for creationists) who quote mined Raup. and that means not only did you plagiarizer, but you're too academically lazy to check the actual context for yourself.

So lets talk context here. This quote is from the late 70's. Earlier in the decade a new hypothesis, at the time, had been put forward to explain some evolutionary change: punctuated equilibrium. Quick time out here:

Remember a scientific theory explains a fact. There is the fact of biological evolution; that allele frequencies change across generations for breeding populations. Then there are theories which explain that fact like: natural selection, sexual selection, punctuated equilibrium etc.

So in the late 70's you find many a quote of biologists arguing about, not whether evolution occurred, but how it occurred. That is all Raup is doing here. He is making the argument that natural selection (an explanation for the biological fact of evolution) doesn't explain all evolution in the fossil record (it doesn't). Like I pointed out before, we don't hold ancient scientists as infallible, science always goes forward and is often revised. Which is what was happening here.

ALTER2EGO -to- PARANOID ANDROID:

Did you notice the words "I think" in Raup's quote? That amounts to speculation aka "I don't know."

Unless English isn't your first language, your dishonesty here is incredible. That really could be your only excuse here (English being a second language that is). Raup said "I think its safe to say", he isn't speculating or saying I don't know. You can't honestly be this thick can you? That is an idiom that means the speaker is extremely confident, as confident as you can be actually, about whatever it is they are saying......

ALTER2EGO -to- PARANOID ANDROID:

Did you see that? Raup is admitting that the fossils record aka "the evidence we find in the geologic record" is not compatible with what they would like it to be and what they are finding in the fossils does not line up with Darwin's false predictions. Darwin predicted that future generations of paleontologists would find evidence of a whale on its way to a bear (macroevolution) and evidence of a squirrel on its way to a bat (macroevolution), besides other nonsense. No such evidence has ever been found.

See above

ALTER2EGO -to- PARANOID ANDROID:

Look at Raup admitting that, for the last 120 years, the fossils record does not support Darwin's claims and that the fossils record: "can hardly be look upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection."

In other words, while Raup is admitting that the fossils record does not support macroevolution myth, he manages to contradict himself by insisting evolution did indeed occur.

See above

Now, notice what I previously quoted Raup saying, which you are now complaining that I misapplied.

Uhhh,,,,because you did....

ALTER2EGO -to- PARANOID ANDROID:

I know from experience that when moderators stop being neutral because they have a stake in the debate, they will intervene on the side they are on and will then proceed to harass and/or ban those that are debunking their favored position. Been there, experienced that. Since you obviously are taking sides in this debate--because you have decided to put evolution theory ahead of the Genesis creation account--while you allow Copasetic to present portions of the same writings of Raup and allow Copasetic to misapply what Raup is saying while at the same time you single me out for warnings on the open forum, I am done with this thread permanently.

I think PA has been more than fair to you. He simply reminded you of the website rules, if you call that having a stake in the debate you are deluded.

Something tells me I will not be staying at this website very long.

Oh well, no big loss there. Creationists incapable of discussion and only capable of quoting other creationists are a dime a dozen.

You acted like you wanted to discuss the evidence for and "against" evolution. I'm giving you that opportunity. I asked you to define kind. You haven't done that, so go ahead and do so now.

I also provided you some awesome evidence for evolution: biogeography. You haven't said a word. Could that be because its more evidence creationists have to simply ignore and have no writings about how to address? Here is a bona fide guess for you: I'm guess yes, you have no one to copy a response from so you will simply ignore it. Come on now, make me a psychic!

[docyabut2]

Evolution is creation, I don`nt see the problem people are having. Earth is like one big egg,organisms hitting the earth in a meteor, mixed with the elements of Mother earth creating life, that contintue to change from the adaption to the enviorment,a intelligent design that survives.

[FurthurBB]

Hahaha prions are a mentos in a 7 up bottle, and viroids have pretty complex sets of RNA. Non of that explained complexity. E coli, can and does starve in many places especially dead people but that's not what I was talking about was it?

I never said inteligence is Required. I only suggested that because you want to explain away things from a certain philosophical point of view Does not mean its right. A prudent precaution. I'm a skeptic of skeptics. As soon as one identifys bias , then one must pay careful attention to the others rhetori. There is not as much evidence for materialistic philosophy as some seem to think.

Prions are misfolded proteins and viroids are a single strand of naked RNA. You obviously missed what I was saying to you about something being discovered in a lab not being proof that intelligence was needed for whatever it was to occur. I am not sure why you threw in the last part at all.

[aquatus1]

A theory is nothing more than a group of hypotheses (educated guesses) that can be disproven.

Not quite. The important part of this particular sentence is not that a theory can be disproven, but rather that what gives any scientific theory the tremendous credibility it has is that it has yet to be disproven.

In other words, falsifiability isn't just a requirement of scientific theories, and it isn't a free pass to claim the theory isn't credible or valid. It is nothing more than a set of conditions that must be filled in order for that theory to be invalid. If you cannot falsify the theory, you can't refer to it as not being credible or invalid.

Furthermore, there is no evidence in support of macroevolution THEORY in the fossils record.

That's a curious statement to make. Pretty much the sole support the fossil record provides for the general theory of evolution is for "macroevolution" (to use a convenient, if non-existent, term). It certainly doesn't provide support for the actual, specific, theories of evolution currently in existence; The evidence for evolution itself, as opposed to the effects of evolution, are found in the science of genetics, not in fossils.

[KayEl]

Ultimately, evolution do not claim to explain how life began, but it does and have proven how life, after it started, evolved into other forms.

Evolution makes perfect sense, as traits that favor an animal's survival get passed on.

Look at dogs, in their case, humans determine which traits are favorable to passed down on and we have all these different breeds.

In the wild, it is the environment, the ecological niche the animal trying to exploit and also luck, the determining factors.

This doesn't always mean the animal evolved to a "better" form as there are many instances where a species that have become so specialized that the moment its environment changes, it becomes extinct.

This is such a simple concept that I wonder why so many people can't grasp it.

[Doug1029]

We could resolve this entire problem by respelling "god:" N-A-T-U-R-E.

Doug

[Arbitran]

I apologise if I've somehow misunderstood the intent of this topic, but I must speak out very strongly against the idea—again, hopefully I'm not mistaken as to what was being said here—that macroevolution (incidentally, not a term used seriously in my field: I'm an evolutionary biologist), or the premise that natural selection can lead to speciation (the general idea of 'macroevolution' used by creationists), is a 'myth'. Again, I apologise if I've misunderstood the premise intended to be conveyed in this topic, but I had to say something presuming that I understood what was said. 'Macroevolution' is—apart from being a non-scientific term—an entirely valid concept, which is very simply 'microevolution' when drawn out over many, many generations, culminating in the accumulation of the significant genetic differences which is referred to as 'speciation': or, the compounding of such differences in genetic material that an individual is sufficiently departed genetically from its ancestors that it is incapable of viable reproduction with its parental lineages, or, in other words, a new species (mind you, this invariably occurs in groups, not in mere individuals). There are, however, invariably, intermediate groups which represent a middle ground between one species and another: examples being donkeys and horses, which can reproduce and create mules, however mules are infertile and cannot reproduce themselves. Horses and donkeys represent two species which were once one, but which are now in the final days leading up to a total departure, at which time they will be insufficiently related even to produce mules. I hope that clears up a thing or two.

[shrooma]

We could resolve this entire problem by respelling "god:" N-A-T-U-R-E.

Doug

.

the pagans bet you to that one doug!!

:-)

[danielost]

Quoting one of my favorite shows, this is how I believe life formed:

"You see this? This is you. I’m serious! Right here, life is about to form on this planet for the very first time. A group of amino acids are about to combine to form the first protein. The building blocks [laughs] of what you call “life.” Strange, isn’t it? Everything you know, your entire civilization, it all begins right here in this little pond of goo. Appropriate somehow, isn’t it? Too bad you didn’t bring your microscope; it’s really quite fascinating. Oh, look! There they go. The amino-acids are moving closer, and closer, and closer.”

Finish the quote."Oh, look nothing happened.". I was thinking of that quote myself.

I believe god made man first and then using his bonly blue print designed the rest of the higher animals. Other wise explain why all of these animals have remaments of five degits.