Kingreaper

can you give a better explanation? (the answer you're looking for begins ith N and ends with O)
if I was right about your answer, then you can see why relation is the current theory of choice, it's the best theory currently available.


well actually it is, in fact I'd say GR is a lot lower down on the league tables than evolution, evolution (not common descent (although that is obvious for other reasons)) is required by known physical laws, to remove its necessity would require new, and so far totally unevidenced, laws of nature to be proposed, or almost all the old laws to be dissolved, whereas GR is merely a selfsufficient (and evidenced) theory, not required by laws except those contained within it

MrDarwin

*sigh*

I showed it several days ago, pretty pictures and all. In case you somehow overlooked it, here it is again:

(Edited to add that the guys doing this research are scientists and are indeed doing "real science". And if Mikie doesn't think so, I'd be very curious to hear just what his definition of "real science" is.)

Kingreaper

the prior would too, as it would prove intelligent life had been around at the time of the fossil

Mageth

OK, where's your scientific evidence for creation?

Evolution is not anyone's "worldview", as has been explained to you many times. Many theists accept evolution.

OK, someone needs to post the famous picture of hominid fossil skulls. I can't find the link for it. [edited to add: I see Sven provided a link to the picture] But there are the following that illustrate that "evolutionists" are not at all bothered as he claims (if Mikie will actually consider them). Indeed, hominids are one of the best examples of a transitional fossil line that we have:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/typespec.html

All of those links can be found on the hominid evolution page of TalkOrigins:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

chapka

The problem, Mikie, is that "macroevolution" as you're using it is not a scientific term. It's a term invented by creationists to get around the fact that evolution by natural selection is real and observable. They invented this magic wall which species cannot cross, and used a real scientific term (which means something different) to try to make it sound more credible.

You accuse us of having our terms mean whatever we want them to mean. Well, then, define your terms. What is a "different animal?" To me, the obvious answer is "a different species." Apparently you mean something else. What? Where is the "macro" line and why don't the equine precursors, or the reproductively isolated (not sterile) fruit flies qualify?

You need to make up your mind. Are you saying:

1. "There is no evidence which tends to support modern evolutionary theory"

or are you saying:

2. "The evidence supporting modern evolutionary theory is not definitive proof"

These are two very different statement, and you seem to be zooming back and forth between them. The fact is, we've presented plenty of scientific evidence for evolution, including fossil evidence and genetic evidence. If you're not convinced by the evidence, say so and make a reasoned argument against it. Don't carry on pretending it doesn't exist.

Donnmathan

I really think you guys have reached that point at which it is time to admit that Mikie doesn't want any kind of logical debate. This kind of person seems to be blind to any evidence of anything counter to what they want to believe. My father is of the same ilk - he once refused to accept the release date of a movie, despite being shown said factoid on 1) The distributor's web site, 2) A film trivia web site, 3) a table in the almanac, 4) the box of a VHS copy of the movie. Show him all the facts you want, just don't expect it to actually do a jot of good.

To Mikie - if I've misjudged you, I will apologise...the minute you begin looking at the information presented in a scientific manner, and admit that you have been demonstratably wrong on a number of the testable statements you have made (the dinosaur and bird fossils in the Cambrian Explosion, for example).

Jack the Bodiless

Yes, I can: it's a creationist lie.

You still haven't explained WHERE you're getting these bogus claims from, and WHY you believe they are correct: whatever gave you the notion that such transitional forms DON'T exist?

Everything you think you know is wrong!
You are correct: evolution is FAR ahead. There are still some doubts about General Relativity.

Sven

Don't say this too loud in S&S when Jesse is close by

cjack

Just a quick reminder...

As I pointed out in an earlier post, Mikie doesn't consider a person a "real" scientist unless they accept without question the existence of God, and admit that the only "true" purpose of science is to "know the mind of God."

Also notice that every single piece of direct scientific evidence has been dismissed out of hand as being "non-scientific." And Mikie doesn't "do" links, as he's pointed out previously.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but Mikie hasn't addressed the fact that many theists and even Christians accept evolution as both a fact and a more than adequate theory explaining human origins.

:banghead:

Mikie

You're right - if we use your definition of a logical debate, and here is your definition, broken down so that everyone can understand it - even us "idiots".

The six mantras of the evolutionary scientist.

1. You'll agree with everthing I say, because after all, I'm a "real" scientist and you're just a twit. You'll accept my definitions ( I created them ), my "proofs", ( I concocted them ), and my references ( they all agree with me). You'll ignore the fact that nothing in the world is "black and white", except the theory of evolution. Just ask Darwin - he understood racisim.

2. You'll accept anthing and everything I present as "evidence" and "proof". After all - I have.

3. You'll bow down to the theory of evolution as I have, even though the "theory" has changed so many times, for stupid reasons, it'll make your head spin. At the same time, you'll ignore the types of changes that have taken place with the theory, changes that would have sent any other theory packing before it made it to the first scientific bible, uh I mean, journal.

4. You'll ignore common sense, what you can observe, and all scientific laws and competing evidence if it disagrees with evolution, in favor of things you can't witness, demonstrate, or prove. You'll accept any scientific evidence that agrees with evolution, and work hard to bend or skew any scientific evidence that might even hint that it disagrees with it.

5. You'll work to show that all scientific evidence agrees with evolutionary theory, even though you recognize that other theories are always in question and challenged, and this is what gives them their strength. You'll work to see that evolution is not questioned, taught as fact in our schools, and all other competing theories are to be wiped out - no exceptions.

6. Finally, you'll belittle those who disagree with you, because after all, any thinking person that is not blinded by the religion of evolution will question it and often argue sucessfully against it. This will require a personal attack on that person, because evidence for evolution does not exist. We need to be able to beat them down, if not with real scientific evidence, with our fists.


These are the six mantras of the evolutionary scientist. But you know them already. You've used just about every one, now haven't you?