CarlosFandangos wrote:

hmm I'll drop that one then, to me macro and micro evolution are the same thing on different scales, so they are described by the same processes. If people in the field use these terms then so be it Anyway I think you know what I was referring too, I know bradjaeger does with his 'fronkey'

Of course I do. It's a fairly common thing to equate the two, hence the debate on the matter. You know as is with any question where the borders between two separates are blurred, like fossil intermediates.

Escutcheon wrote:

Dolorosa wrote: I disagree, they will always have a leg to stand on, and this is why... http://youtu.be/vWzhBuMrsZU your link leads to nothing...was that the point?

Oh, yeah, bummer!!! Didn't notice your reply. The link seems to have been deleted (bloody Fox).

It was a clip from Futurama (don't know how familiar you are with it), the one about evolution where Professor Farnsworth goes head to head with his nemesis (well one of them) Professor Banjo and his disingenuous attempts to wedge doubt and intelligent design in to the "Creation" as more and more evidence in the form of missing links was produced by Prof Farnsworth.

So the point is, no matter how much evidence we can accumulate Creationists will always find a space for a wedge, for a simple reason that any scientific theory needs to be falsifiable, which leaves room for it to be wrong, and any theory which carries uncontestable evidence is by default an empty theory. So in that sense they will always have a leg to stand on, especially if they are ignorant of the scientific research.

bradjaeger wrote:

I think so too. I admire what he's saying and hope that what he says comes to pass, but this is a society where people can believe en masse that the American president isn't American, that the moon landing was faked, that diluting oils into large quantities of water has medicinal value, and that evolution cannot be true because "I've never seen a fronkey" (frog crossed with a monkey). I don't have much faith in human intelligence.

Collectively though we are still proceeding, we are capable of largely rejecting notions and we simply wouldn't be where we are if we didn't invest in better, that is to say, more pragmatic ideas. Religious thinking hangs about because it's presented in a way that is beyond measurement, and thus rejection. Well, actually, now I've said that, we have consigned (mostly) former religions to the status of myth and story, but we love our stories.

On an individual level though, at times, I share that lack of faith too. Not least in myself.

Dolorosa wrote:

Escutcheon wrote: Dolorosa wrote: I disagree, they will always have a leg to stand on, and this is why... http://youtu.be/vWzhBuMrsZU your link leads to nothing...was that the point? Oh, yeah, bummer!!! Didn't notice your reply. The link seems to have been deleted (bloody Fox). It was a clip from Futurama (don't know how familiar you are with it), the one about evolution where Professor Farnsworth goes head to head with his nemesis (well one of them) Professor Banjo and his disingenuous attempts to wedge doubt and intelligent design in to the "Creation" as more and more evidence in the form of missing links was produced by Prof Farnsworth. So the point is, no matter how much evidence we can accumulate Creationists will always find a space for a wedge, for a simple reason that any scientific theory needs to be falsifiable, which leaves room for it to be wrong, and any theory which carries uncontestable evidence is by default an empty theory. So in that sense they will always have a leg to stand on, especially if they are ignorant of the scientific research.

Unfortunately, I don't know the reference. I have a hard time getting interested in animated programs, but I see where you're going with this. It's just my hope that acceptance will reach such a level that people won't really pay any attention to the deniers anymore, kind of like crazy people on the street corners who mutter to themselves, and rant about alien RF waves.

Escutcheon wrote:

Dolorosa wrote: Escutcheon wrote: Dolorosa wrote: I disagree, they will always have a leg to stand on, and this is why... http://youtu.be/vWzhBuMrsZU your link leads to nothing...was that the point? Oh, yeah, bummer!!! Didn't notice your reply. The link seems to have been deleted (bloody Fox). It was a clip from Futurama (don't know how familiar you are with it), the one about evolution where Professor Farnsworth goes head to head with his nemesis (well one of them) Professor Banjo and his disingenuous attempts to wedge doubt and intelligent design in to the "Creation" as more and more evidence in the form of missing links was produced by Prof Farnsworth. So the point is, no matter how much evidence we can accumulate Creationists will always find a space for a wedge, for a simple reason that any scientific theory needs to be falsifiable, which leaves room for it to be wrong, and any theory which carries uncontestable evidence is by default an empty theory. So in that sense they will always have a leg to stand on, especially if they are ignorant of the scientific research. Unfortunately, I don't know the reference. I have a hard time getting interested in animated programs, but I see where you're going with this. It's just my hope that acceptance will reach such a level that people won't really pay any attention to the deniers anymore, kind of like crazy people on the street corners who mutter to themselves, and rant about alien RF waves.

...or long haul truck drivers trolling Forum sites with their warped ideas of what constitutes as Science. I know, we can all dream

catnip wrote:

Yeah, I don't see some people being convinced by evidence, either.

You are so wrong. lol. Evidence always convinces people. If it is concrete. Jacque Fresco once talked to a man who still believed the Earth was flat. The man began to get the idea that the Earth was round when Jack took a balloon and some cornflakes and made a demonstration using static electricity.

Logic and Reason are subjective. Evidence is what is important. Therre is absolutely no concrete evidence that supports the current Evolutionary Model. It's all just assumptions and wishful speculation, resulting from a conception on an observation.

Dolorosa wrote:

Escutcheon wrote: Dolorosa wrote: Escutcheon wrote: Dolorosa wrote: I disagree, they will always have a leg to stand on, and this is why... http://youtu.be/vWzhBuMrsZU your link leads to nothing...was that the point? Oh, yeah, bummer!!! Didn't notice your reply. The link seems to have been deleted (bloody Fox). It was a clip from Futurama (don't know how familiar you are with it), the one about evolution where Professor Farnsworth goes head to head with his nemesis (well one of them) Professor Banjo and his disingenuous attempts to wedge doubt and intelligent design in to the "Creation" as more and more evidence in the form of missing links was produced by Prof Farnsworth. So the point is, no matter how much evidence we can accumulate Creationists will always find a space for a wedge, for a simple reason that any scientific theory needs to be falsifiable, which leaves room for it to be wrong, and any theory which carries uncontestable evidence is by default an empty theory. So in that sense they will always have a leg to stand on, especially if they are ignorant of the scientific research. Unfortunately, I don't know the reference. I have a hard time getting interested in animated programs, but I see where you're going with this. It's just my hope that acceptance will reach such a level that people won't really pay any attention to the deniers anymore, kind of like crazy people on the street corners who mutter to themselves, and rant about alien RF waves. ...or long haul truck drivers trolling Forum sites with their warped ideas of what constitutes as Science. I know, we can all dream

Oh the irony of your comment.

Lysholm wrote:

There are no non-scientific beliefs involved in evolutionism. The vast majority even of Christian scientists are evolutionists.

For laughing out loud, would you please stop espousing this nonsense talking-point?

Lysholm wrote:

What non-scientists believe in is irrelevant. There are almost no scientists who denies evolution.

Geez Ruiz. What nonscientists believe in is irrelevant. So you are saying that what Scientists believe in is what we should go by. Correct me if I am wrong.

Escutcheon wrote:

The sentiments in this article about and by Richard Leakey, pretty much sum up my own thoughts on the subject matter; the mounting evidence will turn into a flood of acceptance and the deniers won't have anything left to stand on except some of the intransigent ignorance they already display. Then they will be openly ridiculed for not accepting the reality of life and our amazing lineage. http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/05/28/f-richard-leakey-evolution.html

The problem I find with your bogus and biased concept is not the fact that you believe in it, but the fact that you assert that whoever does not believe in it, is somewhat crazy or incompetent. Sounds quite familiar.

I find it funny how Science has been utterly poisoned by the militant and cunningly fanatic Neo-Darwinian worldview. There's not one person I've met who hates science. Who hates discovery. Who hates human progress and the advancement of the human condition and experience.

It is getting utterly tiring, and boring, to hear a Darwinian speak of the Theory of Evolution as the crown achievment of science. That going against evolution is going against science. What a slab of pig vomit. Evolution is not a unversal truth.

Man is a creature of order, and arrangement. He will take whatever fragments he sees and put them together in what he concieves to be the proper order and try his best to make sense of it. Doesn't mean he's correct. I always wonder how the "Scientific" Community can put all their findings together and give us a history of the planet. You know it's pure speculation, but it is accepted as science. Get off your high horse and sit at a proper table meant for honest discussion.

The paradox ragarding Darwinians is they claim to champion science. But they never embody its trademark: The incentive to keep asking questions and the reluctance to accept anything the Scientific Establishment tells them as truth. And then asking for intellectual ex-communication for those who do not accept the Doctrine of of their Founding Father. And when they get asked questions, they have this dumb look on their face as if it's not our responsibilty or in our best interests to question them. In the end they shame it. Science has always been wrong before it has been right. A man once steps on an island and sees a family of birds, each unique with a custom beak. And this was to start the journey of human discovery into the real "truth" about our past? lol. For goodness sake. This is of course a fantastic conoction of the brilliant (albeit dangerous) human imagination.

Killerteddybear wrote:

What nonscientists believe in is irrelevant. So you are saying that what Scientists believe in is what we should go by. Correct me if I am wrong.

That's my point.