The Forum > General Discussion > The Rise of Atheism - Convention
The Rise of Atheism - Convention
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Page 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- ...
- 63
- 64
- 65
-
- All
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 23 October 2009 5:54:37 PM
| |
nothing new...so continue...lol..suss..quote<<<....method...physical,..testable,..falsifiable evidence.>>>your dribbling your phyco-babble again..time to take your meds..gee..{how}...suss R U
sussQUOTE..<<evolution which you are denying,>>>...I only deney../ macro/evolution[of genus]....which has..not one scrap of evidence/proof...nuthing ...as repeatedly said.../ http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305 micro/..within the specie/..micro evolution..is perfectly valid.. MACRO....old genus..into neo..[new]..genus..is pure delusional ...speculation/..theory claiming..''micro evolution''..validates 'macro/evolution'..is insane claiming that evolution..into new genus...<<<..has more evidence..>>is insane...IF FACT..PRESENT YOUR FACT not one..of the many attempts..to validate..macro evolution..mean's bukkiss.....species..as applied to macro/..evolution,[of genus]...is fraud..! evolution/..within the species..is valid...but,.. OUTSIDE THE SPECIES...genus/neo/genus... genus..into new genus..IS A LIE .....get your proof.. and present it..! if you dont present..your macro-evolution/genus thesis.. it means..you got nothing.. not one idea of..even..a../the concepts.. ..inherant in the topic..is fish..![coldblood/fins/scales/gills...evolving into warm/blood..fur..feet/legs/hipjoint..etc..mannals! mate..see its hundereds..of steps..from water to land...you got one fish..[still a fish]..thats the only...lol..'evidence'.. see..that..while staying a fish...lol..somehow,..it/fish..needs to evolve legs..and a hip joint.../collar bones..arms/feet..lung's..fur...etc etc.. see a fish..walking/crawling..from the ocean/sea.. is a kids fairy tale..if you going to lie..make it huge...lol <<..lack of ANY evidence..your creation has>>>..mate..im here because two humans had sex..while your parents..clearly relate to the missing link/apeman... i say i come from humans..you say you come fromn ape...lol..i note..you do have..the 1000th..monkey thing/..down pat...thank god for word spell check...eh,,gee,SUSS_..cheeta? so excuse me..while..I yet again.. use your own quote..to laugh at..athiest/davidian/oliver-tarian's Show your evidence...of evolution <<and stop acting..like some lunatic>>...# research how complex...lol...a SINGLE cell is..! http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cell+biology&search_type=&aq=f pleae note..science cant even..make..a cell membrane...see the joke... yet..they dare speculate..on how it evolved...lol i put up the alex/jones link..to test.. if your reading the links....so...now we know...explain how this happend...by chance http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zufaN_aetZI&feature=channel we still have procariot cells...ie..if they were going to evolve...and the fittest survive/..they turn into eucariate cells...but...where did the nuclius evolve from..explain even biology...a valid science.. yet the origins..are all still..in the realm of theory ...then we have procloroplasts... did these come before procariot cells or after eucariate make a mitrochondia...i dare ya... or make a single cell membrane ..or explain the ameba...rebutt this http://www.present-truth.org/3-Nature/Creation/creation-not-evolution-4.htm http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2411&page=15 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305#50521 yet..via your ongoing and persistant/..ignorant/snide..remarks and..by your..retarded council... it all...lol..happend by chance...lol Posted by one under god, Friday, 23 October 2009 8:53:05 PM
| |
You accept micro-evolution do you? Mutation, recombination and all processes operating within species?
'Microevolution' describes subpopulations of species becoming isolated and diverging, and this directly results in speciation (when they can no longer breed with others in that species) .. that's macroevolution. To argue that microevolution occurs, is to argue for what directly causes macroevolution to occur. here's a reference of evidence of speciation occuring, that you are denying http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/speci.htm yet you can accept micro-evolution? What is the 'barrier' on micro-evolution that stops macro-evolution OUG? Nowhere within the mechanisms of evolution is it implied that eukaryotes must have evolved from prokaryotes, your getting your material from the Discovery Institute! ROTFLMAO! there was a hypothesis in the 70's over this, but now it is agreed they split from a common ancestor further down the tree of life. The metaphor of the tree of life, that for the most part accurately describes the way evolutionary relationships occur over time is not something Scientists have to have every part of the tree laid out right away. The base of the tree, where the three main branches of Bacteria, Eukarya and Archaea split off, was hypothesised then to look a certain way, with the Eukarya branch splitting off directly from the Bacteria branch. This was a proposed relationship, but not a 'dogma' of evolution. Hypotheses about certain of the aspects of phylogeny, when found to be false, doesn't falsify evolution itself THATS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AT WORK:) derr, that's how science works! It's healthy adjusting facets of a theory and improving it. If there was no mystery, there would be no science at all! :P The discovery institute, and yourself try and put it across as fact is nearly 40 year old hypothesis! ROTFLMAO hahahahaha...things are way ahead http://www.physorg.com/news169907476.html Evolution doesn't say we come from apes, we share a common ancestor, as we do with all life on the planet. Just because science can't explain something yet, does not mean your magic man exists. To disprove evolution and my argument, you have to state what barrier exists that stops speciation, go on. Posted by Gee Suss, Friday, 23 October 2009 10:09:39 PM
| |
Gee Suss,
The micro/macro argument is only in the mind of those who have been taught to think and believe the Genesis story is factual. It is difficult to state accurately when closely related species are actually classified as distinct. There are a variety of definitions but I think most agree that being unable psychologically or physiologically to breed is a separation of species. For instance, I’m reasonably sure that some species of Kangaroos are physically capable of breeding together but are habitually not able A very good example is Herring gulls who encircle the earth near the equator. As distance separates them, they can no longer breed with those in locations too far before or after them. And of course, if we are discussing species, it is estimated that 90% of species have gone extinct throughout the history of life on the planet. Those alive today, depending on the definition of species, number in the many millions and up to 100 million or so. Adam would have had a dickens of a time just counting, let alone naming them, and Noah, well, with a minimum of 20 and up to 900 million species of their ‘kind’, it would have been a handful to say the least, even if they were represented on the impossible boat as the young and eggs. David Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Friday, 23 October 2009 11:47:58 PM
| |
OUG is stating that evolution only happens within types or kinds of creatures. This is what he, and other creationists call 'micro-evolution'.
There are literally millions of scientific papers and examples of evolution of this type happening all around us. This combination, change and mutation within species directly cause speciation, or .. the origin of new species. My question to OUG is, what process is he claiming is in place that stops speciation, and further divergence in the higher taxa. Posted by Gee Suss, Saturday, 24 October 2009 12:23:04 AM
| |
<<You accept micro-evolution...within species>>..of course
<<'Microevolution'..describes subpopulations..of species>>..your mindlesness..on claiming dogs beeed cats..is insane.. yes dog..genus cannis...breed species../within cannus..genus... but as usual you mindlessly/..,mix..that the bible says..each producing..after THEIR OWN/kind...into somehow...a genus/..isolated..in some/..unexplainable way..mutating out of genus..your insane <<becoming isolated..and diverging,..and this..directly..results in speciation>>...we took wild goats/..wild cattle/..wild fowl/many wild species...domesticated them..but they are all..still WITHIN their self/same genus...get it..genious? dogs..breed dogs....cats..breed cat....chickens..breed chickens..ducks..breed ducks...isolation...lol..hasnt changed their genus..[get it...dumb..and dumber? you finally revealed..your complete igno-rant's <<(when they..can no longer breed..in that..species) .. that's macroevolution.>>> lol..IF ITS BREEDING..DOGS WITH DOGS..ITs ALL INTRA GENUS..[to wit..to..the half wit...ie..within the genus cannus..if isolated dog.. genus/canus..includes all species..of dogs <<To argue that microevolution occurs>>..is to say..;..dogs breed different dog/specie's is not..saying..<<..to argue..for what directly causes>>>fish to breed dogs for macroevolution..to occur...you need to present that..one...not dog...not cannus..yet from cannus[not dog to dog..or dog into not dog... your falling for the typical evolution/davidian lie...that fish breed dogs..they dont your...lol..<<..reference of evidence..of speciation..occuring>>..is all about species...same making..near the same,...but all..WITHIN..the same genus... MAKING..lol..the same genus <<What is the 'barrier'..on micro-evolution..that stops macro-evolution..>>>.. simple your ape sperm/..wont fertilise a sheep...no matter how often you do it..together..or however hard..you try...your sperm is wasted in it..however much you both..might wish it to be so... mate within your species..gee your/..so suss learn the difference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification <<Nowhere..within the mechanisms of evolution..is it implied that eukaryotes..must have evolved from prokaryotes>>>your own link rebuts you pro.,.means before...GET IT.. something that preceeds karyotes...lol..if nothing preceeds...then evolution is fraud...get it...if nothing..evolved...you got nothing... thanks for confirming..you got nothing..lol <<there was a hypothesis..in the 70's over this,>>>..but as usual you present no evidence...your word..holds no weight...you speak with a fork for a tongue <<they split from a common ancestor...further down the tree of life>>>..ah..finally a definitive statement..please provide some some evidence...on this and your other..insane claims. <<This was a..proposed relationship,..but not a..'dogma'..of evolution...>>>...lol..so much for fact based theories...lol <<Hypotheses..when found to be false,..doesn't falsify evolution>>...lol..i noticed that... all the mindless theories,...are simply re-directions...the fact is..its theories/..upon rebutted theory <<THATS..THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD..AT WORK:)>>>...lol Posted by one under god, Saturday, 24 October 2009 7:29:48 AM
|
So you were referring to our OLO friend, David, not the House of David. What does David have to do the Zeus condemning the Titans? Please go back and refer to recent questions from me to you about god (Zeus)and frame a new reply.
Please see:
- Oliver, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 3:17:00 PM (last paragraph), and
- Oliver, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 5:39:27 PM
Gee Suss makes a sound point. We should all avoid argumentum ad hominem.
O.