Fixed-Earth Loons

[autobodycad]

not at all.

And how many instances of macroevolution have been observed? How many believable 'missing' links have been found? How many times has life been observed springing from non-life? How many organisms have been observed to gain any genetic information at all?

Or, how many humans have been observed being formed of dust? Or women made from only a man's rib? Or complete animal populations out of nowhere in one day?

The point is, no matter your belief about origins, it remains in the realm of faith. I tire of evolutionists' claims that *they* are above religion, and remain unbiased and purely scientific. Ha.

[theBrokenCarnage]

autobodycad said:

I tire of evolutionists' claims that *they* are above religion, and remain unbiased and purely scientific.

And I tire of foolish religious folk who think they understand everything, and ignore anything that disagrees with their precious faith. You've clearly demonstrated that you have no concept of geologic time, and that you don't understand what a "missing link" actually is.

And actually, there is possible macroevolution that has been observed in Caribbean bryozoa.

Ha yourself.

[autobodycad]

thebrokencarnage said:

autobodycad said:

I tire of evolutionists' claims that *they* are above religion, and remain unbiased and purely scientific.

And I tire of foolish religious folk who think they understand everything, and ignore anything that disagrees with their precious faith. You've clearly demonstrated that you have no concept of geologic time, and that you don't understand what a "missing link" actually is.

And actually, there is possible macroevolution that has been observed in Caribbean bryozoa.

Ha yourself.

I've posted a whopping 2x in this thread regarding scientific things. How would you know what I know?

[theBrokenCarnage]

autobodycad said:

I've posted a whopping 2x in this thread regarding scientific things. How would you know what I know?

The fact that you say "How many believable 'missing' links have been found?" indicates that you have the same idea of "missing link" as the average American. You're a member of the general public, and the average (note I said "average") American has the scientific knowledge of a 7th grader. Also, you're located in central IL (according to your profile), an area which I know is even more unversed in the realm of science (I lived there for 20+ years). So, those facts mean that I have a rough idea of your level of understanding. Of course, I could be mistaken, in which case I must ask: why the hell are you in central IL?

[autobodycad]

So I take it you know all 500,000 people between Peoria, Champaign and Effingham, and the extent of their scientific knowledge? Your arrogance and bigotry warrants no further response from me.

I'll stick with the music forum.

[theBrokenCarnage]

autobodycad said:

So I take it you know all 500,000 people between Peoria, Champaign and Effingham, and the extent of their scientific knowledge? Your arrogance and bigotry warrants no further response from me.

I'll stick with the music forum.

And that's exactly the response I expect from the type of people that live in central IL. Face it, central IL is overall not a well educated area.

Bigotry from me? You're the religious one here. And we all know how accepting religion is. look, I can use the smileys, too!

Dumbass. Stick with the music forum. You don't have to think there, and you don't have to worry about your precious little worldview being challenged (something it seems that you just can't take).

[shankle25]

TBC

I was listening to Speakeasy, on the way home from my trip to Yellowstone. In one of the songs I heard the lyrics “. . . evolution is just a word that looses more meaning each time it’s heard. . . “
And I immediately thought of you. So here is my question for you:

I know that I personally would never buy or listen to a cd that said F God or God is gay. . and so on, so what keeps you listening to the Stave?

[theBrokenCarnage]

shankle25 said:

TBC

I was listening to Speakeasy, on the way home from my trip to Yellowstone. In one of the songs I heard the lyrics “. . . evolution is just a word that looses more meaning each time it’s heard. . . “
And I immediately thought of you. So here is my question for you:

I know that I personally would never buy or listen to a cd that said F God or God is gay. . and so on, so what keeps you listening to the Stave?

See, unlike a lot of people, I look for good music to listen to. Lyrics is second on the list, followed by meaning (which can vary a lot from person to person). I like the music that Stavesacre produces; thus, I listen to them. I also do not allow lyrics/meanings to rule my life and determine my choices. I am a free individual; I am not bound by anything outside of myself (aside from governmental laws and such).

And fyi, the lyric is "revolution is just a word that loses more each time it's heard", not "evolution". All in all, there are very, very few Stavesacre songs that have an overt religious message.

autobodycad: One more thing: get over yourself, and actually READ what I post. When I was discussing levels of scientific understanding, I was stating facts. There is no debate over the fact that the average American is not well versed in science. Surveys by a myriad of organizations from all biases over the past 10-20 years support this. AND I also said "I could be mistaken". BUT you did absolutely nothing to make me believe that I was mistaken. Instead, you only opened your mouth and showed us all the fool that you are. I applaud and thank you, autobodycad, for you truly supported my points.

[autobodycad]

okay, maybe I went a bit overboard, TBC. I shouldn't have fired back in such a way.

1. I see your generalizing of "foolish religious folk" (your term) in "flyover country" (not your term) as arrogant or even more so than that of "dumbass" mid-westerners that have never been out of their home states, who think God's Word is right and at least some of accepted origin "science" is wrong. If you insist on labeling people and painting with a broad brush, why would you expect me to play nice?

2. I'm not afraid of my worldview being questioned. I've done so personally.

3. My main point is and remains that those who believe in evolutionary origins are as religious in their faith - maybe more so - as those who freely admit their origin beliefs are religious in nature. I don't care if they insist on believing that, or even insist on teaching it as the only paradigm in public schools. I only desire an admission that their belief in a particular origin theory is not and can not be wholly scientific. It resides in the realm of faith and religion. The details of how x became y or how x has changed over observable time is the only portion that's scientific.

4. If my understanding of a "missing link" is wrong, kindly point me to an online article or something to enlighten me. Apparently the term has gained a looser meaning in recent decades.

- requisite smiley

[theBrokenCarnage]

autobodycad said:

3. My main point is and remains that those who believe in evolutionary origins are as religious in their faith - maybe more so - as those who freely admit their origin beliefs are religious in nature. I don't care if they insist on believing that, or even insist on teaching it as the only paradigm in public schools. I only desire an admission that their belief in a particular origin theory is not and can not be wholly scientific. It resides in the realm of faith and religion.

Religion should not be taught in science, plain and simple. Religion is not science, so it has no place in the science classroom. You can desire an admission all you like, that doesn't mean that you're going to get one. There is no reason for one, because evolution is not religion. Notice how the only ones saying this are religious folks. That should tell you something about your "point". You can't deny that there is strong, strong, strong fossil evidence for evolution. I can arrange out early vertebrates, and you can clearly see the gradual changes from water to land. You can do the same thing with early whales. These fossils also correlate with the stratigraphic record - the water-based quadropeds are older than the land-based ones.

The details of how x became y or how x has changed over observable time is the only portion that's scientific.

Wait... so the only portion of evolution that scientific is evolution itself? Doesn't this contradict everything you just said?

4. If my understanding of a "missing link" is wrong, kindly point me to an online article or something to enlighten me. Apparently the term has gained a looser meaning in recent decades.

When you make a cladogram (tree showing the relationships of organisms), by default, you put all the organisms at the ends of branches of the tree. In doing so, you allow for any further discoveries of an organism (a common ancestor, if you will) that would fit in one of the nodes of the tree. When such an organism is discovered, it's characters are analyzed and it is placed on it's own branch, wherever that may be. This allows for the lack of 100% completeness of the fossil record. So, while it may appear outwardly that there are tons and tons of missing links, in reality there aren't really that many - not nearly enough to cripple evolution, like conservatives/religious folk tend to proclaim.
Also, there hasn't been a "looser meaning in recent decades". The meaning was always the same. It's just that the majority of people (both laymen and scientists alike) only have a passing knowledge of evolution. It's only the "hardcore" paleos or whoever that really deal with it.