sleeper;1221629 wrote:I don't believe in anything that can't be verified by a majority of evidence. Since I have read all my threads, I would say the evidence is on my side.

How's that faith working out for you?

IMO, there's considerable evidence that you're the least busy Financial Analyst in the state of Ohio. Just sayin.

sleeper;1221603 wrote:I don't think we should teach abiogenesis in the classroom. I do think we should teach evolution in the classroom because evolution exists

micro

and is verifiable by evidence

micro

and the fossil record

You rant and rant about the lack of evidence, logic, rationality, etc, for religion, and then claim the fossil record is substantive evidence for Darwinian macro-evolution. You exercise way more faith in your belief system than I do in mine.

O-Trap;1221701 wrote:Quantum mechanics: fixed probabilities. Problem solved!

Maybe since he's in his 'house' like Schroedinger's cat he is both alive and dead at the same time?

jhay78;1221699 wrote:I wonder if Sleeper stays in his house 24/7, since he does not have 100% evidence and proof that he will not be steamrolled by a tractor trailer when he walks outside his front door.

I don't need 100% evidence, I need at least .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% which is infinity more times the evidence of god or any faith based belief system.

fish82;1221703 wrote:IMO, there's considerable evidence that you're the least busy Financial Analyst in the state of Ohio. Just sayin.

I work on a computer, almost all day, almost every day. It's not too hard to pop on here and make some posts.

And I don't live in Ohio.

jhay78;1221705 wrote:micro



micro



You rant and rant about the lack of evidence, logic, rationality, etc, for religion, and then claim the fossil record is substantive evidence for Darwinian macro-evolution. You exercise way more faith in your belief system than I do in mine.

The only difference between micro and macro evolution is time. Small changes accumulated over billions of years equals macro evolution. Keep shoveling the BS though.

jmog;1221710 wrote:Maybe since he's in his 'house' like Schroedinger's cat he is both alive and dead at the same time?

Precisely.

sleeper;1221714 wrote:The only difference between micro and macro evolution is time. Small changes accumulated over billions of years equals macro evolution. Keep shoveling the BS though.

Technically, there is no verified example (that I know of, so correct me if I'm wrong) of species variation to the degree that the two could no longer mate.

Don't get me wrong, I believe it has. I just accept that it's not irrefutable.

It's not impossible to believe things with different levels of conviction.

O-Trap;1221723 wrote:Technically, there is no verified example (that I know of, so correct me if I'm wrong) of species variation to the degree that the two could no longer mate.

Don't get me wrong, I believe it has. I just accept that it's not irrefutable.

It's not impossible to believe things with different levels of conviction.

I'd love to see a creationist presented with DNA records of every species explain to me how a banana happens to share 50% of the same genes as humans; or how a monkey shares 99.999% of our genes as well. There's no doubt in my mind we evolved from a common ancestor; ZERO DOUBT.

sleeper;1221725 wrote:I'd love to see a creationist presented with DNA records of every species explain to me how a banana happens to share 50% of the same genes as humans; or how a monkey shares 99.999% of our genes as well. There's no doubt in my mind we evolved from a common ancestor; ZERO DOUBT.

Dude, God created the Earth and the animals and plants in 6 days. OF COURSE he took some shortcuts like an assembly line approach where he just tweaked a few bits of DNA. Sort of like Apple - you start with a rectangle with rounded edges and from that create IPods, IPads, IPhones, etc...

sleeper;1221714 wrote:The only difference between micro and macro evolution is time. Small changes accumulated over billions of years equals macro evolution. Keep shoveling the BS though.

You are actually wrong here, and O-trap already pointed it out.

The fossil record and repeatable/testable evidence shows the micro-evolution is a fact. However, like o-trap says, nothing testable and the fossil record does not show evidence of species mutating outside of their 'reproducing kind'

sleeper;1221725 wrote:I'd love to see a creationist presented with DNA records of every species explain to me how a banana happens to share 50% of the same genes as humans; or how a monkey shares 99.999% of our genes as well. There's no doubt in my mind we evolved from a common ancestor; ZERO DOUBT.

I'm not sure why that needs explained. Common genetic material can be the result of the fact that we were all made with the same "Play-Doh." The similarities in DNA are pretty easy, actually. Since they determine what living things end up being (size, shape, composition, etc.), the pieces were put together such that they ended up looking and being how they were intended.

jmog;1221738 wrote:You are actually wrong here, and O-trap already pointed it out.

The fossil record and repeatable/testable evidence shows the micro-evolution is a fact. However, like o-trap says, nothing testable and the fossil record does not show evidence of species mutating outside of their 'reproducing kind'

Great. I'd love to hear more from the guy who think god just snapped his fingers and poof we were all just created. :rolleyes:

God created AIDS to then and cancer. Next time you see a kid rotting from AIDS, remember your god did it. How does that feel?

O-Trap;1221741 wrote:I'm not sure why that needs explained. Common genetic material can be the result of the fact that we were all made with the same "Play-Doh." The similarities in DNA are pretty easy, actually. Since they determine what living things end up being (size, shape, composition, etc.), the pieces were put together such that they ended up looking and being how they were intended.

That's certainly reasonable. However, you don't find it at all ironic that mammals are only separated by a few genes as well as reptiles, birds, etc. If you take all the DNA by species you can almost see a perfect tree aligning all of the species, branching off almost perfectly. I'm sure that's just because we are all carbon based though and god created everything with the snap of his fingers. That's far more likely. :rolleyes:

sleeper;1221725 wrote:I'd love to see a creationist presented with DNA records of every species explain to me how a banana happens to share 50% of the same genes as humans; or how a monkey shares 99.999% of our genes as well. There's no doubt in my mind we evolved from a common ancestor; ZERO DOUBT.

Common ancestor or common creator?

gut;1221735 wrote:Dude, God created the Earth and the animals and plants in 6 days. OF COURSE he took some shortcuts like an assembly line approach where he just tweaked a few bits of DNA. Sort of like Apple - you start with a rectangle with rounded edges and from that create IPods, IPads, IPhones, etc...

I wouldn't even call them shortcuts. Why would he use different materials?

gut;1221735 wrote:Dude, God created the Earth and the animals and plants in 6 days. OF COURSE he took some shortcuts like an assembly line approach where he just tweaked a few bits of DNA. Sort of like Apple - you start with a rectangle with rounded edges and from that create IPods, IPads, IPhones, etc...

Silly me.

I don't even know why I bother with broken minds that believe in god. It's a sad day in this day and age that people still believe in fairy tales indoctrinated by their parents. Time to grow up.

FatHobbit;1221750 wrote:Common ancestor or common creator?

Common ancestor. There is no creator.

sleeper;1221748 wrote:If you take all the DNA by species you can almost see a perfect tree aligning all of the species, branching off almost perfectly.

Do you find it ironic that the bible talks about a tree of knowledge and all the species align to make a perfect tree?

sleeper;1221748 wrote:That's certainly reasonable. However, you don't find it at all ironic that mammals are only separated by a few genes as well as reptiles, birds, etc. If you take all the DNA by species you can almost see a perfect tree aligning all of the species, branching off almost perfectly. I'm sure that's just because we are all carbon based though and god created everything with the snap of his fingers. That's far more likely. :rolleyes:

I personally don't think that's the case, but that same tree could also be indicative of a logical progression. "I made this, but if I tweak this here, I'll get something new. Then, if I change one more little thing, I'll get this. [etc.]"

I don't find it ironic, no. Fascinating? Most definitely.

sleeper;1221748 wrote:That's certainly reasonable. However, you don't find it at all ironic that mammals are only separated by a few genes as well as reptiles, birds, etc. If you take all the DNA by species you can almost see a perfect tree aligning all of the species, branching off almost perfectly. I'm sure that's just because we are all carbon based though and god created everything with the snap of his fingers. That's far more likely. :rolleyes:

I think that's just as much an argument for intelligent design. Otherwise, if you start with a single-cell organism from which everything eventually evolves, wouldn't you expect to see much more variation in the genetic code? What you are implying is what I'd expect starting with a very complicated organism, call it man or an ape or whatever, where "minor" deviations give rise to dolphins, trees, etc...

FatHobbit;1221753 wrote:Do you find it ironic that the bible talks about a tree of knowledge and all the species align to make a perfect tree?

No I don't. The bible makes vague statements about anything and everything and then the lower levels of society try to randomly throw shit out like some sort of prophecy. It's a joke and I can't believe people still believe its all real.

O-Trap;1221755 wrote:I personally don't think that's the case, but that same tree could also be indicative of a logical progression. "I made this, but if I tweak this here, I'll get something new. Then, if I change one more little thing, I'll get this. [etc.]"

I don't find it ironic, no. Fascinating? Most definitely.

You gotta be shitting me.

sleeper;1221759 wrote:You gotta be shitting me.

I'm obviously personifying it, but if all it takes is a small augmentation to make something entirely different, why would anyone creating anything (hell, bring it down to a manufacturing level for all I care) start from scratch?

Hell, even use Dr. Miller's example that refuted the idea of irreducible complexity. If tweaking one little element of a composition changes the composition, that's the most logical move, whether by accident or design.

EDIT: Give me some credit. I believe evolution took place, but I feel it important to at least attempt to pose the best defense for a macro-creation (Has this been used? If not, I want credit.) to determine what I actually believe. That's pretty much how I've shaped a lot of my worldview. Beef up the understanding of the position I don't hold and see how it stacks up against the position I do hold.

gut;1221756 wrote:I think that's just as much an argument for intelligent design. Otherwise, if you start with a single-cell organism from which everything eventually evolves, wouldn't you expect to see much more variation in the genetic code? What you are implying is what I'd expect starting with a very complicated organism, call it man or an ape or whatever, where "minor" deviations give rise to dolphins, trees, etc...

No chance. It makes far more sense to start from a one celled organism than to start from a human and go to a tree. You can't say that humans were at one time a single celled organism; they weren't. But whatever was a single cell organism branches off into x amount of species who branched off into another x amount of species over BILLIONS of years.

Intelligent design is just another twist for believers to try to fit their beliefs to actual science because their belief system is broken and has zero evidence.

O-Trap;1221760 wrote:I'm obviously personifying it, but if all it takes is a small augmentation to make something entirely different, why would anyone creating anything (hell, bring it down to a manufacturing level for all I care) start from scratch?

Hell, even use Dr. Miller's example that refuted the idea of irreducible complexity. If tweaking one little element of a composition changes the composition, that's the most logical move, whether by accident or design.

Your example loses on all levels. No one is creating anything from scratch. There is no designer, there is no guy picking and choosing genes. Gosh a ruddies.