Universal Common Ancestor/The experiment

[Asana Bodhitharta]

Quote:Asthma, you do know that micro and macro evolution are the same thing right? With longer periods of time in between.No, That's not true. Macro evolution is a myth that promotes a myth(speciation) Now if you don't believe in God because of lack of "observeable" Evidence. Then you contradict yourself when you accept non-observeable evidence as evidence. Remember the test with the Gulls or the Finches or the Fruit Flies. When Microevolution reaches its limit the result is sterility not species jumping. This is a fact, you do know that right?Quote:By the way there is observable evidence, in the whale's skeleton, it has a pelvis which suggests that it was once a land animal, and in the fossil record.A whale Having a pelvis is not evidence that it was once a land animal because the whale needs that pelvis for reproduction. Quote:In fact if you go back far enough into an animal's evolutionary past you would find that nearly all were prey animals at one time or another. ?Quote:You so quickly dismiss the chimps learning sign language do you not realize that that very subject was the first step in higher communication with animals?When was the last time a Seeing Eye dog asked someone for an apple? You must not own a dog. You can look at a dog and communicate commands to him.

[irishrosem]

Quote:You cannot simply look at one thing and say that it came from something else. You can only say what is evident. I cant look at a dog-like fossil and say "this is ancestor of a horse". I mean I can say it but that doesn't make it evidence. The fishapod only means God created such an animal. Are you fucking serious? Do you even look at this shit before you post it?Quote:You cannot simply look at one thing and say that it came from something else.Agreed Quote:The fishapod only means God created such an animal.Hey halfwit, this is looking at something (fishapod) and saying it came from something else (God).Jesus Christ!!!!!!!!!!!Sorry for interfering, Frank. Edited by: irishrosem at: 11/28/06 6:27 pm

[Frank 013]

Quote:You don't seem to understand that any discovery of any fossil amounts to only the discovery of that fossil.I understand very well actually, scientists had predicted these forms of fossils using the common ancestry hypothesis. Lo and behold they were there.Add to this the very powerful DNA and genome research, the predictions and successes that they have had in these arenas. Quote:The fishapod only means God created such an animal. Well according to your above logic god would have had to create life and then destroy it and then create new life and he would have had to do this every several million years or so, what a waste.Quote:There is no theory of God because "The way it is"There is no theory of god because you can't physically test an imaginary character.Later

[Frank 013]

IrishrosemQuote:Hey halfwit, this is looking at something (fishapod) and saying it came from something else (God).Jesus Christ!!!!!!!!!!!Sorry for interfering, Frank. Don't be, that was the best laugh I had all day.Please when you guys see this bunk feel free to contribute, Asana really needs to understand how weak his position really is.Maybe one day he will actually learn something, maybe?Later

[Asana Bodhitharta]

Quote:Hey halfwit, this is looking at something (fishapod) and saying it came from something else (God).irishrosem,That was just ignorant, of course you must know that I was saying that looking at a specific animal fossil and saying it correlates to another animal. If you did not understand that comparison then I apologize for saying you made an ignorant statement.

[MadArchitect]

Asana Bodhitharta: I wouldn't buy a copy of such a book when there is a terribly large amount of such information on the internet for free.The problem with using the internet as a primary source of information is that so much of the information available on the internet is of dubious quality. There aren't the same pressures from a structured peer review, for instance, and the biases of a particular online source may be covert, masking their potential reasons for distorting information or not providing information that could hurt their own bias.I wouldn't mind taking part in a book discussion if I am invited to do so but unless the book is talking about some new idea that is not already known i could just as well enter that conversation with all the current knowledge I already have.The problem with that is, that if we all enter into a discussion with knowledge that we've gained from our own sources, unless those sources overlap a significant majority of the time, then we're likely to quibble with one another over differences in our background knowledge, with no real way of knowing whose reading is more in depth or reliable. The real benefit to a discussion like the one we're having in the "Evolution Vs. Creationism" forum is that, despite the fact that the book provides us with information that most of us have run across at one time or another, it allows us to talk about the same set of facts and figures. That allows us to have a coherent conversation, and when problems arise, we're able to point back to a book that we've all read.Discussing the topic based only on bits and pieces of information gleaned from the internet is likely to leave us in chaos. That's not a discussion -- it's a rabble.At any rate, I'm not going to bother reiterating the invitation after this. I've given what I think are very solid reasons for entering the discussion on the grounds that we've all agreed upon. If you're not interested in that sort of discussion, so be it. Just don't expect the people on this forum to depart from a good way of going about things just to meet your claims on the terms you've dictated.

[Asana Bodhitharta]

Quote:I understand very well actually, scientists had predicted these forms of fossils using the common ancestry hypothesis. Lo and behold they were there.Add to this the very powerful DNA and genome research, the predictions and successes that they have had in these arenas. There what was? Do you know how many predictions there are for every sort of thing. Nostradomus predicted 9/11 according to his supporters can you prove he didn't? If someone predicts something satisfactory for you it should be a specific prediction. What does DNA and genome research have to do with fishapod? Nothing! and you know it.Quote:Well according to your above logic god would have had to create life and then destroy it and then create new life and he would have had to do this every several million years or so, what a waste.You assume that this animal is extinct? How would you know that?Quote:There is no theory of god because you can't physically test an imaginary character.There is no theory of God because God is not a theory. God is a fact.When I say I realized God I mean just that. Chris thinks that me saying that is some sort of error just because he has not realized whatever he needs to realize and he hasn't realized whether he is a Freethinker or an Atheist. I have realized God and I do know what the ToE is and it is garbage science. I love real science and if it was a real science I would be all for it but it is a pseudo science with no valid evidence. Some of the evidence has even been falsified.

[Asana Bodhitharta]

Quote:At any rate, I'm not going to bother reiterating the invitation after this. I've given what I think are very solid reasons for entering the discussion on the grounds that we've all agreed upon.I told you I don't mind entering the discussion but I dont have time to read an entire book just to talk about something I have a firm grasp on even without the internet. I just use the internet to get the latest information available from reliable sources.But I do understand that is the point of your book discussion so I guess I wouldn't be welcome to participate in that forum but thanks anyway. If I do get the time I will go buy the book but I don't imagine that happening.

[Frank 013]

Quote:That was just ignorant; of course you must know that I was saying that looking at a specific animal fossil and saying it correlates to another animal.Wow Asana this coming from you is incredible, you, (the person who literally has not made a single verifiable claim in your history of being on booktalk) are calling someone else ignorant.I think I have found proof that god does NOT exist, it is Asana. Considering how often Asana is wrong (it must be close to 100% of the time.) his claim of god must also certainly be wrong. Quote:What does DNA and genome research have to do with fishapod? Nothing! and you know it.These studies have everything to do with one another, the geological record, comparative anatomy, DNA and genome research, together paint the overall picture of evolution. Quote:You assume that this animal is extinct? How would you know that?I'll tell you what, you dig one up and we can talk. Besides there are literally thousands of other species that would fall into the "god destroyed" category; where did the dinosaurs go? Are they just hiding?Quote:There is no theory of God because God is not a theory. God is a fact.Again Ill ask, care to back that statement up with some tangible evidence? And your normal intelligence/overall existence "evidence" does not count because it has already been explained better by science. Here is your problem; Evolution paints its picture with verifiable facts, observable evidence, and testable predictions. Scientists follow the rules of rationality to come to their conclusions and they look for all evidence, even that which would disprove their theory, in fact falsification is an important part of the scientific method.The god picture is painted with imagination and ignorance. It begins with preconceived notions and there are no rules when seeking evidence. Furthermore this god picture is not open to debate any evidence that goes against it is thrown out.You are seriously guilty of the second line of thought.Later

[MadArchitect]

Asana Bodhitharta: But I do understand that is the point of your book discussion so I guess I wouldn't be welcome to participate in that forum but thanks anyway.For the time being, at least, it's also kind of the point of the whole site...