DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so you're back to basics and claiming that birds, primates, and reptiles all evolved from wet rocks over billions of years. You could have skipped the whole sand dune analogy and just went with the mantra.

I'm sorry, but I can't compete with that. I respect your opinion, but find it abhorrent that you call it scientific.

You can't prove your theory in a true scientific arena any more than I can prove that "God" exists.

Which brings us back to MY underlying point, which is that we need to stop indoctrinating our children with unscientific macroevolution claims and calling it fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your plan was just to not listen to anything I said, huh? I'm giving you a logical framework for 'macroevolution' (a term I never use) and you resort to these kind of tactics? Why don't you address the points? It is a very fundamental point that there never, ever was a first bird.

I was willing to show you the scientific evidence for macroevolution as well, I just wanted to get the logical problems out of the way first. Its important you don't think its IMPOSSIBLE for macroevolution to occur, or else what is the purpose of me showing your scientific evidence?

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so you're back to basics and claiming that birds, primates, and reptiles all evolved from wet rocks over billions of years. You could have skipped the whole sand dune analogy and just went with the mantra.

I'm sorry, but I can't compete with that. I respect your opinion, but find it abhorrent that you call it scientific.

You can't prove your theory in a true scientific arena any more than I can prove that "God" exists.

Which brings us back to MY underlying point, which is that we need to stop indoctrinating our children with unscientific macroevolution claims and calling it fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your plan was just to not listen to anything I said, huh? I'm giving you a logical framework for 'macroevolution' (a term I never use) and you resort to these kind of tactics? Why don't you address the points? It is a very fundamental point that there never, ever was a first bird.

I was willing to show you the scientific evidence for macroevolution as well, I just wanted to get the logical problems out of the way first. Its important you don't think its IMPOSSIBLE for macroevolution to occur, or else what is the purpose of me showing your scientific evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your problem is that you think I have an issue with the basic idea of evolution.

I don't.

It's a fine theory... and all the pretty pictures over the years are excellent tools to try and drum up support your theory.

My problem is that a completely unprovable THEORY is being passed off as fact to hundreds of millions of children who dont' know any better, and this indoctrination is being supported by my tax dollars.

That's my problem.

But no one seems to be able to grasp that. I think we should only teach actual facts as facts in science text books. Not showing them a few choice facts and then using those to try and swindle the readers of said text book into following a certain religion on the backs of tax payers.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so you're back to basics and claiming that birds, primates, and reptiles all evolved from wet rocks over billions of years. You could have skipped the whole sand dune analogy and just went with the mantra.

I'm sorry, but I can't compete with that. I respect your opinion, but find it abhorrent that you call it scientific.

You can't prove your theory in a true scientific arena any more than I can prove that "God" exists.

Which brings us back to MY underlying point, which is that we need to stop indoctrinating our children with unscientific macroevolution claims and calling it fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your plan was just to not listen to anything I said, huh? I'm giving you a logical framework for 'macroevolution' (a term I never use) and you resort to these kind of tactics? Why don't you address the points? It is a very fundamental point that there never, ever was a first bird.

I was willing to show you the scientific evidence for macroevolution as well, I just wanted to get the logical problems out of the way first. Its important you don't think its IMPOSSIBLE for macroevolution to occur, or else what is the purpose of me showing your scientific evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your problem is that you think I have an issue with the basic idea of evolution.

I don't.

It's a fine theory... and all the pretty pictures over the years are excellent tools to try and drum up support your theory.

My problem is that a completely unprovable THEORY is being passed off as fact to hundreds of millions of children who dont' know any better, and this indoctrination is being supported by my tax dollars.

That's my problem.

But no one seems to be able to grasp that. I think we should only teach actual facts as facts in science text books. Not showing them a few choice facts and then using those to try and swindle the readers of said text book into following a certain religion on the backs of tax payers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? You don't know the difference between a theory and a fact? I thought we were WAY past this. I can't even imagine how you could teach a science class using only facts and no theories. It would surely be the worst class ever taught.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so you're back to basics and claiming that birds, primates, and reptiles all evolved from wet rocks over billions of years. You could have skipped the whole sand dune analogy and just went with the mantra.

I'm sorry, but I can't compete with that. I respect your opinion, but find it abhorrent that you call it scientific.

You can't prove your theory in a true scientific arena any more than I can prove that "God" exists.

Which brings us back to MY underlying point, which is that we need to stop indoctrinating our children with unscientific macroevolution claims and calling it fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your plan was just to not listen to anything I said, huh? I'm giving you a logical framework for 'macroevolution' (a term I never use) and you resort to these kind of tactics? Why don't you address the points? It is a very fundamental point that there never, ever was a first bird.

I was willing to show you the scientific evidence for macroevolution as well, I just wanted to get the logical problems out of the way first. Its important you don't think its IMPOSSIBLE for macroevolution to occur, or else what is the purpose of me showing your scientific evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your problem is that you think I have an issue with the basic idea of evolution.

I don't.

It's a fine theory... and all the pretty pictures over the years are excellent tools to try and drum up support your theory.

My problem is that a completely unprovable THEORY is being passed off as fact to hundreds of millions of children who dont' know any better, and this indoctrination is being supported by my tax dollars.

That's my problem.

But no one seems to be able to grasp that. I think we should only teach actual facts as facts in science text books. Not showing them a few choice facts and then using those to try and swindle the readers of said text book into following a certain religion on the backs of tax payers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? You don't know the difference between a theory and a fact? I thought we were WAY past this. I can't even imagine how you could teach a science class using only facts and no theories. It would surely be the worst class ever taught.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this would be comical.

Teacher: You see, if you drop an object from a certain height, it will fall at a constant acceleration of 9.8 m2/s, until it reaches terminal velocity.

Student: Why?

Teacher: Ahermm.....ummm...like I was saying, 9.8 m2/s.

The evolution part of the class would go like this:

Teacher: So, as you can see, all life on earth has evolved from a single common ancestor, and the 'tree of life' looks something like this.

Student: Why?

Teacher: Ahermm...ummm...like I said, common ancestor.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]

Actually, this would be comical.

Teacher: You see, if you drop an object from a certain height, it will fall at a constant acceleration of 9.8 m2/s, until it reaches terminal velocity.

Student: Why?

Teacher: Ahermm.....ummm...like I was saying, 9.8 m2/s.

The evolution part of the class would go like this:

Teacher: So, as you can see, all life on earth has evolved from a single common ancestor, and the 'tree of life' looks something like this.

Student: Why?

Teacher: Ahermm...ummm...like I said, common ancestor.

[/ QUOTE ]

/sigh


Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.

I don't know how much more simple this differentiation can be.

Do I have to repeat myself until you understand?

Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.


Evolution cannot! And the copout that evolutionists use to justify this is "well it happened over millions of years, we can't demonstrate it!"

Sorry, no dice.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Actually, this would be comical.

Teacher: You see, if you drop an object from a certain height, it will fall at a constant acceleration of 9.8 m2/s, until it reaches terminal velocity.

Student: Why?

Teacher: Ahermm.....ummm...like I was saying, 9.8 m2/s.

The evolution part of the class would go like this:

Teacher: So, as you can see, all life on earth has evolved from a single common ancestor, and the 'tree of life' looks something like this.

Student: Why?

Teacher: Ahermm...ummm...like I said, common ancestor.

[/ QUOTE ]

/sigh


Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.

I don't know how much more simple this differentiation can be.

Do I have to repeat myself until you understand?

Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.


Evolution cannot! And the copout that evolutionists use to justify this is "well it happened over millions of years, we can't demonstrate it!"

Sorry, no dice.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, that isn't what you said. Stop moving goalposts. You said no theories. Gravity is a theory.

Second, LOL that evolution cannot be tested. Why do you think that?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Actually, this would be comical.

Teacher: You see, if you drop an object from a certain height, it will fall at a constant acceleration of 9.8 m2/s, until it reaches terminal velocity.

Student: Why?

Teacher: Ahermm.....ummm...like I was saying, 9.8 m2/s.

The evolution part of the class would go like this:

Teacher: So, as you can see, all life on earth has evolved from a single common ancestor, and the 'tree of life' looks something like this.

Student: Why?

Teacher: Ahermm...ummm...like I said, common ancestor.

[/ QUOTE ]

/sigh


Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.

I don't know how much more simple this differentiation can be.

Do I have to repeat myself until you understand?

Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.


Evolution cannot! And the copout that evolutionists use to justify this is "well it happened over millions of years, we can't demonstrate it!"

Sorry, no dice.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, that isn't what you said. Stop moving goalposts. You said no theories. Gravity is a theory.

Second, LOL that evolution cannot be tested. Why do you think that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it safe to assume you are ok with 'microevolution' being taught in schools? Stuff like dog breeds, cauliflower, viruses? I want to get a feel for where we are at. Is that a type of evolution you are ok with? Its still a theory, just so you know. Do you contend that this evolution is untestable? That it isn't science?

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]

First off, that isn't what you said. Stop moving goalposts. You said no theories. Gravity is a theory.


[/ QUOTE ]

Once again you nitpick details when you and I both know that you have the intelligence to know what I was getting at.

Gravity can be tested and demonstrated, while it is an unprovable theory, it is certainly not a disputed theory because it can be tested and demonstrated.

Macro/Cosmic/Chemical/Organic evolution cannot.

[Jetboy2]

Can plate tectonics be tested and demonstrated?

The fact is that you can find some obviously oceanic fossils at very high altitudes. The theory of plate tectonics does a good job at explaining how that occurred.

So, are you saying that the theory of plate tectonics should be deleted from textbooks?

In the same way, the theory of evolution works quite well to explain the diversity of life on earth.

Just curious....

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Can plate tectonics be tested and demonstrated?

The fact is that you can find some obviously oceanic fossils at very high altitudes. The theory of plate tectonics does a good job at explaining how that occurred.

So, are you saying that the theory of plate tectonics should be deleted from textbooks?

In the same way, the theory of evolution works quite well to explain the diversity of life on earth.

Just curious....

[/ QUOTE ]

No, when he said that we shouldn't allow theories to be taught in schools, he just meant we shouldn't allow theories that he doesn't like to be taught in schools. This was made clear with the gravity example. Its possible he doesn't know the difference between a theory and a fact, and if so, you cant really blame him. He should try to educate himself a little though.