Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

So what i personally gather from the bible is god is the biggest douche-bag asshole in the universe, also he's not very powerfull he couldn't stop lucifer all he could do was kick him out of heaven he gave us free will right so why the fuck are we to blame for our actions you can't give someone free will then for a 500+ page rule book on them that's just being a dick.

Seriously all i take is god is like a kid with age of empires just fucking toying with the ... well us i can see why lucifer would want to rebel against someone like him by all storys about god he is a very evil person & thus why i hope he doesn't exist.

Also just for people who might call me atheist I'm not atheist or religious or a science type since none of them have 100% proof.

At 1/9/12 01:47 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/9/12 01:39 AM, beardkiller wrote:

At 1/9/12 01:29 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/9/12 01:22 AM, beardkiller wrote:

At 1/9/12 01:17 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

Your basicly saying that satan has accepted that he was branded evil and is trying to make the most of his condemed existance by having some fun and granting wishes to sombody else who was branded an evil man

No. My point is that the Devil is not evil. It is man that is evil, and has always been.

ok...but what about legitimatly good people who help others?i know my species is greedy/mean/hateful/pride filled but thats because we were designed and conditioned with a survival/self advancement mindset its human nature

At 1/9/12 01:53 AM, beardkiller wrote:

At 1/9/12 01:47 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/9/12 01:39 AM, beardkiller wrote:

At 1/9/12 01:29 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/9/12 01:22 AM, beardkiller wrote:

At 1/9/12 01:17 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

Your basicly saying that satan has accepted that he was branded evil and is trying to make the most of his condemed existance by having some fun and granting wishes to sombody else who was branded an evil man

No. My point is that the Devil is not evil. It is man that is evil, and has always been.

ok...but what about legitimatly good people who help others?i know my species is greedy/mean/hateful/pride filled but thats because we were designed and conditioned with a survival/self advancement mindset its human nature

Well if you want to put it that way. Man is not 'evil' per se, they have a light side and a dark side. Two sides of the coin. There are a very rare few who actually are good people inside and outside. Very, few.

Alot of people do good things for moral reasons. Because they are moral whores. Alot of people will do anything to feel 'special'.

As I said, the rare few I mentioned is a dying breed.

Ignorance, Hate, Pretentiousness...yep, smells like a religious thread to me. It's not that the threads themselves are bad, but then you get these fucking atheists who always try to argue from the ignorant and tell everyone they're wrong and they are right because Science. I'm just tired of it, and it never gets any better. It's like, I'm here to discuss Theology, you think I give two shits if you believe or not? Who the fuck are you to tell everyone else what to believe? Just get out.

Also, to the guy having a disscussion with Insanctuary, don't bother. He's just trolling, Satan was banished due to his pride and sins against God and humanity. He's just egging you on and honestly knows shit all about what he's saying.

This question is one of those that a human can't answer.

At 1/9/12 02:09 AM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: Ignorance, Hate, Pretentiousness...yep, smells like a religious thread to me. It's not that the threads themselves are bad, but then you get these fucking atheists who always try to argue from the ignorant and tell everyone they're wrong and they are right because Science. I'm just tired of it, and it never gets any better. It's like, I'm here to discuss Theology, you think I give two shits if you believe or not? Who the fuck are you to tell everyone else what to believe? Just get out.

Also, to the guy having a disscussion with Insanctuary, don't bother. He's just trolling, Satan was banished due to his pride and sins against God and humanity. He's just egging you on and honestly knows shit all about what he's saying.

Like you know any more? You are just an angry neutral guy who is being inadvertently aggressive.

Hypocrite. Deluded. Egoistical. Act like he knows that he knows enough to come in here and bash everyone when they are in their own right to have their opinions that they actually try to refute unlike you becoming this inebriated troll who comes in and clubs random people ''erg. ge awa frum ther''. Derp.

You are a fool. Just like those who believe in a God. Oh, sorry. I spoke my mind there. Does that bother you, dad?

It's called 'faith in anithetical values' and it's a bunch of rubbish. If they are so full of themselves, I'm going to preach it.

Do not come in here like a hypocrite. And actually propose a viable rebuttal.. Not what you just did there..

At 1/9/12 02:09 AM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: Ignorance, Hate, Pretentiousness...yep, smells like a religious thread to me. It's not that the threads themselves are bad, but then you get these fucking atheists who always try to argue from the ignorant and tell everyone they're wrong and they are right because Science.

You say it as if all atheists argue like this and that the religious among us are infallible when they get into these kinds of arguments.

I'm just tired of it, and it never gets any better. It's like, I'm here to discuss Theology, you think I give two shits if you believe or not?

You probably should if you're participating in a discussion in which a few atheists state their reasons for abandoning their faith, reasons that, when stated, essentially contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way, no matter how offensive it may be.

Who the fuck are you to tell everyone else what to believe? Just get out.

Umm, few, if any, atheists do that. They're just saying that they don't believe in God and consequently in the Christian religion(And most, if not all, other religions). Although I do agree with your belief that no atheist should try to impose his/her lack of belief(Or belief, according to some) on others.

Dude light your logic powers killing him keep going

At 1/9/12 02:26 AM, beardkiller wrote: Dude light your logic powers killing him keep going

I said something too. :c

At 1/9/12 02:34 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/9/12 02:26 AM, beardkiller wrote: Dude light your logic powers killing him keep going

I said something too. :c

dude im a cannibal troll and you attempted to troll me by aiming at my neutrality towards deitys now then enjoy your emotional pain =D

At 1/9/12 02:37 AM, beardkiller wrote:

At 1/9/12 02:34 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/9/12 02:26 AM, beardkiller wrote: Dude light your logic powers killing him keep going

I said something too. :c

dude im a cannibal troll and you attempted to troll me by aiming at my neutrality towards deitys now then enjoy your emotional pain =D

Since when was I trolling you? I don't troll. I burn the bridges of any troll that messes with me. I've earned respect from a few trolls here on NG.

So again, who are you going to listen to? Me? Or some deluded pansy who bashs atheists without a viable argument?

At 1/9/12 02:39 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/9/12 02:37 AM, beardkiller wrote:

At 1/9/12 02:34 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/9/12 02:26 AM, beardkiller wrote: Dude light your logic powers killing him keep going

I said something too. :c

dude im a cannibal troll and you attempted to troll me by aiming at my neutrality towards deitys now then enjoy your emotional pain =D

Since when was I trolling you? I don't troll. I burn the bridges of any troll that messes with me. I've earned respect from a few trolls here on NG.

So again, who are you going to listen to? Me? Or some deluded pansy who bashs atheists without a viable argument?

im taking neither side and intently watching how this pans out my satanist or aetheist friend besides when light was jedi master he got into some nasty debates so...dont be sad if you lose

At 1/9/12 02:43 AM, beardkiller wrote:

At 1/9/12 02:39 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/9/12 02:37 AM, beardkiller wrote:

At 1/9/12 02:34 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/9/12 02:26 AM, beardkiller wrote:

Lol. I'm not good or bad. I'm neutral. Like.. a tamed shadow.

What are you talking about?

At 1/9/12 02:45 AM, Insanctuary wrote:
Lol. I'm not good or bad. I'm neutral. Like.. a tamed shadow.

What are you talking about?

Seems ive struck a nerve in my filler and it seems due to your posts in this thread your leaning toward the dark side of the force while im leaning nowhere

At 1/9/12 02:50 AM, beardkiller wrote:

At 1/9/12 02:45 AM, Insanctuary wrote:
Lol. I'm not good or bad. I'm neutral. Like.. a tamed shadow.

What are you talking about?

Seems ive struck a nerve in my filler and it seems due to your posts in this thread your leaning toward the dark side of the force while im leaning nowhere

Dark side? What if I don't want cookies?

At 1/9/12 03:01 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/9/12 02:50 AM, beardkiller wrote:

At 1/9/12 02:45 AM, Insanctuary wrote:
Lol. I'm not good or bad. I'm neutral. Like.. a tamed shadow.

What are you talking about?

Seems ive struck a nerve in my filler and it seems due to your posts in this thread your leaning toward the dark side of the force while im leaning nowhere

Dark side? What if I don't want cookies?

then vader force chokes you and sexualy assaults your corpse at the same friggen time

At 1/8/12 09:06 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: I believe in observational science, and do not consider interpretational pseudo-science to be valid. Of the theory, I only believe the observable, microevolution category, and not the unfalsifiable macro.

There is no micro evolution nor macro Evolution, only Evolution. The issue here is that Evolution is as much a fact as the Theory of Gravity, Mathematics Theory, Cell Theory and pretty anything that is actually accepted as a fact. But the overwhelming issue is that you can't prove God actually exists, you're the one with the extraordinary claim, so it is your job to provide an extraordinary evidence.

I can assure you that the Theory for Evolution is very much a well proven theory. And before you say "Just a Theory" Here is the definition of what scientific theory is, cited from the Oxford Dictionary itself:

"A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed."

This in terms essentially makes it a fact in the sense of how much irrefutable evidence there is behind it. It is common knowledge that us Homo sapiens evolved from primitive apes, and share a common ancestor with Chimpanzees and Bonobos. In fact we are one of the African Great Apes. We know this not only because of a comprehensive fossil record, which shows our ancestors but also because via the Human and Chimpanzee Genome we can see a direct correlation between our DNA and that of a Chimpanzees, with only some minor differences. The Genome actually shows the evolutionary path of pretty much all life, just take a look for yourself; it's honestly incredible.

Fossils are a good form of observable evidence. The term 'fossilisation' refers to a variety of often complex processes that enable the preservation of organic remains within the geological record. It frequently includes the following conditions: rapid and permanent burial/entombment - protecting the specimen from environmental or biological disturbance; oxygen deprivation - limiting the extent of decay and also biological activity/scavenging; continued sediment accumulation as opposed to an eroding surface - ensuring the organism remains buried in the long-term; and the absence of excessive heating or compression which might otherwise destroy it.

Fossil evidence is typically preserved within sediments deposited beneath water, partly because the conditions outlined above occur more frequently in these environments, and also because the majority of the Earth's surface is covered by water (70%+). Even fossils derived from land, including dinosaur bones and organisms preserved within amber (fossilised tree resin) were ultimately preserved in sediments deposited beneath water i.e. in wetlands, lakes, rivers, estuaries or swept out to sea.

Fossilisation can also occur on land, albeit to a far lesser extent, and includes (for example) specimens that have undergone mummification in the sterile atmosphere of a cave or desert. However in reality these examples are only a delay to decomposition rather than a lasting mode of fossilisation and specimens require permanent storage in a climate controlled environment in order to limit its affects.

What do Fossils show us? That Organisms have changed significantly over time. In rocks more than one billion years old, only fossils of single-celled organisms are found. Moving to rocks that are about 550 million years old, fossils of simple, multicellular animals can be found. At 500 million years ago, ancient fish without jawbones surface; and at 400 million years ago, fish with jaws are found. Gradually, new animals appear: amphibians at 350 million years ago, reptiles at 300 million years ago, mammals at 230 million years ago, and birds at 150 million years ago. As the rocks become more and more recent, the fossils look increasingly like the animals we observe today.

Transitional forms occur just when one might expect to see a change from one body type to another. However, a common objection is that few transitional fossils have been discovered; thus many lineages cannot be traced smoothly.

There are several reason for these gaps in the fossil record. First, fossilization is a very rare event. Plus, transitional species tend to appear in small populations, where rapid changes in the environment can provide a stronger evolutionary drive. Finally, because fossilization itself is a rare event, smaller populations are sure to produce fewer fossils. The fact that transitional species have been found at all is remarkable, and it offers further support of gradual, evolutionary change.

But of course the biggest and most irrefutable proof of evolution does not lie in fossil record but in the human genome itself. See when it is compared with the genome of one our cousins, the Chimpanzee.

Here are some videos that show some of the evidence in a nice and easy format:

Richard Dawkins: Why are there still Chimpanzees?
http://youtu.be/wh0F4FBLJRE

Richard Dawkins: Comparing the Human and Chimpanzee Genomes
http://youtu.be/WBEtw7esmvg

Richard Dawkins: Show me the intermediate fossils!
http://youtu.be/o92x6AvxCFg

Richard Dawkins: Diatoms: The Evolution of a New Species
http://youtu.be/EUozZo8nOpY

'Why Evolution Is True Lecture' by Jerry Coyne
http://youtu.be/w1m4mATYoig

This is only the tip of the iceberg, don't you worry. If you are curious enough to ask questions about this task with a positive interest of actually learning it, then I have plenty of resources for you. And this includes videos, books, journals and more.

Also the Bible or any other holy book cannot be considered evidence, it's like me writing on a napkin that my God is the right God because it is written here right on this napkin. To prove that God exists you must use scientific method.

"Scientific Method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."

At 1/9/12 05:17 AM, MsRukia wrote: There is no micro evolution nor macro Evolution, only Evolution...

Bravo. There is simply no way anybody could refute all of this.
Although, theists always find a way of ignoring the evidence, so that's probably what she'll do. It really makes me sick that in the face of all this evidence, people still deny that Evolution is a fact.

I must commend you for this post, though.

At 1/9/12 05:17 AM, MsRukia wrote:

At 1/8/12 09:06 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: I believe in observational science, and do not consider interpretational pseudo-science to be valid. Of the theory, I only believe the observable, microevolution category, and not the unfalsifiable macro.

There is no micro evolution nor macro Evolution, only Evolution. The issue here is that Evolution is as much a fact as the Theory of Gravity, Mathematics Theory, Cell Theory and pretty anything that is actually accepted as a fact. But the overwhelming issue is that you can't prove God actually exists, you're the one with the extraordinary claim, so it is your job to provide an extraordinary evidence.

I greatly disagree. Macroevolution is not an observable science as microevolution is. The theory, you claim, is that they are one in the same - simply definitive of the amount of time. In fact, the process by which each are studied differs significantly. Studies of evolution within species and kinds are most certainly based on observable, reproducible, and valid tests. We can study the changes in a type of animal over a short time, and eventually, when we achieve "millions of years" of study, we will finally be able to falsify macroevolution - and it will become a valid science.

Macroevolution is most certainly not a fact. The study of it is entirely interpretational with no secularly accepted method of falsification. If it cannot be disproven, it is not a science. "Observation of fossils", as Light had suggested a time ago, does not qualify as observation/trial of the hypothesis. The study of macroevolution relies on a given conclusion, and working backwards with the scientific method into the "hypothesis" and "observation" stage. All evidence with regard to macroevolution is subjective interpretation, as connecting the dots in the fossil record is never absolute when jumping species.

Until we can observe a change in species (meaning, we have to wait a million years or so, right?), I refuse to acknowledge it as a valid field of science on level with microevolution.

Here is the definition of what scientific theory is, cited from the Oxford Dictionary itself:

"A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed."

You seem to have overlooked the "established by observation or experiment" part, both of which are impossible when dealing with such a large timeframe in which humans supposedly never even existed.

Fossils are a good form of observable evidence [...]

What followed here was a very thorough description of fossilization, which I am aware of (but, thank you for clarification anyway). However, it did not defend your argument that fossilization is a good form of observational evidence.

What do Fossils show us? That Organisms have changed significantly over time.

Yes, but because we cannot observe dramatic (macroevolutional) changes, it is neither fact nor a scientific theory - but, a very intricate interpretation with highly sophisticated phrasing that actually does little to validate the field.

As the rocks become more and more recent, the fossils look increasingly like the animals we observe today.

Although there are many flaws in rock dating (and thus, fossil dating) - most evidently with the vast number of variables that suggest a dynamic Earth, and not as static one as macroevolutionists would like - I will accept the premise that the rock layer is a credible source for interpretation. Even with this, macroevolution does not follow the Oxford definition of a scientific theory or process. The fossil record, no matter the detail, will always remain inductive evidence of macroevolution as you are looking for validation of an idea that cannot be disproven. I am still waiting for an explanation on how this field of science is science at all - rather than the study of the "evidence" (which do follow the method).

The fact that transitional species have been found at all is remarkable, and it offers further support of gradual, evolutionary change.

Many "transitional" species have been frauds, human-like apes, or ape-like humans. However, since I know little about this category of study, I will not debate the positive or negative of this premise. But, answer me this: what is considered a "transition" - and, if microevolution progresses into macroevolution, why do these "transitional species" no longer exist, yet the core predecessors do?

Here are some videos that show some of the evidence in a nice and easy format:

Thank you for these.

Also the Bible or any other holy book cannot be considered evidence, it's like me writing on a napkin that my God is the right God because it is written here right on this napkin. To prove that God exists you must use scientific method.

I have never used the Bible as evidence for or against evolution. I may have personal bias, but I remain as objective as possible when given evidence. Should a case arise where macroevolution is, somehow proven, I will reject the Bible. That is how much faith I have in God.

However, you're last sentence bothered me. Not that I am attempting to prove the existence of God, as it is an unfalsifiable study, but you seem to assert that proving the existence of God through interpretational, scientific evidence (non-observable) is any different from the study of macroevolution.

"Scientific Method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."

Why do you ignore your own definitions when challenging my own beliefs?

"The collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formation and testing of hypothesis."

Please link me to a credible first-source that has recorded the observation with experimentation, and/or testing of macroevolution.

My theory is Satan is just God in his ASSHOLE form, but God is just like this would be me ifI was all evil, but I choose to be nice

At 1/9/12 12:17 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: I greatly disagree. Macroevolution is not an observable science as microevolution is. The theory, you claim, is that they are one in the same - simply definitive of the amount of time. In fact, the process by which each are studied differs significantly. Studies of evolution within species and kinds are most certainly based on observable, reproducible, and valid tests. We can study the changes in a type of animal over a short time, and eventually, when we achieve "millions of years" of study, we will finally be able to falsify macroevolution - and it will become a valid science.

There is one particular aspect of evolution that needs to be given specific attention: the somewhat artificial distinction between what is called "microevolution" and "macroevolution", two terms often used by creationists in their attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory. By use of these two terms it naturally a distinct lack of understanding of the theory itself.

I frequently hear creationists argue that they accept microevolution but not macroevolution - one common way to put it is to say that dogs may change to become bigger or smaller, but they never become cats. Therefore, microevolution may occur within the dog species, but macroevolution never will.

There are a few problems with these terms, especially in the manner that creationists use them. The first is quite simply that when scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they don't use them in the same way as creationists. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologistIurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution"Variabilität und Variation". However, they remain in relatively limited use today. You can find them in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply don't pay attention to them.

Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.

When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons - this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.

In other words, creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which has specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader and incorrect manner. This is a serious but unsurprising error - creationists misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis.

A second problem with the creationist use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution is the fact that the definition of what constitutes a species is not consistently defined. This can complicate the boundaries which creationists claim exist between microevolution and macroevolution. After all, if one is going to claim that microevolution can never become macroevolution, it would be necessary to specify where the boundary is which supposedly cannot be crossed.

Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanisms of operation and change in all genes are the same. If you believe microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, simply I ask you what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter.

Macroevolution is most certainly not a fact. The study of it is entirely interpretational with no secularly accepted method of falsification. If it cannot be disproven, it is not a science. "Observation of fossils", as Light had suggested a time ago, does not qualify as observation/trial of the hypothesis. The study of macroevolution relies on a given conclusion, and working backwards with the scientific method into the "hypothesis" and "observation" stage. All evidence with regard to macroevolution is subjective interpretation, as connecting the dots in the fossil record is never absolute when jumping species.

I didn't say it was a fact, I said that is as much a "fact". I did say that the theory is not falsifiable, because if it wasn't then it wouldn't be Science. Observational evidence is very much abundant throughout the genome itself, which is backed by the fossil record. The following lecture clip speaks for itself clearly.

Ken Miller on Human Evolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYC kk

What followed here was a very thorough description of fossilization, which I am aware of (but, thank you for clarification anyway). However, it did not defend your argument that fossilization is a good form of observational evidence.

As it were merely explaining the process for clarification, the next section does though.

Yes, but because we cannot observe dramatic (macroevolutional) changes, it is neither fact nor a scientific theory - but, a very intricate interpretation with highly sophisticated phrasing that actually does little to validate the field.

Creationists complain that evolution isn't valid or genuine science, but exactly the opposite is the case: evolution meets the criteria generally accepted by scientists as defining science and the vast majority of scientists accept evolution as science. Evolution is the central organizing framework for the biological sciences and is just as scientifically valid as analogous theories in other scientific fields: plate tectonics, atomic theory, quantum mechanics, etc. Creationist complaints rely upon misrepresentations of both evolution and science, so understanding what makes something scientific is helpful here.

Criteria for a Scientific Theory
To fully understand how and why evolution is scientific, it's important to first know what the generally accepted criteria for scientific theories are. Scientific theories must be:

-Consistent (internally & externally)
-Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
-Useful (describes & explains observed phenomena)
-Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
-Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
-Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
-Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have & more)
-Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

Evolution is Consistent
Although there are gaps in our knowledge, disagreements as to how evolution occurred, and gaps in the evidence, the idea of common descent is still overwhelmingly supported by both historical and contemporary evidence as well as our understanding of how changes occur in living organisms. All evidence we have supports evolutionary theory and common descent; absolutely no evidence points to anything else. Evolution is also externally consistent: it does not contradict solid findings in any other physical science. If evolution did contradict physics or chemistry, that would be a significant problem.

Evolution is Parsimonious
Evolution is naturalistic and does not add unnecessary concepts, entities, or processes to our understanding of the universe. Evolution, which is just genetic change over time, does not rely upon any entities or concepts which do not otherwise exist in any scientific model. Common descent does not require us to imagine anything new or unusual in the universe. This means is the theory of evolution is the simplest and most reliable explanation of the diversity of life on our planet. Everything offered as alternatives requires us to imagine new entities not used or needed in any other scientific model, like gods.

Evolution is Useful
Evolution is the unifying principle of the life sciences, which includes medicine. This means that much of what is done in the biological and medical sciences could not occur without the background premise of evolution. I've yet to see any Evolution Deniers willing to give up modern medicine. Evolutionary theory also suggests lots of problems for scientists to work on because it makes predictions which, in turn, provide experiments to perform in order to better understand what's going on in the natural world. Evolution thus provides an overall paradigm for solving current problems within the life sciences.

Evolutionary Theory Can Be Tested
Because evolution as common descent is largely a historical science, testing it is complicated - but it's not impossible. As with other historical investigations, we can make predictions and retrodictions (utilize present information to infer or explain past events or states) based on the theory. We can thus state that we would expect to find certain things (like types of fossils) when looking at the historical record; if they are found, it supports the theory. We cannot perform the direct tests like those often found physics and chemistry, but the theory of evolution is as testable as other historical theories.

Evolutionary Theory Can Be Falsified
Falsification of evolution as common descent would be complicated because of the vast amount of supporting evidence. Evolution rests upon a general and widespread pattern of evidence from many different fields, so a similar pattern of contradictory evidence is needed to falsify it. Isolated anomalies might force modifications, but no more. If we found a general pattern of fossils in rocks dated to different ages than expected, that would be a problem for evolution. If our understanding of physics and chemistry changed significantly, causing us to find that the earth is quite young, that would falsify evolution.

Evolutionary Theory is Correctable & Dynamic
Evolution is based solely on the evidence, thus if the evidence changes so will the theory; in fact, subtle changes to aspects of evolutionary theory can be observed by anyone who regularly reads biology journals and pays attention to the scientific debates. Evolutionary theory today is not quite the same as the evolutionary theory which Charles Darwin originally devised and wrote about, though he was correct enough that much of what he discovered continues to b valid. Since there are gaps in our understanding and evidence, we can expect to see more changes in the future as our understanding expands.

Evolutionary Theory is Progressive
The idea that a scientific theory should be progressive means that a new scientific theory should build on earlier scientific theories. In other words, a new theory must explain what previous theories explained at least as well as they did while providing a new understanding for additional material - something which evolution does. Another way to see how scientific theories need to be progressive is that they can be shown to be superior to competing theories. It should be possible to compare several explanations for a phenomenon and find that one does a much better job than the others. This is true of evolution.

Evolution and the Scientific Method
The general theory of evolution easily meets the criteria for scientific theories. How about the scientific method: was the idea of common descent arrived at scientifically? Yes - the idea was arrived at by examining nature. Looking at existing species, examining their characteristics and commonalities, and considering how they arose led to the idea of common descent. We can see the scientific method at work at every stage of the study of evolution and the biological sciences; in contrast, we find not the scientific method but theology and religious orthodoxy behind evolution's creationist competitors.

Although there are many flaws in rock dating (and thus, fossil dating) - most evidently with the vast number of variables that suggest a dynamic Earth, and not as static one as macroevolutionists would like - I will accept the premise that the rock layer is a credible source for interpretation. Even with this, macroevolution does not follow the Oxford definition of a scientific theory or process.

I'd recommend you look up the modern process used known as Radiometric Dating.

Many "transitional" species have been frauds, human-like apes, or ape-like humans. However, since I know little about this category of study, I will not debate the positive or negative of this premise. But, answer me this: what is considered a "transition" - and, if microevolution progresses into macroevolution, why do these "transitional species" no longer exist, yet the core predecessors do?

Please do not believe any horrifically appalling, shallow, pedantic, foolish propaganda about Evolution, like Java-man, Piltdown man etc. Home sapiens (people) fall under the genus of Homo, there are many transitional variants of our genus on the fossil record which are also shown strongly in the human genome, and of course in the genus before Homo as well. Also in my previously posted diagram of our evolutionary tree.

I will provide you with a fantastic link that shows our ancestors:
http://www.becominghuman.org/node/human-
lineage-through-time

Professor Lee Berger and his son stumble across an amazing find in South Africa - two-million-year-old fossils of an unknown species of ape-like creatures. This is Australopithecus Sediba, the latest find in the human ancestral tree.
http://youtu.be/FFuwyBEq1IA%u2003

I have never used the Bible as evidence for or against evolution. I may have personal bias, but I remain as objective as possible when given evidence. Should a case arise where macroevolution is, somehow proven, I will reject the Bible. That is how much faith I have in God.

Then I recommend you read "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins and "Why Evolution is true" by Jerry A. Coyne.

Food for thought:

Transitional fossils:
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-tra nsitional.html)

Precambrian fossils:
(http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/97/13/6 947.pdf)

Origins of human chromosome number 2
Telomere duplication:
(http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/88/20/9 051.pdf)

Detailed analysis of human chromosome number 2:
(http://www.bx.psu.edu/miller_lab/dist/c hr2.4.pdf)

Comparison of human DNA to primate DNA:
(http://www.genome.org/cgi/reprint/12/11 /1663.pdf)
(http://www.genome.org/cgi/reprint/12/11 /1651.pdf)

Introduction to cell division and the role of the centromere:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/baby/divide .html

With no evil there would be no good, so you must be good to the evil sometimes.

I never understood why people refute with walls of text if both opposing parties are always going to disagree with or without evidence.

This is why I took ad hominem to a whole new level.

'faith in antithetical values' is simply just a fluffy illusion; loophole that nobody can break, because how can you prove what doesn't exist? How can you prove that it doesn't exist?

Completely ludicrous. It's so simple that it obviously does not exist, and people are just living in denial like children, because God is like food an water to them. A filthy crutch for the weak-minded.

''Hey. I know! I'm weak, I can't do anything, because my will is feeble. So, I will just create an imaginary almighty, all-powerful figure that gives me strength!''

Just like how people have lucky charms. It's just an imaginary foundation that people took way too far because the cortex of said foundation is a God that promises everything that people want to hear. A voice that only yields to their weaknesses.

It's essentially children perversing their imaginative realm to make life more tolerable.

Why do people even try to reason with the unreasonable. God damn it.

At 1/8/12 10:59 PM, Insanctuary wrote: 1. Actually.. I have about 8 people who knows this criteria of mine, not because of me, but because they want to make the best out of themselves. They are also quite brilliant, if I do say so myself.

What a surprise, you think people who agree with you are brilliant. And 8 people know of your criteria. Tell us what it is.

2. You know.. The world, and it's problems.. How humans are seen as harmless when their ideas are twisted and generated out of their ignorance.. The usual big picture that not many people see, or want to see.

Blah blah blah psuedo philosophical bullshit. We are aren't harmful to shit in the big scheme of things. Species die and surface all the time.

3. Yes, and scientists are humans too. They built on an imaginary foundation that was created by labelling our world, and adding value; measurements that didn't actually exist.. Like we can paint an already painted world.. If that is your rolemodel.. You are doomed.

"All humans are flawed and their logic sucks because I says so. My proof? They are flawed and their logic sucks"

4. I don't see why you have a difficult time seeing that your ignorance, and your weakness spawns from you not becoming a better person that you are right now. You CAN be, but you choose not to be. You wish to stay self-centered, listening to scientists like they have the answers.. convoluting life's nature with your 'facts' that also stems from SCIENCE. While I am doing my grand best to look at everything as a whole, not be selfish or selfless.. To create balance, and add the real pieces of the puzzle together without being bias; objective, and selfish.

You mean I can become another hive mind ant who subscribes to your personal philosophy.

5. I'm only 19, I said this a few times already. I am still sojourning for now.. I'm still building this philosophy of mine, and when I feel when I am ready [I can't afford to make any mistakes..] I will do something great with it, because you know.. I actually devote myself to life as a whole, and not selfish intentions.

Translation: I'm jobless and not doing shit but being on the internet all day, yet I act like I'm a god damn hero.

At 1/9/12 04:43 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 1/8/12 10:59 PM, Insanctuary wrote: 1. Actually.. I have about 8 people who knows this criteria of mine, not because of me, but because they want to make the best out of themselves. They are also quite brilliant, if I do say so myself.

What a surprise, you think people who agree with you are brilliant. And 8 people know of your criteria. Tell us what it is.

2. You know.. The world, and it's problems.. How humans are seen as harmless when their ideas are twisted and generated out of their ignorance.. The usual big picture that not many people see, or want to see.

Blah blah blah psuedo philosophical bullshit. We are aren't harmful to shit in the big scheme of things. Species die and surface all the time.

3. Yes, and scientists are humans too. They built on an imaginary foundation that was created by labelling our world, and adding value; measurements that didn't actually exist.. Like we can paint an already painted world.. If that is your rolemodel.. You are doomed.

"All humans are flawed and their logic sucks because I says so. My proof? They are flawed and their logic sucks"

4. I don't see why you have a difficult time seeing that your ignorance, and your weakness spawns from you not becoming a better person that you are right now. You CAN be, but you choose not to be. You wish to stay self-centered, listening to scientists like they have the answers.. convoluting life's nature with your 'facts' that also stems from SCIENCE. While I am doing my grand best to look at everything as a whole, not be selfish or selfless.. To create balance, and add the real pieces of the puzzle together without being bias; objective, and selfish.

You mean I can become another hive mind ant who subscribes to your personal philosophy.

5. I'm only 19, I said this a few times already. I am still sojourning for now.. I'm still building this philosophy of mine, and when I feel when I am ready [I can't afford to make any mistakes..] I will do something great with it, because you know.. I actually devote myself to life as a whole, and not selfish intentions.

Translation: I'm jobless and not doing shit but being on the internet all day, yet I act like I'm a god damn hero.

1. They actually are brilliant. One of them speak more than one language. Draws very well. Composes great music. Writes in fluent English. Besides, is that your argument? Assuming that the concordance between me and others has anything to do with it?

2. You are careless of the fundamental aspects of life. That is my point.

3. Their logic is bias. It's built on with straws. Anyone can label this world and deem it 'logic'.

4. Like you aren't a marionette to this fake world you try to protect with selfish intentions; weak-minded assumptions; claims.. Etc?

At 1/9/12 04:48 PM, Insanctuary wrote: 1. They actually are brilliant. One of them speak more than one language. Draws very well. Composes great music. Writes in fluent English. Besides, is that your argument? Assuming that the concordance between me and others has anything to do with it?

Ooh, I'm multi-lingual (well, not completely fluent in two and fluent in one) and I can draw well. Depending on the genre I can write music for it. I know fluent English too! Therefore, I am brilliant.

So far, the only people you have acknowledged as brilliant or enlightened are those who agree with your philosophy, and everyone else is deluded and ignorant. So yes, it isn't that far of an assumption that there's a correlation between knowing and being similar to you and if they are brilliant.

2. You are careless of the fundamental aspects of life. That is my point.

Says the person who thinks scientists who specialize in a field are full of bullshit and you are more enlightened in those areas of study then all of them.

3. Their logic is bias. It's built on with straws. Anyone can label this world and deem it 'logic'.

Except it's legit when you label it right?

4. Like you aren't a marionette to this fake world you try to protect with selfish intentions; weak-minded assumptions; claims.. Etc?

Well given that I'm a proponent of the belief that ones mind is the only thing we can be sure is actually real, then yeah, this world might be fake.

At 1/9/12 04:54 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 1/9/12 04:48 PM, Insanctuary wrote: 1. They actually are brilliant. One of them speak more than one language. Draws very well. Composes great music. Writes in fluent English. Besides, is that your argument? Assuming that the concordance between me and others has anything to do with it?

Ooh, I'm multi-lingual (well, not completely fluent in two and fluent in one) and I can draw well. Depending on the genre I can write music for it. I know fluent English too! Therefore, I am brilliant.

So far, the only people you have acknowledged as brilliant or enlightened are those who agree with your philosophy, and everyone else is deluded and ignorant. So yes, it isn't that far of an assumption that there's a correlation between knowing and being similar to you and if they are brilliant.

2. You are careless of the fundamental aspects of life. That is my point.

Says the person who thinks scientists who specialize in a field are full of bullshit and you are more enlightened in those areas of study then all of them.

3. Their logic is bias. It's built on with straws. Anyone can label this world and deem it 'logic'.

Except it's legit when you label it right?

4. Like you aren't a marionette to this fake world you try to protect with selfish intentions; weak-minded assumptions; claims.. Etc?

Well given that I'm a proponent of the belief that ones mind is the only thing we can be sure is actually real, then yeah, this world might be fake.

1. I agree. It wasn't a good point, because I was just putting it out there. [Go find my riddle here in the General Forums.. Try to solve it. I will prove you that your awareness is extremely low.]

2. They are no more right than I am. I'm just waving away the fog so you can see that this world isn't as solid as you were lead to believe.

3. It's 'bias' logic. We practically are just naming everything. We don't know anything of this world because nothing told us. We were just in this world.. We don't know what anything is. We labelled things.. We added standards.. and measuremenets.. etc. My word is no more legit than another's. It's the art of making the most out of what I say that matters. Which, you are doing a good job yourself.

4. Everything is what it is. Just because you were brought up to believe in this reality's logic does not make it anymore viable than my own word. When anybody can poke holes in an illusion.

At 1/9/12 02:10 PM, MsRukia wrote:

At 1/9/12 12:17 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: I greatly disagree. Macroevolution is not an observable science as microevolution is. The theory, you claim, is that they are one in the same - simply definitive of the amount of time. In fact, the process by which each are studied differs significantly.

There is one particular aspect of evolution that needs to be given specific attention: the somewhat artificial distinction between what is called "microevolution" and "macroevolution", two terms often used by creationists in their attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory. By use of these two terms it naturally a distinct lack of understanding of the theory itself.

They are also two fields recognized by the majority of professors at my university. Although this may, or may not seem credible to you, it certainly does to me. At any rate, it would make sense that those who oppose macroevolution would clarify which part of evolution they are against rather than seeming entirely ignorant by saying "I don't believe evolution".

Therefore, microevolution may occur within the dog species, but macroevolution never will.
There are a few problems with these terms, especially in the manner that creationists use them. The first is quite simply that when scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they don't use them in the same way as creationists.

I would like to focus this debate to simply you and I. I have used the terms correctly, and should not be generalized with the total creationist population.

Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution.

Many have jumped conclusions by accepting interpretative evidence as fact for an unproven "theory". The two categories are different because one can be observed/tested while, the other cannot. Claiming that macroevolution happens in the same way as microevolution is simply an assumption based on neutral facts that were not established on nor derived from observation and/or experimentation.

Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned.

If this magic line is the critical scientific aspect of observation and test - which you have yet to respond to - then I suppose I agree. But, I still do not appreciate the generalization of which you seem to be fond of. Respond to my personal arguments please, and not the mainstream opinion; I will do the same for you.

A second problem with the creationist use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution is the fact that the definition of what constitutes a species is not consistently defined.

How can you say species are not consistently defined? I am very surprised that you would suggest this, so you will need to elaborate more - without the usage of macroevolution as a given premise.

Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution.

This does not prove nor even support the idea that macroevolution occurred in the past, but rather, lightly suggests that there is a possibility it could happen in the future (which I agree with in part, except when species are jumped).

Macroevolution is most certainly not a fact.

I did say that the theory is not falsifiable, because if it wasn't then it wouldn't be Science.

The theory is unfalsifiable, because if it was falsifiable, it wouldn't be science? That seems to be what you said, I had to correct a double-negative. So, the study of God is science, then? If you meant macroevolution is falsifiable, please give me an example of how one might discredit the "theory", without the use of creationism, but with counter-evidence.

Observational evidence is very much abundant throughout the genome itself, which is backed by the fossil record. The following lecture clip speaks for itself clearly.

This is not observation, it is still interpretational evidence. "Observing something" does not qualify as observation of test/experimentation. Macroevolution cannot be observed through scientific means - and this is why I refuse to accept it as fact, or even plausible. I presume we have hit a wall here if you continue to refuse an answer to this.

Yes, but because we cannot observe dramatic (macroevolutional) changes, it is neither fact nor a scientific theory - but, a very intricate interpretation with highly sophisticated phrasing that actually does little to validate the field.

Creationists complain that evolution isn't valid or genuine science, but exactly the opposite is the case: evolution meets the criteria generally accepted by scientists as defining science and the vast majority of scientists accept evolution as science.

Popular opinion (even in the almighty scientific community) does not define truth. The world is round, and the Earth really does revolve around the sun.

Evolution is the central organizing framework for the biological sciences and is just as scientifically valid as analogous theories in other scientific fields:

This does not defend [macro]evolution, but instead inhibits more people who understand true science from finding branch fields, that are actually credible, to be valid. Simply because many people believe something and those people come up with other ideas, the original premise is not suddenly correct - it just means that more fields are corrupted by psuedo-science.

understanding what makes something scientific is helpful here.

You have graciously defined the scientific process (method) multiple times, yet your theory of macroevolution does not qualify under any of your definitions. That is not me, "the ignorant creationist" refusing science; that is me, Emma, reading carefully.

Criteria for a Scientific Theory
To fully understand how and why evolution is scientific, it's important to first know what the generally accepted criteria for scientific theories are. Scientific theories must be:

You are dodging my questions here, despite being very thorough and accurate. Scientific theories are not the same as the scientific process to reach said theory. However, I continue to notice that you state aspects that macroevolution does not follow. You claim it is no different from microevolution; but, I would still argue that they are separate fields, seeing as they qualify for different categories that make up, as you called it, a scientific theory.

-Consistent (internally & externally)
-Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
-Useful (describes & explains observed phenomena)
-Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
-Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have & more)
-Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

I agree with the above, and also support the notion that the idea macroevolution follows them.

-Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
-Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments

Neither of these qualify macroevolution (or assuming long-term microevolution), as "species jumps/transitions" cannot be tested, falsifiable (empirically or otherwise), there is no plausible method of observation for such study, and no experiment can be performed (with any number of variables) in any fashion (and thus, cannot be repeated). Please explain to me how the rejection of these two core principles in scientific theory is beneficial and remains prominent in your argument.

The idea of common descent is still overwhelmingly supported.

Common decent theory is only as strong as the intricacy of its biased interpretation used to defend it.

Absolutely no evidence points to anything else.

You seem to be ignoring the "Tentative" portion of a scientific theory.