Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
Micro and macro is a false issue. There is no line between them. Its like miceo and macro money. No "creationist" trying to "hammer" anyone wit it has any luck for that simple reason. They cannot identify the line, nor explain how it would work. Its just blather.

It's not a false issue Audie. While there may not be a distinct line, there is a difference. Even to evolutionists.

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.

Well then Macro evolution is observable, ring species are an example.

Seriously though, what is considered a species then, when they can no longer mate are they now a seperate species?

Daniel I'm gonna go way out on a limb with this...

Since the distinction I posted above, came from an evolution site, I'm gonna have to say that they'd probably agree with you.

My point in posting that was not to say that definition is true, or even what's agreed upon. My point was just to show miss smarty pants that even evolutionists make a distinction between micro and macro. It's not just evil, deluded creationists.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
Micro and macro is a false issue. There is no line between them. Its like miceo and macro money. No "creationist" trying to "hammer" anyone wit it has any luck for that simple reason. They cannot identify the line, nor explain how it would work. Its just blather.

It's not a false issue Audie. While there may not be a distinct line, there is a difference. Even to evolutionists.

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.

Well then Macro evolution is observable, ring species are an example.

Seriously though, what is considered a species then, when they can no longer mate are they now a seperate species?

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
Micro and macro is a false issue. There is no line between them. Its like miceo and macro money. No "creationist" trying to "hammer" anyone wit it has any luck for that simple reason. They cannot identify the line, nor explain how it would work. Its just blather.

It's not a false issue Audie. While there may not be a distinct line, there is a difference. Even to evolutionists.

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.

Well then Macro evolution is observable, ring species are an example.

Seriously though, what is considered a species then, when they can no longer mate are they now a seperate species?

Daniel I'm gonna go way out on a limb with this...

Since the distinction I posted above, came from an evolution site, I'm gonna have to say that they'd probably agree with you.

My point in posting that was not to say that definition is true, or even what's agreed upon. My point was just to show miss smarty pants that even evolutionists make a distinction between micro and macro. It's not just evil, deluded creationists.

Audie wrote:
Creationists invented a distinction between "micro" and "macro" nowhere identified or agreed to by science.

The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iuri'i Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration), in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation, which was an early attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution. Filipchenko was an evolutionist, but as he wrote during the period when Mendelism seemed to have made Darwinism redundant, the so-called "eclipse of Darwinism" (Bowler 1983), he was not a Darwinian, but an orthogeneticist (he believed evolution had a direction). Moreover, Russian biologists of the period had a history of rejecting Darwin's Malthusian mechanism of evolution by competition (Todes 1989).

melanie wrote:“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.”
Ralph Emerson

RickD wrote:

melanie wrote:“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.”
Ralph Emerson

Thanks Ralph!

melanie wrote:

RickD wrote:

melanie wrote:“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.”
Ralph Emerson

Thanks Ralph!

Couldn't have said it better myself

RickD wrote:

melanie wrote:

RickD wrote:

melanie wrote:“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.”
Ralph Emerson

Thanks Ralph!

Couldn't have said it better myself

Wow! A well-read, blonde, Australian woman! Too bad we're both already married. You had me at "Ralph Emerson"!

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
Creationists invented a distinction between "micro" and "macro" nowhere identified or agreed to by science.

Audie, Audie, Audie. You already know, because I showed you before, that the distinction between micro and macro, originated with an evolutionist. Please stop saying that(the link is below). And second, did you really just say,"agreed to by science"?

The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iuri'i Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration), in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation, which was an early attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution. Filipchenko was an evolutionist, but as he wrote during the period when Mendelism seemed to have made Darwinism redundant, the so-called "eclipse of Darwinism" (Bowler 1983), he was not a Darwinian, but an orthogeneticist (he believed evolution had a direction). Moreover, Russian biologists of the period had a history of rejecting Darwin's Malthusian mechanism of evolution by competition (Todes 1989).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroev ... ml#concept

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
Creationists invented a distinction between "micro" and "macro" nowhere identified or agreed to by science.

Audie, Audie, Audie. You already know, because I showed you before, that the distinction between micro and macro, originated with an evolutionist. Please stop saying that(the link is below). And second, did you really just say,"agreed to by science"?

The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iuri'i Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration), in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation, which was an early attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution. Filipchenko was an evolutionist, but as he wrote during the period when Mendelism seemed to have made Darwinism redundant, the so-called "eclipse of Darwinism" (Bowler 1983), he was not a Darwinian, but an orthogeneticist (he believed evolution had a direction). Moreover, Russian biologists of the period had a history of rejecting Darwin's Malthusian mechanism of evolution by competition (Todes 1989).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroev ... ml#concept

Are you really without the ability to understand that the creocanard is about how "micro" is permitted by their religion,
and "macro" is not, or, are you just being tiresome ?

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
Creationists invented a distinction between "micro" and "macro" nowhere identified or agreed to by science.

Audie, Audie, Audie. You already know, because I showed you before, that the distinction between micro and macro, originated with an evolutionist. Please stop saying that(the link is below). And second, did you really just say,"agreed to by science"?

The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iuri'i Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration), in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation, which was an early attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution. Filipchenko was an evolutionist, but as he wrote during the period when Mendelism seemed to have made Darwinism redundant, the so-called "eclipse of Darwinism" (Bowler 1983), he was not a Darwinian, but an orthogeneticist (he believed evolution had a direction). Moreover, Russian biologists of the period had a history of rejecting Darwin's Malthusian mechanism of evolution by competition (Todes 1989).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroev ... ml#concept

Are you really without the ability to understand that the creocanard is about how "micro" is permitted by their religion,
and "macro" is not, or, are you just being tiresome ?

You caught me Audie! I guess the jig is up! I'll have to try to fool someone else.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Audie wrote:So... you get a story like the flood, which is said to have been verified by Jesus.

So was the flood local or global? I think it was local. But the details of the flood are unimportant, the reason why there was a flood is much more important.

You are not really using the SEDI argument, in bold above, are you? (same evidence different interpretaion)

?? Not sure what you are trying to say here.

Its integral to the OT story. Its a major event, the biggest single one in earth history, if true.

When it is pointed out that it is simply a story, that no such event took place,
that is quibbling? its not "science vs religion". Neither in the non existence of Atlantis and Mu.

It is quibbling, it may have been local (which there is a ton of evidence for) but these are the details of the event which are of little importance, the important parts you have missed completely just like the Pharisees.

Try this...

You are on trial for you life in some third world country. Your defense introduces the evidence that shows the prosecution case rests on your having been in the hotel on the night in question. The hotel had not been built yet, nor were you in the country at the time.

"Quibbling pharises", the judge says. Seriously?

This is a false dichotomy (dilemma) and a false analogy, The hotel exists, what is in question is how big the hotel was, was it 3 floors or 10 floors tall, but the information of how tall it was is irrelevant to the fact of why the person stayed in the hotel.