How to Adjust to Climate Change

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
802

Edit: Actually, I don’t want this to carry on with animosity, so can we agree that this discussion is one among friends with different – in one case, unjustified : ) --worldviews, and can we consider it a testing ground in which we are happy to do battle and yet outside of which there is no carryover of bitterness?

Anyway, assuming that you do in fact acknowledge that what I owe to you is exactly the parallel of what I asked of you, I will write it as soon as I have the time, almost surely today.

803

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I’m not relying on faith in unobservable scientific phenomenon at all. We just disagree on what is observable.[/quote]

Oh brother, that was lame.

If you’re relying, and you are, on something that has never been seen or experienced you are relying on the unobservable. You, nor anyone who’s ever lived, has ever observed anything other than adaptation.

If you take it as fact that dinosaurs evolved into birds you are above all else a faithful man because it’s never ever ever ever ever ever been observed not even indirectly through the fossil record. No amount of intellectual contortions will allow you to escape that.[/quote]

I’m not “relying on” or placing faith in anything. I state what appears to be observable. Did I say birds evolved from dinosaurs? Not exactly. I said there is a process, call it “evolution” or anything you like, that shows a linear progression from simple organisms to more complex ones. Because the specifics of this process are not directly observable I don’t place faith in theories that seek to explain how the unobservable aspects of this system works.

807

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

…So go ahead, challenge me as I challenged you.

[/quote]

Already have several times.

You’ve yet to produce for your position what you’ve incessantly demanded from your opponents.
[/quote]

No, you have not. You have demanded proof. If, on the other hand, you will accept, as I requested, evidence persuasive to an unbiased and reasonable mind – simple reason to subscribe – then you will have it tomorrow.[/quote]

What a completely disingenuous statement. Your seemingly innocuous phrase, “evidence persuasive to an unbiased and reasonable mind,” predetermines that if anyone rejects your purported evidence they aren’t unbiased and reasonable.

So no one can disagree with anything you put up.

Get outta here.[/quote]

I used those terms because that has been central to the challenge throughout this whole debate and, in case you somehow did not understand this, I was posting in such a way as to demand that your challenge be parallel to mine. Is it, or is it not? Or do you really think that we should not have reasonable minds in our sights when we present our evidence (I admit that this would serve your position and tactics well). Note that I’m asking you a yes or no answer. No gimmicky evasion tactics are required. Are you, or are you not requesting of me exactly what I’ve been requesting of you all this time?[/quote]

Put up or shut up.

You simply won’t do yourself what you’ve demanded from others.

This is the last time I’m going back and forth with you on this.[/quote]

And as I said, I am happy to – if you acknowledge that I am endeavoring to provide what I have asked of others and not something else. Do you, or do you not?[/quote]

Though you for obvious reasons are hesitant to put it in writing, I take this as the acknowledgement I sought – remember this for later – and will do what I’ve asked of you, as I said, today or tomorrow.

810

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
submitting yourself to your Creator at any and all costs.
[/quote]

That you acknowledge no specific scientific or evidential basis for your account of creation…

[/quote]

I’ve acknowledged it. But like the other times you’ve played the goading game, hypocritically of course, I’ve told you it’s incumbent on you to look it up.

You honestly got me to lol on this one. No kidding.

You, the slave to a cult based on a hypothesis, lecturing me on the love of freedom. Sad. And funny in its own way.

I’m definitely sheepish in the sense that I have decided to follow my Creator as a sheep does indeed follow his shepherd. I unequivocally submit to Him, yes. And feel nary a bit of shame for it. It is an honor. If and when your more violent proteges eventually come for me and haul me to the stake someday you can bet your sweet li’l evolved ass I will spit in their eye as they light their torches. Bring it on, squirt; I’ll show you who’s free.

Oh, you most certainly will. It’s unavoidable.[/quote]
[/quote]

No, you misunderstand. I know you’ve acknowledged the evidential nonsupport of Gen 2:7.

What I have been referring to re: the challenge, as I made clear, is your need to acknowledge that I am to satisfy the evidential standard I asked of you and not some other evidential standard, such as the one you concocted with the word “proof” (a word which doesn’t belong in this discussion, at all) and other illegitimate strictures. This you have not acknowledged at all.

811

Because I am not going to testify before a kangaroo court and I am not going to devote my time and effort to the making of a case that will fall on deaf ears.

812

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
What more sheepish, more sadly slavish thing could be said? You may go on yearning for a master to whom submission is due;

[/quote]

I’m definitely sheepish in the sense that I have decided to follow my Creator as a sheep does indeed follow his shepherd. I unequivocally submit to Him, yes. And feel nary a bit of shame for it. It is an honor. If and when your more violent proteges eventually come for me and haul me to the stake someday you can bet your sweet li’l evolved ass I will spit in their eye as they light their torches. Bring it on, squirt; I’ll show you who’s free.

[/quote]

This bit of the exchange, perhaps, best demonstrates the near-total disconnect involved in an unbeliever trying to understand faith in God. Smh has made similar comments to me in the past. Submission to the creator of everything is far different than submission to one’s equal.(Of course, I don’t believe that statists believe they are submitting to anything…I am almost certain that each believes everyone else is submitting to him…but that is another conversation altogether.)

Everyone has faith in a god. It’s just that one may believe himself to be that god, another may believe other humans to be that god, and another may believe that God is greater than this world.

Evolution is the rational explanation of the world for one who believes that some are more equal than others. Creation is the rational explanation of the world for one who believes in equality. Evolution claims that we are just animals, no more different from other species than any other. Creation demands that we not be animals.

815

[quote]pushharder wrote:
When your fervent do come…because I teach a Creator to my grandchildren…warn them I will cheerfully confess Him before their tribunal…

…after I take a few of 'em out.

;-)[/quote]

I can see that you shoot better than you draw.

816

Pun intended.

817

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
By what process do bacteria become resistant to antibiotics? Anyone know how the process works?[/quote]

No? Okay. Antibiotics kill off the vast majority of bacteria leaving alive only those that have(through random mutations) that have genetic resistance. This small group of survivors then replicate themselves as a new antibiotic resistant strain. This process is essentially…“natural selection”.[/quote]

I responded to your post on the last page.

Your tangent here is a…silly one…and illustrates your ignorance of the creation model.

Of all people here I expected more from you.
[/quote]

Tsk tsk. Have I been silly?

Microevolution demonstrates the process of natural selection that is played out on a larger scale(macroevolution). To accept microevolution is to accept the process by which organisms adapt to environmental changes.
[/quote]

Wrong. Microevolution describes changes to existing functions. Macroevolution describes organisms acquiring completely new functions. One has been observed. One has not.
[/quote]

Functions? What do you mean by functions?

By the way, this is a quote from a creationist apologetics site:

“Macro-evolution: Refers to large scale changes - where one species transforms into another completely different species. For example, birds are said to have evolved from dinosaurs. This process requires the addition of new information to the genetic codes.”

^^This is not correct. Birds did not “acquire new genetic material”. Existing genetic material underwent random mutations which were then selectively preserved. Over millions of years this process of selectively preserving mutations produces radically different organisms(speciation). Furthermore, the original genes are largely preserved and can be “switched on” again as demonstrated in the experiments with chicken embryos.

[/quote]

Gills to lungs. Fins to limbs. Membrane to skin. Skin to scales. Scales to hair. Hair to feathers. Limbs to wings. Hooves to feet. Etc. There would have been millions upon millions of organisms in the middle of these transitions. Many have claimed these transitions exist. Where are the fossils with one limb and one wing? One lung and gills? Two hooves or claws and two feet? Half scales and half feathers? Half scales and half skin? Billions and billions of fossils have been found. Show me links to pictures of these types of fossils?

[/quote]

Um…you do realise that human embryos have gills right? And that they have tails? Did you know that?[/quote]

Pharyngeal arches are to gills what streetlamps are to stars.

818

How so? Besides not functioning as gills, how are they so vastly different? What do they suggest? Why are they there?

819

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

How so? Besides not functioning as gills, how are they so vastly different? What do they suggest? Why are they there?[/quote]

Haeckel’s drawings of “gill slits” in a human embryo was a fraud that continues to be perpetrated.

“[H]uman embryos do not really have gills or gill slits: like all vertebrate embryos at one stage in their development, they possess a series of ‘pharyngeal pouches,’ or tiny ridges in the neck region. In fish embryos these actually go on to form gills, but in other vertebrates they develop into unrelated structures such as the inner ear and parathyroid gland. The embryos of reptiles, birds and mammals never possess gills.” Jonathan Wells, “Haeckel’s Embryos & Evolution: Setting the Record Straight,” The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 61(5):345-349 (May, 1999)

820

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

How so? Besides not functioning as gills, how are they so vastly different? What do they suggest? Why are they there?[/quote]

Haeckel’s drawings of “gill slits” in a human embryo was a fraud that continues to be perpetrated.

“[H]uman embryos do not really have gills or gill slits: like all vertebrate embryos at one stage in their development, they possess a series of ‘pharyngeal pouches,’ or tiny ridges in the neck region. In fish embryos these actually go on to form gills, but in other vertebrates they develop into unrelated structures such as the inner ear and parathyroid gland. The embryos of reptiles, birds and mammals never possess gills.” Jonathan Wells, “Haeckel’s Embryos & Evolution: Setting the Record Straight,” The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 61(5):345-349 (May, 1999)

[/quote]

^^That guy(Jonathan Wells) is a member of the Unification Church(batshit Korean cult). But I asked some specific questions. I didn’t ask for a quote from a Moonie. No one is saying pharyngeal arches go on to become functioning gills. I was asking what they are. Why are they there? What do they suggest?