Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
Yes, because we can conduct experiments to prove its existence. You can't do that for God.Oxygen has many of the same properties of God, you cant smell it, touch it, taste it or hear it, but does that mean it is not there? Of course it is there.
Which is evolution. Not macro- or micro-, just plain old evolution.one is how plants and animals change to fit a situation or circumstance
That's called magicone is how a rock evolves into a rose.
.
Remove the oxygen from a room and you will die of suffocation. The same cannot be said for God.The Computer Wizard wrote:
Oxygen has many of the same properties of God, you cant smell it, touch it, taste it or hear it, but does that mean it is not there? Of course it is there.
Typical creationist nonsense. It's up to you to prove that your magic sky pixie exists. Not up to me to disprove him. Unless you'd care to disprove the existence of my invisible purple unicorn and the flying spaghetti monster that says your God is false and a bedwetter.The only way that you can know that there is no God is to know everything about everything, which would *make* you omnipotent, and if you know everything, then that would make you God.
I suggest going back to biology 101.Macro Evolution
Micro Evolution
Look these terms up in your dictionary, one is how plants and animals change to fit a situation or circumstance, and one is how a rock evolves into a rose.
I think the problem is they want their cake and eat it too. On one hand they want to logically prove the existence of God and then turn around and say that God isn't bound by logic. Somehow, they miss the contradiction in that.Surlethe wrote:Speaking of substitution "the universe" for "God", all of the formal logic proofs of "God", like, say, Godel's ontological argument, rely on defining God so loosely that even if you accept their premises you'll only end up proving the necessary existence of the universe or the consistency of logic.
What the hell do you think your lungs are running off of right now. Magic?Oxygen has many of the same properties of God, you cant smell it, touch it, taste it or hear it, but does that mean it is not there? Of course it is there.
Absense of evidence is evidence of absense. Wrap your head around that one, if you can.The only way that you can know that there is no God is to know everything about everything, which would *make* you omnipotent, and if you know everything, then that would make you God.
Right, now would like to show us this evidence for his existence? But, oh noes, you don't need it right? But you do? But you don't? Hmm?Lianardo Da'Vinci once was quoted as saying, "In the absense of evidence of any other sort [the Bible and general nature] my thumb alone would convince me of a creator.
I take it you haven't been to school in your entire life.Macro Evolution
Micro Evolution
Look these terms up in your dictionary, one is how plants and animals change to fit a situation or circumstance, and one is how a rock evolves into a rose.
You can demonstrate the existence of Oxygen by chemical reactions. You can even measure the mass of an Oxygen atom and predict how it will interact with other atoms.The Computer Wizard wrote: Oxygen has many of the same properties of God, you cant smell it, touch it, taste it or hear it, but does that mean it is not there? Of course it is there.
The same could be said of Vishnu. Do you believe in Vishnu? If not, why not?The Computer Wizard wrote:The only way that you can know that there is no God is to know everything about everything, which would *make* you omnipotent, and if you know everything, then that would make you God.
Even if Leonardo made such a statement (and I notice you don't identify the source), it wouldn't prove a thing. Anecdotes are not evidence.The Computer Wizard wrote:Lianardo Da'Vinci once was quoted as saying, "In the absense of evidence of any other sort [the Bible and general nature] my thumb alone would convince me of a creator.
Scientifically speaking, there is no distinction between "micro evolution" and "macro evolution". The same mechanisms underlie both. The separate terms are inventions of creationists, who like to think there's a magical barrier that stops divergent adaptation within a species from progressing to the point that some portion of the population actually qualifies as a distinct species.The Computer Wizard wrote:Macro Evolution
Micro Evolution
Look these terms up in your dictionary, one is how plants and animals change to fit a situation or circumstance, and one is how a rock evolves into a rose.
Oxygen is detectable in chemical reactions. It's not hard to perform an experiment where you use electrolysis to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, leaving you with pure oxygen. Get it in a test tube and stick a flaming match into the test tube, and the flame will amplify because oxygen is inflammable. So clearly there is an element which is part of water, is inflammable, is different from simple air, and is a gas at room temperature. We call it oxygen.The Computer Wizard wrote:Oxygen has many of the same properties of God, you cant smell it, touch it, taste it or hear it, but does that mean it is not there? Of course it is there.
Do we need to know everything to know that there are no unicorns too? How about other gods? Must I be omniscient to say that there is no such god as Zeus?The only way that you can know that there is no God is to know everything about everything, which would *make* you omnipotent, and if you know everything, then that would make you God.
Appeal to misspelled authority. Da Vinci may have been an intelligent guy, but he didn't know a damn thing about evolution, which provides a much better explanation of biological complexity than creationism.Lianardo Da'Vinci once was quoted as saying, "In the absense of evidence of any other sort [the Bible and general nature] my thumb alone would convince me of a creator.
Leaving aside the ludicrous idea that a rock evolves into a rose, macroevolution and microevolution are really the same thing. Macroevolution is nothing more or less than many generations of cumulative microevolution.Macro Evolution
Micro Evolution
Look these terms up in your dictionary, one is how plants and animals change to fit a situation or circumstance, and one is how a rock evolves into a rose.
You can't smell ozone? You you sure about that?Oxygen has many of the same properties of God, you cant smell it,
Your touching it right now you moron, your lungs are especially touching it because otherwise you would be dead.touch it,
Sugar contains oxygen, you can sure as hell taste that.taste it
I suspect we could all hear the wind whistling through the empty space between your ears quite well.or hear it,
You can't prove a negative.but does that mean it is not there? Of course it is there. The only way that you can know that there is no God is to know everything about everything,
Omniscient, not omnipotent.which would *make* you omnipotent, and if you know everything, then that would make you God.
Appeal to authority fallacy.Lianardo Da'Vinci once was quoted as saying, "In the absense of evidence of any other sort [the Bible and general nature] my thumb alone would convince me of a creator.
These are terms made up by creationists in an effort to "Move the Goalposts". And rocks don't evolve into anything...of course you would know this if you have any fucking clue about how evolution works but you don't so you make these idiotic claims...Macro Evolution
Micro Evolution
Look these terms up in your dictionary, one is how plants and animals change to fit a situation or circumstance, and one is how a rock evolves into a rose.
<breathes on hand> Guess what. I just felt oxygen. Looks like you're full of shit.The Computer Wizard wrote:Oxygen has many of the same properties of God, you cant smell it, touch it, taste it or hear it, but does that mean it is not there? Of course it is there.
Beautiful circular logic.The only way that you can know that there is no God is to know everything about everything, which would *make* you omnipotent, and if you know everything, then that would make you God.
Appeal to authority fallacy. Da'vinci was actually wrong about a great many things. His opinion proves nothing.Lianardo Da'Vinci once was quoted as saying, "In the absense of evidence of any other sort [the Bible and general nature] my thumb alone would convince me of a creator.
Bullshit. They are the same thing, just of different scale.Macro Evolution
Micro Evolution
Look these terms up in your dictionary, one is how plants and animals change to fit a situation or circumstance, and one is how a rock evolves into a rose.
Back? That would require he took the class in the first place and its obvious he never set foot in a real biology class.General Zod wrote:I suggest going back to biology 101.
I'll bet you didn't know that the derivative of a differentiable curve is a straight line. This means that when you zoom in really close to the curve, it looks like a straight line. When you zoom out and look at the whole curve, you can tell it's really curvy. This is directly analogous to the "difference" between microevolution and macroevolution, although I suspect the analogy will be lost on you because you probably have no idea what it means to be "differentiable", or to have a "derivative".The Computer Wizard wrote:Macro Evolution
Micro Evolution
Look these terms up in your dictionary, one is how plants and animals change to fit a situation or circumstance, and one is how a rock evolves into a rose.
Don't expect to hear from him again. From the Star Wars>Star Trek thread.vargo wrote:I think The Computer Wizard's mind is melting right about now from the bombardment of responses.
Ether, we will never hear from him again, or he is heading to the closest creationists forum and asking for help.
I so hope he returns, this will be fun.
Typical, really. Posers usually run when people aren't immediately swayed by their "brilliant" arguments.The Computer Wizard wrote:Goodbye, I was hoping to have a good discussion on topics, but I get treated like a bag of dirt. Oh I could not help but notice that fresh posts are far between, and that it seems that the same people are talking in each one of them. Sad. I used to be in a clan of about 100 people for a computer game, and those people not only were a heck of a lot nicer, they posted a lot more. You all can have your re-re-re-re-re-hashed arguments and your rudeness, I am outa here. I was going to take time and research thuroughly to counteract that guy that runs creation-theories, but I wont bother, its just not worth the effort and my time. Feel free to email me, but chances are I will block your email, and delete your email, feel free to respond here, but it will be just to other cronies.
I think the barrage of rebuttals is a testament to the fact that we don't get many creationists these days. On the rare occasion that we do get one, everyone wants to debate him, because it's pretty easy to do.vargo wrote:I think The Computer Wizard's mind is melting right about now from the bombardment of responses.
This is like claiming that one can walk across town but not walk across country. The latter is a much longer slog, but it does happen. "Macro" evolution is just a bunch of "micro" evolution.The Computer Wizard wrote:Macro Evolution
Micro Evolution
Look these terms up in your dictionary, one is how plants and animals change to fit a situation or circumstance, and one is how a rock evolves into a rose.
As Darth Servo pointed out in the Star Wars>Star Trek thread, it's more an indication of just how easy it is to see through his arguments. Several people instantly saw the weaknesses and simultaneously composed posts with very similar rebuttals.Discombobulated wrote:I think the barrage of rebuttals is a testament to the fact that we don't get many creationists these days. On the rare occasion that we do get one, everyone wants to debate him, because it's pretty easy to do.
If you assume he's talking about air, that works. But if you actually take him at his word and assume he's talking about oxygen, it doesn't. You can't deduce the existence of oxygen itself just from the movement of air.Destructionator XIII wrote:I also laughed at the way so many of you guys say you use chemical reactions to prove the existence of air (he said oxygen, but we know it is air he meant). That is valid, of course, but I just wave my hand and feel it. I can even blow something to move it, showing other people that I am not lying about feeling it. So much simpler.
He said "oxygen", so he got proofs of oxygen.Destructionator XIII wrote:I also laughed at the way so many of you guys say you use chemical reactions to prove the existence of air (he said oxygen, but we know it is air he meant). That is valid, of course, but I just wave my hand and feel it. I can even blow something to move it, showing other people that I am not lying about feeling it. So much simpler.
Yeah, that too. Still, I think that if there were a creationist for every evolutionist on the board, fewer people would jump on any one particular post than jumped on this one. Everyone would have his own personal chew toy!Ted C wrote:As Darth Servo pointed out in the Star Wars>Star Trek thread, it's more an indication of just how easy it is to see through his arguments. Several people instantly saw the weaknesses and simultaneously composed posts with very similar rebuttals.Discombobulated wrote:I think the barrage of rebuttals is a testament to the fact that we don't get many creationists these days. On the rare occasion that we do get one, everyone wants to debate him, because it's pretty easy to do.
And what are the implications of this for the "on fire for Jesus" churches?DPDarkPrimus wrote:All these comparisons between oxygen and God make me wonder... is God combustible?
That would explain the burning bush.The Vortex Empire wrote:DPDarkPrimus wrote:All these comparisons between oxygen and God make me wonder... is God combustible?
Good question. Hmm. Well, he supposedly made humans in his own image, and we are combustible, so I would say yes.
