Evolution and Religion

[Anonymouse]

[QUOTE=loseyourname] Microevolution adds up to macroevolution. QUOTE]

That is what I have said all along you goof, but I have said that evolutionists believe that the changes on a micro level lead to changes on a macro level. Eventually it is believed to be an amalgamation. Either way, it is a belief, quite simply put, and a very powerful might I add. Now I don't want to again go into why this theory is not scientific since it cannot be tested or repeated.

[loseyourname]

Funny how it's only the non-scientists that complain about evolution not being scientific. Yet they say nothing about quantum theory or atomic theory or gravitational theory.

[Anonymouse]

Evolution is unfalsifiable and I've explained this a thousand times. Creationism is unfalsifiable as well. Any theory that answers everything and anything, also answers nothing. Stop being obtuse.

[loseyourname]

You haven't explained how evolution is unfalsifiable. If you believed that to be the case, why would you be posting all this evidence that you think falsifies it?

[Anonymouse]

I don't need to explain it, your desperate defense of fetishizing evolution has constantly affirmed it.

[loseyourname]

Desperate? You're the one that lied about speciation never having been observed, only to backpedal and downplay it once it was shown that is had been. You also lied about hemoglobin and chlorophyll being nearly identical molecules. Chlorophyll isn't even a protein. It's built from methyl groups, not amino acids.

If you're going to make a claim, back it up. How is evolution not falsifiable?

[Anonymouse]

Desperate? You're the one that lied about speciation never having been observed, only to backpedal and downplay it once it was shown that is had been. You also lied about hemoglobin and chlorophyll being nearly identical molecules. Chlorophyll isn't even a protein. It's built from methyl groups, not amino acids.

If you're going to make a claim, back it up. How is evolution not falsifiable?

Where did I lie exactly loser? Who is misquoting who out of context to appear on the moral high ground? I said no changes on macro level have been observed. You just can't stomach that evolution has been shot down, and you have to fiddle with trivial semantics about misquoting me on chlorophyll or speciation, or what not.

[loseyourname]

Okay, let's do a little tally here.

Anonymouse: " Evolution maintains the universe began naturally, as opposed to supernaturally. Creation begins with the premise of God, the other with premise that there is no God."

There's one lie. Evolution has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of God, nor does it have anything to say about where life came from initially.

Anonymouse: "Chlorophyll in plants and human hemoglobin differ in chemical makeup by one molecule. The difference being one magnesium molecule exchanged for one iron molecule."

These are your exact words regarding chlorophyll and hemoglobin. Obviously this isn't true, and I even posted pictures of both molecules so you could see this.

Anonymouse: " The hemoglobin between humans and fish vary, and can anyone for once think that if that were change for either species they would function normally?"

This is just idiotic obstinance, displayed after I had explained how changing a given amino acid only has a 3 in 20 chance of altering the function. Anyone with a very basic knowledge of biochemistry can tell you that.

Anonymouse: " Furthermore the statement you quoted about change was actually referring to amino acids and change regarding them, not hemoglobin, so get your criticisms straight."

I'm not even sure what your point was with this, given that our discussion was about the amino acid sequence within a hemoglobin molecule.

Anonymouse: "It still begs the question of why each organism is geared to that specific number of hemoglobins."

Another fallacy. All organisms have one type of hemoglobin composed of four subunits. The number does not vary.

That's five flat-out lies at least. I challenge you to find even one instance where I have lied in this thread.

[Anonymouse]

Okay, let's do a little tally here.

Anonymouse: " Evolution maintains the universe began naturally, as opposed to supernaturally. Creation begins with the premise of God, the other with premise that there is no God."

There's one lie. Evolution has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of God, nor does it have anything to say about where life came from initially."

Let's see, that is why it's a naturalistic philosophy, why most evolutionists are atheists, and since they had to come up with an alternative way of how the world is, they came up with the big bang. In other words, evolution is a philosophy, a belief, a metaphyiscal assumption of how we supposedly came to be the way we are. There is no escaping this. I don't see a lie there, other than you inserting the word "lie" to make yourself look valid.

Anonymouse: "Chlorophyll in plants and human hemoglobin differ in chemical makeup by one molecule. The difference being one magnesium molecule exchanged for one iron molecule."

These are your exact words regarding chlorophyll and hemoglobin. Obviously this isn't true, and I even posted pictures of both molecules so you could see this."

I thought you would at least do an honest job of copying and pasting. Why not copy and paste the exact post and page number so we can see. Did you see the article I posted where it contained that information? Once again text manipulation on behalf of loser.

Anonymouse: " The hemoglobin between humans and fish vary, and can anyone for once think that if that were change for either species they would function normally?"

This is just idiotic obstinance, displayed after I had explained how changing a given amino acid only has a 3 in 20 chance of altering the function. Anyone with a very basic knowledge of biochemistry can tell you that.

This doesn't make sense loser. I remember specifically clarifying this point that the author was talking about something totally different, you warped it out of context. Did you bother to read the article when you so often accuse me of it?

Anonymouse: " Furthermore the statement you quoted about change was actually referring to amino acids and change regarding them, not hemoglobin, so get your criticisms straight."

I'm not even sure what your point was with this, given that our discussion was about the amino acid sequence within a hemoglobin molecule.

This is where I clarified the point of the author which you nicely dodged by avoiding it and in turn redirecting it into something totally different to avoid your blunder. So since you saw that I clarified my position you go on to "I don't know your point, but earlier you were talkin about amino acids and hemoglobin" defense.

Anonymouse: "It still begs the question of why each organism is geared to that specific number of hemoglobins."

Another fallacy. All organisms have one type of hemoglobin composed of four subunits. The number does not vary.

You know loser anyone can play with semantics, but believe it or not that is what I was referring to. In order to appear on the high ground I don't manipulate text. Your whole treatise was text manipulation and cherry picking. Do you feel this was anything productive regarding the discussion of evolution, or was this corroborating the thread in General Talk about "Last Word" and getting back at Anonymouse for making me feel inferior?

That's five flat-out lies at least. I challenge you to find even one instance where I have lied in this thread.

This seems like you're desperate to somehow smear me, or take away credibility from me. You have deviated from discussing the actual topic into cherry picking text as a hobby.

Now if you have nothing of actual substance to contribute, you might as well leave the cherry picking text manipulation of having the last word out of the thread. As the thread "Last Word" said, often times the discussion deviates from the original point, which reached its culmination with your silly post.

[Anonymouse]

I bet your busy replying now, point by point.