play4fun : Look, you asked for proof of evolution, I gave it to you, you asked for references, I gave them to you, why not just read them rather then question my comprehension of things?
Where is your proof to back that evolution doesnt happen, whether on the microscopic or macroscopic level?
I have given more then enough to back my side without seeing valid reasons about why they are not true.
"All of these studies have their experimentation and observation to support their study. I'm saying that Macroevolution does not have that scientific support"
Read the texts and you should see that there are scientific studies in support of it.
And I'm sure I could find more if I dedicated myself to it, but I dont think that there is any point because you already have your beliefs.

A debate is both sides providing evidence to back their claims, I have done that but the opposite side has done nothing but go "lalala, it isnt true because we say so".
This is hardly a debate. This is turning into the whole "stem cells can not be gotten without killing a baby" nonsense all over again

Oh and before anyone takes a stab at wikipedia again, just so you know, wikipedia works hand in hand with many scientific organisations which check over what is published in their pages.

DarkHyren : True, you gave me references, but you did not give me proof. I'm actually trying to find these books right now to actually look at those proofs. (although it would be better if you would just type it out right here what they are, it would have been much easier)

Right now the burden of proof in this thread is on the evolutionist side, because so far no one has given an example or a topic that would support marcoevolution. If no one give a type of support about macroevolution, then I don't need to suggest why marcoevolution does not happen. Right now, you only tell me to go somewhere and look up something and see what they are saying, without actually knowing what that piece of evidence is. I can change my opinion about macroevolution, but so far, there has not been anything that has been posted as a type of evidence.

Since you really want me to talk about my side of the argument, I'll just write one out. Geeogree has already talked about the rare possibility of beneficial mutations. Most mutations are bad, (which mutations would support a special creation scenario, because mutations require the genetic code in order to happen)

Here's one of my arguments: Evolution has 2 specific theories to describe the process: Gradualism and Punctuated equilibrium. Gradualism is a slow, steady process, that causes the entire species to slowly evolve. Punctuated equilibrium is an immediate and sudden change of the entire species to evolve. The picture that Jigsaw showed describes the Gradualism Theory.

Here is the problem with both of these theories in a macroscopic scale.
Gradualism can't work out because the fossil record is against this theory. By the theory, there should be many many in-between fossils to gradually go to the next species. (and we are not talking about microevolutionary characteristics, like color, size, etc).

Punctuated equilibrium is probably better suit for the fossil record. However, mathematically speaking, the odds of an entire specie to suddenly undergo change to turn into another specie way too high. This is why many people see evolution as chance and that is why it is not observed or documented in the macroscopic scale.

Ok, that's one of my arguments. Now hopefully someone can actually write down something that shows how scientific marcoevolution is, and not point towards their high school science teacher or textbook. If you understand it, you can write it out.

(DH, I still will be looking for those books, so when I get them I will respond again)

geeogree : I just actually took notice of your point about taking a science class... and unfortunately for your point, I'm taking a much better one than any public school could provide. My current science curriculum is Christian, but lays out the evidence for and against both theories. Meaning it is a whole lot less biased than public school education, which tends to leave out evidence against the evolutionary theory in their attempt to be "unbiased" .
And none of my information comes from this "Dr. Dino" dude, it actually comes from the very respectable Answers in Genesis, and from fossils I've seen for myself at their Creation Museum (like the fish in the middle of eating).

play4fun : says "If no one give a type of support about macroevolution, then I don't need to suggest why marcoevolution does not happen"
Yeah, you sorta do, absense of proof does not make your arguement instantly right unless you have backing.
As you said "and those who do not believe in the theory of evolution can examine it and see whether these evidences would sway you to the other side, or if you have a rebuttal to that proof".
A valid rebuttal needs to have backing I should think, otherwise it's just alot of opinions.

There's 1000's of pages of text all over the net and it wouldnt be fair or acurate for me to just paste bits and peices from science journals as doing that people can take things out of context.
It has happened before, it has happened in this very thread from what I did copy, so of course I'm not going to bother trying.

I can give you link upon link upon link, all you have to do is read them and whatever is mentioned in their respective notes sections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#falsifying
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I should also note that technically you should be doing alot of the arguing about why your theory would be more valid, considering that the established scientific consensus is that creationism has no scientific basis, and this is supposed to be a thread talking about science...

I wasnt going to come back in here dammit, as I said on my profile "I think I'm fed up with the debate section, no matter how much detail I put into a post, people dont want to debate, they just want to say others are wrong without providing any evidence to disprove the things laid out for them"

DarkHyren : "Yeah, you sorta do, absense of proof does not make your arguement instantly right unless you have backing"

However, if there is nothing there to argue against, then I don't need to give a rebuttal. That is why the burden of proof is on your side as of now.

Just to let you know, I gave one of the reasons why I think marcoevolution does not work out in my last post, and you haven't responded to that argument or Geeogree's topic of mutations. You can work on that, and give a rebuttal back.

"I should also note that technically you should be doing alot of the arguing about why your theory would be more valid, considering that the established scientific consensus is that creationism has no scientific basis, and this is supposed to be a thread talking about science..."

See, this is interesting, because there are scientists in respective positions in academia who are in support of intelligent design (ok, intelligent design and creationism are different, but both of them believe that the universe is designed by an intelligent being). However, whenever they suggest even a hint of intelligent design in their research or reports, the institutions immediately shut them down without reason, throwing their careers in academics in the drain. The rest of those who think intelligent design is correct were forced to be silent because they were afraid of losing their jobs. Have you seen the documentary, Expelled? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj8xyMsbkO4&feature=PlayList&p=6A0AB470DF81906C&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=29

Two more things about that:
1. I create this thread with the purpose of seeing whether evolutionists actually think about what persuaded them to support this side.
2. Creationism does include some supernatural work in it, and if you are not open-minded to at least listen to the claims, no matter how I explain the science behind it, you would still reject it without even putting a thought to it. My claim is that when looking at the world, your common sense won't see that this complex universe came to being by accident.

If you really really want me to start posting my side, at least respond to my arguments against marcoevolution from my last post, and then I will talk about my viewpoint.

"I think I'm fed up with the debate section, no matter how much detail I put into a post, people dont want to debate, they just want to say others are wrong without providing any evidence to disprove the things laid out for them"

Ok...I'm going to explain this again. I want people to tell me what convinced them that marcoevolution is scientifically proven. The way you are doing it is supporting what I was perceiving about those who follow evolution, is that they do not really look into the claims and really understand, but they are persuaded by people who raise a banner that says "scientific" on top of the theory. We should be critical thinkers and look at how and why this would be true, and not say that it is true because you have been taught in school. Critically think to yourself, "what one point made the great influence on convincing me to say that evolution is a scientific fact?"

play4fun : How did he not respond to your previous post? you wanted to find somewhere that had proof, and he gave u a big list of links. Plus just the idea that everything is the same as it was in the beginning of time is ridiculous. There are too many animal fossils and reasons why they would adapt to survive.If you were to actually READ the links he gave you you might see how much thought he has put into gathering evidence.

metal572 : "How did he not respond to your previous post?" I gave an argument on Gradualism and punctuated equilibrium, and he did not respond to it.

"If you were to actually READ the links he gave you you might see how much thought he has put into gathering evidence."

I will read them, but just because someone just list out links does not mean that he actually read it and really look into what this person actually wrote.

When I ask people to post evidence, I was expecting a concrete topic with a reason on why this reasoning/experimentation/evidence would convince him. For example, I was expecting someone to say that because the bone structures in birds and dinosaurs are similar to each other, or like because of the findings of piltdown man or neanderthal man. Imagine me asking you this question face to face, with no internet near you. You are not going to tell me to go look it up somewhere in a textbook or the internet. If you are truly convinced that marcoevolution is true, you can talk about what convinced you, and would be able to discuss about the topic.

play4fun : yeah and if i just TOLD you why it was true you could just say i am lying. but if i had a book and showed you pictures and proof, you would be less likely to say tht.
EDIT: and actually if i felt u weren't listening or i wasn't explaining it well, i would give u names of books and websites to check out.

metal572 : Well when you debate someone, you should put his word at face value. Expect the person to say what he or she believes. That is what debating is: You are trying to convince the other side by using what you know and your reasoning about the topic. I doubt calling someone a liar when debating is the best way to win over the other side on a debate, unless there really is a reason that someone is trying to lie in order to convince you.

It is true that if you think you are not explaining well, you can refer to a source, but the fact that you TRIED EXPLAINING it means that you have some knowledge about the topic, and that you actually looked into the topic that it convinced you.

I dont know what to do here, as I said I'm tired of trying to show things to people that wont even look at them, and I want to just give up cause it seems like alot of the time geeogree and myself are the only open minded people here.
But no matter what I do I'll be labeled as "wrong".
I continue to put down my arguements, "he's only arguing cause he's wrong but wont admit it".
I quit, "he wont respond because he knows he's wrong".
I really should leave this section, or at least this thread, but I suppose I care too much about trying to educate ignorant people
So this might be my last post here... In this section.

"See, this is interesting, because there are scientists in respective positions in academia who are in support of intelligent design"
The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Sounds like those that support intelligent design are in a minority, no matter how "respective" they might be.
And yes, I will keep using wikipedia for quotes as it is an acurate source with a notes section that people just need to check.

"However, whenever they suggest even a hint of intelligent design in their research or reports, the institutions immediately shut them down without reason, throwing their careers in academics in the drain"
Yeah, ever think that's cause their research is wrong rather then just asuming that they are being silenced for their beliefs.
I doubt very much that any established institution just shuts them down "without reason".

"Creationism does include some supernatural work in it"
Only some? I find that hard to believe considering that it's main backing is that a supernatural being is responsible for everything.
"and if you are not open-minded to at least listen to the claims"
I listen, but I have never been shown solid proof that supports Young Earth creationism or even standard creationism.
"no matter how I explain the science behind it"
Well we have been over that, established scientific consensus is that creationism has no scientific basis.
"you would still reject it without even putting a thought to it"
Good thing I did put thought into it and look into things then, rather then just being like alot of people and saying "lalala, it doesnt meet my ideas so it is wrong".
I at least provided links and documentation to read rather then just spouting on with nonsense "facts" pulled from thin air like some posters do.

"Critically think to yourself, "what one point made the great influence on convincing me to say that evolution is a scientific fact?""
That the explaination, theory, experiments and arguements are more believeable then "a wizard did it" could be a start

"If you really really want me to start posting my side, at least respond to my arguments against macroevolution from my last post"
Why, what's the point when people wont respond to the things I pointed to first?
And how do I know that those arguements were not just made up, I was given no references.

"Gradualism can't work out because the fossil record is against this theory.
By the theory, there should be many many in-between fossils to gradually go to the next species"
Just because you havnt found them or say they dont exist doesnt mean they didnt exist. That's as good an answer as I'm going to give at this point in the thread.

"Punctuated equilibrium is probably better suit for the fossil record.
However, mathematically speaking, the odds of an entire specie to suddenly undergo change to turn into another specie way too high"
Not mathematically higher then a magical being popping into existance that happens to look like us and going "oh look, I suddenly started existing, lets make a universe" IU would gather.

"I will read them, but just because someone just list out links does not mean that he actually read it and really look into what this person actually wrote"
Thanks, despite the fact that if you have read my posts before you would know that I do actually read things, but whatever, I'm just an idiot that pulls facts out of my ass...
Oh wait, that's nearly everyone else that posts here...

metal says "yeah and if i just TOLD you why it was true you could just say i am lying"
And that's exactly why I gave a few clipped bits and said "read it yourself", because we are on the internet and I'd would rather have people read the source info rather then give a second hand account of things (and commit MAJOR plagerism).

All this thread feels like is "do you believe in evolution? well everything you say is wrong".
In other words, no matter what I say it feels like I'm just being called an idiot, even though I am posting good material.
So yeah, now I'll respond the same way it feels like I have been responded to.

DarkHyren : Ok there are some serious miscommunication in this thread, so hear me out.

If you read back in my posts, NOWHERE did I have the attitude, motive, or expression that "You can give me proof, but no matter what, you are still wrong, and you are an idiot." I never said anything like "Oh you believe in evolution, well whatever you say is wrong"

My purpose in this thread is for people to tell me what convinced them that marcoevolution is right, so I am asking people to talk about something specific that really get them saying "Ok, THIS hits the spot. This is the one that I am banking on to trust in the theory of marcoevolution". To mention about an observation, a finding, and then talk about that specific observation, finding, how it would serve as a support, how it may have problems, and how the process is.

Yes, you have given me the wikipedia article which has links and notes on the bottom, but do you expect me to read all of those and respond to all of those. Some of the references, I need to actually own it, or have access to it in order to read it. If you read it, just summarize it for us, and then leave the reference there so that people can look at it when they want to look further.

So my suggestion is talk about the proofs, models and stuff like that from the reference, and then link the reference on the post, so that 1. People would know the idea of what the reference is talking about, 2. If they are interested, they can look into the link. 3. There would be an active discussion instead of a continuous bombardment of posting links and references.

"Hey, I got this reference that would support this."
"Well I got this reference to refute your reference."
"Oh you post that reference? This reference actually talked about your reference and discuss the problems about your reference"
"..."

Now that would be silly.

Here is my problem with marcoevolution. The process demands that things came to being is due to accidents and chances. And when I look at everything in this universe, the complexity is too great to make it look as if everything came by accident. And the designs of them have purpose. Think of our earth, there are so many factors that would have caused earth to be inhabitable. The earth must be at the right distance from the sun, it has to be an oxygen nitrogen atmosphere, the earth has to be orbited by a large moon, it has to be a location where large planets can shield space debris, it has to be terrestrial planet, it must have plate tectonics, it has to orbit the right kind of star, it has to have a magnetic field, etc. And the list goes on. The slightest change, (and I mean VERY SLIGHT) would cause the earth to be inhabitable. Here is clip from "The Privileged Planet" that talks about this very thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQQm_H7Eo8A

Few more things:
1. How can you get kicked out or even prevent tenure to the professor when they make 1 mention of a report that was wrong? Normally something must be very scandalous to cause someone to get kicked out. Even when someone who is NOT a creationist or an intelligent design support, would somehow get kicked out just by mentioning intelligent design. That is why there are scientist who openly say that they are keeping their mouths shut in the institution about supporting intelligent design: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj8xyMsbkO4

2. The odds that I was talking about punctuated equilibrium is just stating that with these impossible odds and yet we still achieve those odds should let us wonder about a creator that does it all.

3. Do not put creationism and intelligent design together. They are similar, but not the same.

P.S.: I tend to trust that people who post stuff on forums do so not to deceive people, but to really express what their beliefs are and the backings would actually be real. To me, those who lie about it or make something up when posting would end up contradicting themselves, or have no basis of backup or references. So, I don't worry much about people posting without references, because if I hear something that did not sound right, I would do a little research on it anyways.

"Do not put creationism and intelligent design together."

Although I think I have an idea of how these are different.... mind explaining the big differences because in my mind they're not different enough to make a big deal out of them.... but apparently you think they are different enough to make a distinction.

yea u are not supposed to do that

dogll23 : you are not supposed to do what?

preemptive closing of thread.

It's gone on for long enough.