|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Even Younger Earth Creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Randman is sure that his definition of evolution has never been observed. Note how he lumps all of "bacteria" into a single "form." Rand(straw?)man is yet another of the misguided Creationists
So is de Grasse just a misguided creationists? LOL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 7.7 |
By that definition, creationists are evolutionists. That is the definition, randman. It always has been. Look it up sometime.
quote: Relevant portion in bold. Please don't try to pretend you've never been told this, randman.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
One more comment: you don't seem to be aware that posting the definition is not a legitimate response. As I stated before, creationists are evolutionists under that definition.
Perhaps expressing things a different way can help you get your mind around the issue. The existence of evolution (under this definition) does not make the Theory of Evolution true. They are 2 different things. Merely calling the The Theory of Evolution "evolution" does not make it so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4143 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
Huh?
How does the existence of evolution as described by the theory of evolution not make the TOE true? Macro evolution is merely the aggregate of micro evolution's small steps.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
The introductory post of this thread attempts to raise questions about the nature of scientific inquiry as practiced by creationists. Those who want to discuss the nature of scientific inquiry as practiced by scientists, or the evolution of bacteria, or the definition of evolution, should propose new threads.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
If you don't understand something this simple, ......
First off, it's not something solely described by the theory of evolution. It's just a normal fact described by creationists, IDers, evos and whoever else has any ideas out there. Things reproduce after their own kind but not exact duplicates. I doubt anyone has not known this since the beginning of recorded history. It's certainly not novel to Darwinists. Secondly, just because you use the same word "evolution" to describe heritable change and the theory of evolution does not make them the same thing. Thirdly, there is absolutely no reason to assume microevolution which we know decreases genetic diversity is macroevolution which requires an increase in genetic diversity and massive one at that is microevolution writ large. In other words, despite evos like you insisting otherwise, merely saying something doesn't make it so. Edited by randman, : No reason given. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5827 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
randman writes
quote:But evolution doesn't necessarily involve the increase in genetic variation within a population, though. I don't think you understand the theory of evolution that well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
teen, I understand it fully, but this is a direction admin has stated we cannot debate here. Just keep in mind when you say "evolution", don't equate several different meanings into one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It's curious that evos would cite bacteria evolution as evidence for their theories since the form is remarkably stable. If you wish to have this aspect of the bleedin' obvious explained to you, feel free to start a thread asking for my help, and I'll talk you through it. But please don't mess up my thread with your off-topic piffle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Shield Member (Idle past 2890 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
What do you mean stable?
I would beg to differ. There's a huge variety of bacteria, some work in ways that do not in anyway resemble the others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But evolution doesn't necessarily involve the increase in genetic variation within a population, though. I don't think you understand the theory of evolution that well. True, but no-one can convince him of this fact. This is what makes him such a complete dead loss even as a creationist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
This is not "Take a shot at Randman" day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5060 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
quote: Lynn Margulis, no fan nor supporter of creationism at all, used this particular quote from Darwin to name the phenomenon of "biotic potential" in a lecture I heard this year. She then showed a video of bacteria reproducing and filling up the presentation surface in short order. Bacterial potential is much larger than the elephants'. I would have thought that her discussion and implementation of the process could in no way be used to inform a creationist thought process, especially as I found myself (in the audience) being a "neo-darwinist" 'against' her position but she went on to say... this-that, during one reproduction the potential goes from 0 to infinity. The issue is, is how the population is to be plyed in space and time. Her notion of it fit in with Darwin’s use of the word “check”, so it really does seem that the evolutionist’s idea and use of biotic potential could actually be used by a creationist if the infinity were made into a continuous motion on the discrete (finite) changing Earth. No creationist has spelled this out, to my knowledge and thus the use of this quote in the series in the OP is more of stop gap rather than a fully functioning finis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4143 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
I'm wondering if you even understand evolution after that post.
quote: See my line above.
quote: We 'know' microevolution decreases diversity? Since when? Are you making that up? Answers in Genesis perhaps? Since when did Microevolution decrease diversity? Until you prove that micro decreases, you have no case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
* Omphalos Confirmed By Science
I eat at least 2lb of food per day. I weight ~ 150lb. Hence I can't be more than 75 days old. The whole amonsterist myth of people "being born" and "growing up" is exploded by this obvious SCIENTIFIC FACT, which clearly supports the Omphalos theory described in the OP.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024