|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
Please demonstrate how this is not contradictory, otherwise, its obvious that we are justified in rejecting your conclusion:
You'll notice a direct contradiction afterwards, when she says there is a load of evidence that life sprang from a single cell in the next sentence after she mentions its speculation. I think if you actually read what you quoted you will see that there is no contradiction quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Evolution doesn't even have anything to say at this point about how the very first single-celled organisms came into being. There isn't any evidence one way or another, so until there is, it's all speculative -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and then lo and behold there is evidence for the 1st claim being true! No speculation at all! quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- However there's loads of evidence that from the first few types of single-celled organisms to come about, all other life later sprang. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not to mention, the how is answered in the 2nd claim as well! So Evolution has begun to explain the how (life sprang from the first few types of single-celled organisms) from the 1st claim. Thats also contradictory. So Abiogenesis would be both a part of Evolution and not a part of Evolution at the same time in the same sense, right guys? Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given. Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Please demonstrate how this is not contradictory Actually, you made the asertion, it is up to you to demonstrate that it IS contradictory. But I really do think you need to read what was written a little more slowly and carefully - perhaps a few less posts and little more thought? Breaking it down piece-by-piece would probably be an insult to your intelligence, so I'll just leave it to you for now. If you still feel that there is a contradiction, let me know and I'll walk you through it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
BTW, another hint - quote boxes are for "quoting" surprise surprise Your own text does not belong in a quote box. Your posts are becoming seriously confusing to read...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vampcat. Junior Member (Idle past 5321 days) Posts: 2 Joined: |
okay people... evolution is not bad science. it was Darwins way of making the creation story more easier to understand. if you really think about it, God had to be involved in both because i don't see how anything could have evolved by its self...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vampcat. Junior Member (Idle past 5321 days) Posts: 2 Joined: |
okay people... evolution is not bad science. it was Darwins way of making the creation story more easier to understand. if you really think about it, God had to be involved in both because i don't see how anything could have evolved by its self...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
okay people... evolution is not bad science. it was Darwins way of making the creation story more easier to understand. if you really think about it, God had to be involved in both because i don't see how anything could have evolved by its self... Define "involved" and "by itself". Are you happy with, for example, the proposition that rain falls by itself? Would you say that God was involved or not involved in the process? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 822 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. And, no, Darwin was not elaborting on biblical creation. He was defining evolution through common descent, not: *poof*, there's some people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Oliver Junior Member (Idle past 5180 days) Posts: 16 From: Cape Town, South Africa Joined: |
Macro-Evolution is bad Science due to the fact that it doesn't hold up to the the definition of Science very well. Macro-Evolution is based on inference, guess work and huge leaps of faith in order to arrive at mans desired outcome.
On the other hand, Micro-Evolution is what we observe throughout history, merely adaptations of an organism or creature to suit it's environment or habitat. Micro-Evolution is Scientific, logical, definite and relevant in the subject of Science. Edited by Oliver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Hi Oliver,
It doesn't seem a big leap of faith, or even a small one, to think that small changes can accumulate over time into large ones. If a man can walk across the street then it doesn't seem terribly amazing that he could also, given time, walk across the country. What do you see as the limiting factors to accumulated change? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rockondon Member (Idle past 4946 days) Posts: 40 Joined: |
Macro-Evolution is bad Science due to the fact that it doesn't hold up to the the definition of Science very well. Macro-Evolution is based on inference, guess work and huge leaps of faith in order to arrive at mans desired outcome. Macroevolution and microevolution are the same thing. Macro is just more of it.On the other hand, Micro-Evolution is what we observe throughout history, merely adaptations of an organism or creature to suit it's environment or habitat. Micro-Evolution is Scientific, logical, definite and relevant in the subject of Science. When someone accepts microevolution but not macroevolution, its like saying its possible that someone can clap their hands once but its impossible to clap them 100 times. A reasonable person would accept that microevolutionary changes would add up over time. Perhaps creationists thinks that God steps in and says "whoa whoa whoa...all you microevolvers gotta stop that right now before you create a new species!" If God gave us the tools for curiosity and critical thought, I think He would be disgusted at people who deny using these tools in favor of some man-made book filled with lies, contradictions, and absurdities - a book that portrays him as a pro-slavery, vindictive monster. God would surely hold in higher esteem those who endeavor to understand His creation over those who constantly lie to themselves and others in order to avoid that understanding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Macro-Evolution is based on inference, guess work and huge leaps of faith in order to arrive at mans desired outcome. Could you give us specific examples of "guess work and huge leaps of faith"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4950 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
from what i've read, macroevolution rests on 3 'main' assumptions
The first is that mutations are the starting block in the evolution of new species. The 2nd is that natural selection leads to the production of new species. and the 3rd is that the fossil record demonstrates these macroevolutionary changes in plants and animals. Before i go on, does this sound correct?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
from what i've read, macroevolution rests on 3 'main' assumptions The first is that mutations are the starting block in the evolution of new species. I would define mutation as the source of new variation.
The 2nd is that natural selection leads to the production of new species. This part gets a bit messy. There are two types of speciation we need to look at. First is temporal, that is change over time in a single lineage. The second is divergence where two lineages split and accumulate different changes over time resulting in different species in modern times. Let's use languages as an analogy. The Romance Languages (e.g. French, Italian, Spanish) have "evolved" over time from Latin. If we look at just French we can track the changes from Latin to French over time. We can also look at how French has diverged from Italian resulting in two modern language groups that are unable to understand each other, language species if you will. So macroevolution is the accumulation of microevolutionary changes with the added mechanism of divergence, the production of two lineages that move away from each other over time.
and the 3rd is that the fossil record demonstrates these macroevolutionary changes in plants and animals. This gives us the temporal sequence of changes. However, genetics offers a rich resource for looking at how lineages diverge. For example, we can compare the genomes of humans, chimps, and gorillas. In doing so we can determine what the genome of the common ancestor looked like and the specific DNA changes that occurred in each lineage. Genetics is a much more powerful tool for looking at macroevolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Before i go on, does this sound correct? No. Mainly because you apparently have no idea what "assumption" means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Mainly because you apparently have no idea what "assumption" means.
To a creationist, all assumptions used by science are automatically false if they disagree with revelation, scripture and the like. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024