Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,641 Year: 4,898/9,624 Month: 246/427 Week: 56/103 Day: 14/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Great Debate Challenge to DarkStar
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1429 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 6 of 15 (161361)
11-19-2004 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by DarkStar
11-18-2004 10:50 PM


Re: Opinion formed in advance of adequate knowledge or experience.
While we are able to see microevolutionary changes within a single lifetime, visual observance of macroevolutionary changes is not possible.
that's nice. what's microevolution? what's macroevolution?
i make no distinctions, personally. evolution is evolution and i see no glass ceiling preventing changes from compiling. but since you do, please define spefically what you are looking for. where is the line between the two kinds of evolution?
this question must be addressed, and it must be addressed first, before we get to what mechanism would stop further change, or what reason changes would not compile.
I have seen nothing to date that would convince me that macroevolution is not a myth. One analogy that I can give would be the christian myth of noah's ark. Were we to actually find this ark, this would still not be concrete evidence of the story as told in the blble. We may have the visual evidence that the ark actually existed but this would not be enough to confirm the biblical account of noah and the ark beyond any and all reasonable doubt.
if we had a nice steele on the site of a giant boat exactly matching the descriptions in genesis that said "here i, noah, sacrificed to the LORD god in thanks for saving my butt from a big flood that killed everything else." it might help. or if the other people who were alive at the time actually had died off.
evidence is not proof of textual correctness. in bible class, we looked a babylonian inscription once that heralded the victories of a king over a league of foriegn nations, including israel. but the inscriptions start going backwards, and the "victories" start become less and less magnificent. even though the record itself SAYS this king won all these battles, the inscriptions SHOW that he did not. it's like if 2000 years from now, archaeologists would find a bunch of magazines that say "america is doing great in iraq!"
Would their belief, their willingness to suffer what they suffered be enough to convince you of the reality of their god? I doubt it, but they believed and were willing to die proclaiming that belief.
well, it took about 200 years before they convinced one very powerful roman, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Somehow I doubt any that macroevolutionist will ever have that level of commitment to their own beliefs. I am quite sure that they would be willing to deny their belief in macroevolution and do it in a New York minute. There is a drastic difference between someone who simply accepts something and someone who not only believes but is willing to remain faithful to that belief even under penalty of torture and death.
evolution is not a religion. it's not a die-hard conviction. it's not a belief. and if they don't have that level of commitment, it's because they know that further tests could yield new data, and modify the theory. overturning is very unlikely, as it has FAR too much data supporting it. but as i said, if you can show that some mechanism exists that keeps 1+1 from equalling 2, then you're all set.
even if intelligent design is true, it does not disprove evolution. the existance of a concious hand in our creation does not stop evolution from happening and modifying that creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by DarkStar, posted 11-18-2004 10:50 PM DarkStar has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1429 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 7 of 15 (161365)
11-19-2004 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by DarkStar
11-18-2004 10:50 PM


Re: Opinion formed in advance of adequate knowledge or experience.
(from the earlier post)
While on the surface this may seem as though it would be a good idea, the reality is that evo's must rely on a limited number of fossils to prop up their belief in macroevolution. They love to refer to these fossils as transitionals but, truth be told, these are hollow arguments when one considers the vast number of fossils that would have to be present, both before and after said transitional, in order to show any semblance of true macroevolutionary evidence.
Creo's will use these same fossils, and the enormous lack of continual transitionals both before and after, to support their beliefs in creation while claiming that said fossils merely depict species which have long since gone extinct.
we "evos" like to point out archaeopteryx. it's a nice dinosaur. or maybe it's a nice bird. i still haven't gotten a consensus back from the creos. but we've got a half a dozen well preserved examples of it.
what's more fun is that not only can you find refutations that it's just a dinosaur, or just a bird, but you can find similar creationist refutation of the dozen or so OTHER species of avian dinosaurs.
yeah, there's a few prime examples that everybody has heard of, espcially archaeopteryx. but the fact that we have a whole array of things somewhere between birds and dinosaurs, each one different in the ratio of bird features to dinosaurs... we'll that should say something.
like "you can't just pretend that transitional fossils don't exist, or that we don't have a good record of lots of them."
at what point do a bunch of dots become a line? or in the case of evolution, a tree? how many examples do you need to connect the dots? it's not hard for me to imagine the creationist response if we had one example of each species from every generation that clearly showed a change: they were all just created that way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by DarkStar, posted 11-18-2004 10:50 PM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by DarkStar, posted 11-19-2004 2:02 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024