Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 10:23 PM
24 online now:
dwise1, JonF, Meddle, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Tanypteryx (5 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,681 Year: 3,718/19,786 Month: 713/1,087 Week: 82/221 Day: 36/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
141516
17
1819Next
Author Topic:   Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?
Casey Powell 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 241 of 283 (374419)
01-04-2007 1:56 PM


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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by cavediver, posted 01-04-2007 3:22 PM Casey Powell has not yet responded
 Message 243 by cavediver, posted 01-04-2007 3:45 PM Casey Powell has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1724 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 242 of 283 (374450)
01-04-2007 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Casey Powell
01-04-2007 1:56 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 1:56 PM Casey Powell has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1724 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 243 of 283 (374459)
01-04-2007 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Casey Powell
01-04-2007 1:56 PM


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...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 1:56 PM Casey Powell has not yet responded

  
vampcat.
Junior Member (Idle past 3382 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 09-22-2009


Message 244 of 283 (525299)
09-22-2009 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Loudmouth
04-21-2004 7:57 PM


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...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Loudmouth, posted 04-21-2004 7:57 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

    
vampcat.
Junior Member (Idle past 3382 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 09-22-2009


Message 245 of 283 (525300)
09-22-2009 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Loudmouth
04-21-2004 7:57 PM


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...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Loudmouth, posted 04-21-2004 7:57 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 9:27 PM vampcat. has not yet responded
 Message 247 by hooah212002, posted 09-22-2009 10:52 PM vampcat. has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16087
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 246 of 283 (525308)
09-22-2009 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by vampcat.
09-22-2009 8:46 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by vampcat., posted 09-22-2009 8:46 PM vampcat. has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 247 of 283 (525322)
09-22-2009 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by vampcat.
09-22-2009 8:46 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by vampcat., posted 09-22-2009 8:46 PM vampcat. has not yet responded

    
Oliver
Junior Member (Idle past 3240 days)
Posts: 16
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Joined: 02-04-2007


Message 248 of 283 (546411)
02-10-2010 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Adminnemooseus
04-22-2004 4:48 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-22-2004 4:48 AM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Percy, posted 02-10-2010 4:00 PM Oliver has not yet responded
 Message 250 by rockondon, posted 03-31-2010 10:56 AM Oliver has not yet responded
 Message 251 by Taq, posted 03-31-2010 12:16 PM Oliver has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18313
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 249 of 283 (546414)
02-10-2010 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Oliver
02-10-2010 3:53 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Oliver, posted 02-10-2010 3:53 PM Oliver has not yet responded

    
rockondon
Member (Idle past 3006 days)
Posts: 40
Joined: 03-29-2010


Message 250 of 283 (552832)
03-31-2010 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Oliver
02-10-2010 3:53 PM


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.
Macroevolution and microevolution are the same thing. Macro is just more of it.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Oliver, posted 02-10-2010 3:53 PM Oliver has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 251 of 283 (552842)
03-31-2010 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Oliver
02-10-2010 3:53 PM


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"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Oliver, posted 02-10-2010 3:53 PM Oliver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Peg, posted 04-01-2010 8:39 AM Taq has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3010 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 252 of 283 (553020)
04-01-2010 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Taq
03-31-2010 12:16 PM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Taq, posted 03-31-2010 12:16 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Taq, posted 04-01-2010 11:24 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 254 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-02-2010 3:46 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 257 by RAZD, posted 04-02-2010 8:08 PM Peg has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 253 of 283 (553092)
04-01-2010 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Peg
04-01-2010 8:39 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Peg, posted 04-01-2010 8:39 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16087
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 254 of 283 (553295)
04-02-2010 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Peg
04-01-2010 8:39 AM


Before i go on, does this sound correct?

No. Mainly because you apparently have no idea what "assumption" means.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Peg, posted 04-01-2010 8:39 AM Peg has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Coyote, posted 04-02-2010 5:11 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 187 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 255 of 283 (553303)
04-02-2010 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Dr Adequate
04-02-2010 3:46 PM


Assumptions
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-02-2010 3:46 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-02-2010 8:07 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
141516
17
1819Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019