Author Topic: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)  (Read 9536 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Dogs don't live underwater. Neither do giraffes.

Very true.  I'm glad you paid attention in Kindergarten.

Now, what does this have to do with the first animal life on Earth?

How did we get those kinds of animals from the early "precambrian ecology?" Seems like a big stretch.

We know it "seems" like a big stretch to you, b/c you haven't studied the science and are ignorant of evolutionary biology in general. Please meet the challenge of the OP (part #1).
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-434
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
FYI, reasonable expectations based upon evidence is NOT faith. Faith is believing something when you have no evidence or good reason.

Those "reasonable expectations" are still based on faith though. Since you can't rewind a tape of the universe forming and go back and watch what happened, there is always a chance you could be wrong about how it happened. So it is very much a faith.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Online Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2743
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Those "reasonable expectations" are still based on faith though. Since you can't rewind a tape of the universe forming and go back and watch what happened, there is always a chance you could be wrong about how it happened. So it is very much a faith.

Certainly, we could be wrong about how things started, but trying to figure things out based on the available evidence is far, far better than declaring "magic man done it, lets not think about it anymore".
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-434
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Dogs don't live underwater. Neither do giraffes.

Very true.  I'm glad you paid attention in Kindergarten.

Now, what does this have to do with the first animal life on Earth?

How did we get those kinds of animals from the early "precambrian ecology?" Seems like a big stretch.

We know it "seems" like a big stretch to you, b/c you haven't studied the science and are ignorant of evolutionary biology in general. Please meet the challenge of the OP (part #1).

Evolution is a change in the traits of populations over time.

notice the definition does not say, "Evolution is the process by which species eventually form into brand new species."

Macroevolution is not part of the definition of evolution.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Those "reasonable expectations" are still based on faith though. Since you can't rewind a tape of the universe forming and go back and watch what happened, there is always a chance you could be wrong about how it happened. So it is very much a faith.
Not in the sense that you mean.  It's actually a lot closer to confidence than anything, because it's based on reconstructing the evidence we do have.  No different than a forensic specialist reconstructing a crime from the evidence left at the scene.  Would you call the conclusions of this forensics specialist faith too?

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins

They are still dogs though. That's the point. We accept this already. We know small changes can even form a new species of dog that can't mate with the other dogs.

But the main point is that they are still dogs. This is not empirical evidence of macroevolution.

This comment (as with nearly all of your comments regarding evolution) demonstrates, once again, that you know next to nothing about the science. You do not know how biologists define macroevolution (b/c you have your own simplistically twisted idea of it - which didn't come from scientists) and you are pontificating from a heightened egotistical ignorance (along with confirmation bias). Again, please meet the challenge of the OP by demonstrating that you can actually go do some homework to find out what the science actually states. Maybe start here:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-434
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Certainly, we could be wrong about how things started, but trying to figure things out based on the available evidence is far, far better than declaring "magic man done it, lets not think about it anymore".

That is simply not true. Plenty of the most important discoveries in science were made by Christians.

These people "stopped thinking about it" according to you?

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Online Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2743
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Would you call the conclusions of this forensics specialist faith too?

Given that he thinks "time" is a god of some sort, probably.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Evolution is a change in the traits of populations over time.

notice the definition does not say, "Evolution is the process by which species eventually form into brand new species."

Macroevolution is not part of the definition of evolution.
This is pointless nitpicking.

Or are you going to try to argue that a species diverging into two separate but related species is not a change in the traits of a population over time?

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-434
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Evolution is a change in the traits of populations over time.

notice the definition does not say, "Evolution is the process by which species eventually form into brand new species."

Macroevolution is not part of the definition of evolution.
This is pointless nitpicking.

Or are you going to try to argue that a species diverging into two separate but related species is not a change in the traits of a population over time?

That is evolution! A fruit fly becoming a new species of fruit fly is not macroevolution. Key word is new species of fruit fly!
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3014
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Evolution is a change in the traits of populations over time.

notice the definition does not say, "Evolution is the process by which species eventually form into brand new species."

Macroevolution is not part of the definition of evolution.

Speciation *is* a change in the traits of a population.  Chromosomes occasionally fuse or split, and the resultant population of offspring becomes a new species with a common ancestor but unlike other descendants of that same ancestor.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Online Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2743
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
That is simply not true. Plenty of the most important discoveries in science were made by Christians.

These people "stopped thinking about it" according to you?

I dunno about "these people".

You, on the other hand...
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
FYI, reasonable expectations based upon evidence is NOT faith. Faith is believing something when you have no evidence or good reason.

Those "reasonable expectations" are still based on faith though. Since you can't rewind a tape of the universe forming and go back and watch what happened, there is always a chance you could be wrong about how it happened. So it is very much a faith.

NOPE. Reasonable expectations based upon evidence is NOT faith. Faith is believing without evidence, in spite of evidence, or pretending to know something you don't know. Faith is FIXED, rigid, and held tightly. It is defended in spite of the evidence (like you do with the bible). Science is NOT faith based. When you have demonstrable evidence you do not need faith. Do not try to put science in the same category as your religion. They are nothing alike in the approach to seeking truth. You START with your conclusion and work backwards. That is NOT how science works.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-434
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Those "reasonable expectations" are still based on faith though. Since you can't rewind a tape of the universe forming and go back and watch what happened, there is always a chance you could be wrong about how it happened. So it is very much a faith.
Not in the sense that you mean.  It's actually a lot closer to confidence than anything, because it's based on reconstructing the evidence we do have.  No different than a forensic specialist reconstructing a crime from the evidence left at the scene.  Would you call the conclusions of this forensics specialist faith too?

It's not 100% accurate. Sometimes they can't decide what happened at all. Sometimes they are wrong and an innocent man goes on death row and gets killed before they say "Opps!"
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-434
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
FYI, reasonable expectations based upon evidence is NOT faith. Faith is believing something when you have no evidence or good reason.

Those "reasonable expectations" are still based on faith though. Since you can't rewind a tape of the universe forming and go back and watch what happened, there is always a chance you could be wrong about how it happened. So it is very much a faith.

NOPE. Reasonable expectations based upon evidence is NOT faith. Faith is believing without evidence, in spite of evidence, or pretending to know something you don't know. Faith is FIXED, rigid, and held tightly. It is defended in spite of the evidence (like you do with the bible). Science is NOT faith based. When you have demonstrable evidence you do not need faith. Do not try to put science in the same category as your religion. They are nothing alike in the approach to seeking truth. You START with your conclusion and work backwards. That is NOT how science works.

but at the same time, science is man made and based on nothing but the minds of men. Since men are known to make mistakes a lot, it's ludicrous to put your eggs in the science basket.

is it not possible that a man made system could be completely wrong?
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins

Evolution is a change in the traits of populations over time.

notice the definition does not say, "Evolution is the process by which species eventually form into brand new species."

Macroevolution is not part of the definition of evolution.

You have not completely met the challenge of the OP. Please try again. Do your homework and be thorough! We need details from you here so that we can know that you fully understand the principles of evolutionary explanations. What are the evidences that biologists take seriously when it comes to evolution? Have you researched it? What are the mechanisms that drive evolution to take place? What is speciation, genetic drift, natural selection, and divergence? Please demonstrate that you understand these concepts.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-434
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
I also have never seen Dawkins explain how bones started evolving, how hearts started evolving, and how blood evolved.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Online Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2743
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
but at the same time, science is man made and based on nothing but the minds of men. Since men are known to make mistakes a lot, it's ludicrous to put your eggs in the science basket.

is it not possible that a man made system could be completely wrong?

You say that, but have no problems putting all your eggs in the religion basket, even though that is completely man-made.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-434
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched

Evolution is a change in the traits of populations over time.

notice the definition does not say, "Evolution is the process by which species eventually form into brand new species."

Macroevolution is not part of the definition of evolution.

You have not completely met the challenge of the OP. Please try again. Do your homework and be thorough! We need details from you here so that we can know that you fully understand the principles of evolutionary explanations. What are the evidences that biologists take seriously when it comes to evolution? Have you researched it? What are the mechanisms that drive evolution to take place? What is speciation, genetic drift, natural selection, and divergence? Please demonstrate that you understand these concepts.

Believe me, I have studied it. That is why I am doubting it. Isn't that what you guys say about the Bible? Please don't be hypocritical.

Macro is sort of "lumped in" on the backburner as a diversion. They cite all these microevolution evidences and just slap macroevolution on the caboose when no one's looking.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-434
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
but at the same time, science is man made and based on nothing but the minds of men. Since men are known to make mistakes a lot, it's ludicrous to put your eggs in the science basket.

is it not possible that a man made system could be completely wrong?

You say that, but have no problems putting all your eggs in the religion basket, even though that is completely man-made.

No religion has ever come from the minds of men. Not one.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins

but at the same time, science is man made and based on nothing but the minds of men. Since men are known to make mistakes a lot, it's ludicrous to put your eggs in the science basket.

is it not possible that a man made system could be completely wrong?

Listen to yourself. "Science is man made and based on nothing but..." What is man-made is quite good! Look around you! Your house. Your car. Your computer. All of modern conveniences of which you now benefit (based in science) are MAN-MADE! For you to sound so reductionist as to say science is "just" man made is insulting to everyone who you rely upon to be alive and stay healthy.

More importantly, you are a hypocrite! You put your "faith" in men just the same! If you were in a horrible car accident and broke your back would you refuse the ambulance and just pray?? If someone you loved was dying of a horrible decease would you seek modern medicine or refuse treatment and just get down on your knees until the person died? Get honest with yourself dude. You are in the same boat everyone else is in. It makes no difference that people CAN make mistakes. Just b/c something is POSSIBLE does not mean it is PROBABLE or likely to occur. You have very flawed black/white thinking.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6464
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
but at the same time, science is man made and based on nothing but the minds of men. Since men are known to make mistakes a lot, it's ludicrous to put your eggs in the science basket.

is it not possible that a man made system could be completely wrong?

Ah, ye of too much faith. When you have to denegrate everything in the universe to sort of make your little tiny point, you're probably doing it wrong. In fact I can say for certain that you are.

But you are totally right about one thing. It is indeed possible for a man-made system to be completely wrong. Christianity, for instance.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3014
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
is it not possible that a man made system could be completely wrong?

Completely wrong?  Possible, but fairly unlikely.

Science is interesting because it progresses as new information is discovered.  If a fact is found to be wrong, it becomes part of science's history (e.g. the Ptolemaic model of the cosmos) but is not used in current practice.  In this way, science tends to move towards more accuracy and a better understanding of the physical universe.

Religion eschews this kind of corrective mechanism in favour of tradition, so religions become less wrong by spawning new sects (but the parent sect usually keeps going).  The new sect can even go the other way, towards Even More Wrong Than Its Predecessor.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
That is evolution! A fruit fly becoming a new species of fruit fly is not macroevolution. Key word is new species of fruit fly!
Okay, now look at the implications of that statement.  Think about the future divergences between those two species of fruit flies.  There is nothing in biology or DNA preventing them from becoming quite different after they diverge.

And think about what that says about past divergences.  If they can evolve major differences after they diverge into different species, then what is there to say that the same thing could not have happened in the past?  The same thing could easily have happened to species in the past, after they diverged away from species which were once very similat, but are quite different now.

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-434
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched

but at the same time, science is man made and based on nothing but the minds of men. Since men are known to make mistakes a lot, it's ludicrous to put your eggs in the science basket.

is it not possible that a man made system could be completely wrong?

Listen to yourself. "Science is man made and based on nothing but..." What is man-made is quite good! Look around you! Your house. Your car. Your computer. All of modern conveniences of which you now benefit (based in science) are MAN-MADE! For you to sound so reductionist as to say science is "just" man made is insulting to everyone who you rely upon to be alive and stay healthy.

More importantly, you are a hypocrite! You put your "faith" in men just the same! If you were in a horrible car accident and broke your back would you refuse the ambulance and just pray?? If someone you loved was dying of a horrible decease would you seek modern medicine or refuse treatment and just get down on your knees until the person died? Get honest with yourself dude. You are in the same boat everyone else is in. It makes no difference that people CAN make mistakes. Just b/c something is POSSIBLE does not mean it is PROBABLE or likely to occur. You have very flawed black/white thinking.

Yes, but that is direct science vs indirect science. Computers, cars, tvs, are direct science. We see the proof in front of us.

Indirect science is trying to explain what happened before anyone was around to see anything.

A lot of creationists love science. We just have a problem with indirect science speculating "billions of years ago" as being trumpeted as The Truth.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins

Believe me, I have studied it. That is why I am doubting it. Isn't that what you guys say about the Bible? Please don't be hypocritical.

Macro is sort of "lumped in" on the backburner as a diversion. They cite all these microevolution evidences and just slap macroevolution on the caboose when no one's looking.

"When no ones looking" are f***ing kidding?! You are an outright liar and I'm calling bullshit right now. YOU HAVE NOT studied the science (sorry Wikipedia, Answers in Genesis, and drdino.com don't count). You need to actually study from real scientists teaching and working in the field. Until you do that, you don't have shit in terms of knowledge. Your words overwhelmingly demonstrate that you don't know the science. Stop pretending. You're only hurting yourself. No one else.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2743
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
No religion has ever come from the minds of men. Not one.

Ah.

So Zeus, Apollo, and all the rest of the Greek gods really do exist.  No way that mythology came from people imagination.

Likewise, the gods of Hinduism really do exist.  People can't make those things up.

Likewise, Battlefield Earth is a historical document.  No way L. Ron Hubbard made up that Scientology crap.  It's for real.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-434
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
No religion has ever come from the minds of men. Not one.

Ah.

So Zeus, Apollo, and all the rest of the Greek gods really do exist.  No way that mythology came from people imagination.

Likewise, the gods of Hinduism really do exist.  People can't make those things up.

Likewise, Battlefield Earth is a historical document.  No way L. Ron Hubbard made up that Scientology crap.  It's for real.

We've been over this in other threads. Demons start the false religions and disguise themselves as gods and plant these thoughts in people's heads. Why do you think people believe in all these different religions? They get their prayers answered by demons and it becomes real to them.

but this is off-topic for this thread.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins

Yes, but that is direct science vs indirect science. Computers, cars, tvs, are direct science. We see the proof in front of us.

Indirect science is trying to explain what happened before anyone was around to see anything.

A lot of creationists love science. We just have a problem with indirect science speculating "billions of years ago" as being trumpeted as The Truth.

That's b/c you have a presuppositional bias that you are trying to defend, and that's called Confirmation Bias. You are STARTING with your conclusion and trying to work backwards. It's irrational to do so. Science operates quite differently. You should know better than this. Science operates upon what can be demonstrated and reasonably inferred from the mountains of evidence that exist. You don't have any evidence of "creation". It's a mere assertion based upon your ASSUMPTION of the bible. You are trying to smuggle your religion into science and act like it's cool (all the while trying to attack evolutionary biology). It's not cool and it won't be tolerated. For those of us that actually care about truth your religious assumptions (which are not science) are insufficient to explain anything. They get us absolutely nowhere. All they do is spread deliberate ignorance and ant-science propaganda based in your fear of what might be true.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan