Author Topic: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science  (Read 2067 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7313
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #58 on: June 16, 2014, 08:54:25 PM »

Right, and I asked a question earlier:

"Can a bird really evolve into a different animal by taking the organs and body parts that it already has and simply making them bigger, smaller, thicker, thinner, brighter, darker, longer, shorter, more numerous, less numerous, more resistant to X, less resistant to X, etc.? "

I don't believe that the original lifeform had ears, so it couldn't just cause the ears to get bigger until the ears were the size of a mouses. You can theorize about changes occurring to cause something to change into an ear, but that only exists within pure theory crafting and not within observations.

No, no, no...you are completely ignoring what the theory states, and that is disingenuous. It is completely wrong for you to misrepresent the theory while attempting to somehow argue against one of its premises. Have you ever read any actual scientific text on the evolution of the ear, or the eye? Do you know how those came to be according to the theory? If not, then you are seriously too ignorant of the topic to argue against it. Seriously.

Go find some material on the evolution of the eye -because guess what, it did not start out as an eye, it was far, far simpler. It was a mutation that was more light sensitive than a previous version. And that mutation had an advantage, and thus survived. The survival was heightened over time by more advantageous mutations. Go read about it, it's fascinating.

But don't spend so much effort arguing against something you clearly have not even a cursory understanding of. Take the time to at least understand what the theory states. That alone will force you to rethink what you are trying to argue.

Offline Willie

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 681
  • Darwins +78/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #59 on: June 16, 2014, 09:08:57 PM »
The problem lies in the assumption that small changes of one type can be the cause of large changes of a completely different type. I answered a similar question in the other thread (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26903.msg618479.html#msg618479)

Your argument, if I'm understanding you correctly, goes something like this:

1. IF the changes required for speciation are fundamentally different, that is, different in kind, not just in scale, from those that produce variations within a species, THEN speciation cannot be produced by an accumulation of the same kind of changes that produce variations within species.

2. Speciation does reqire a fundamentally different kind of change.

3. THEREFORE speciation cannot be the product of an accumulation of the non-speciation kind of changes.

If that is your argument, then your logic is ok, but you will need to defend the assertion in the middle.

I notice that several times you've mentioned "introduction of new information". Is that what you think differentiates speciation and non-speciation changes? If so, then you will need to establish that:

1. Any change that causes speciation must involve an introduction of new information. Emphasis on "must" because "can", "should", "appears to", "I can't imagine why it wouldn't", etc. are not sufficient to support your argument.

2. Introduction of new information cannot occur by natural means.


Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5252
  • Darwins +600/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #60 on: June 16, 2014, 09:11:22 PM »
The problem is not that Spinner is trying to promote what he believes in.  It's that he's trying to do so from a position of ignorance.  After several years brushing up against it, I have a fairly good understanding of evolution as it pertains to biology.  Enough, at least, to tell when someone doesn't really understand it and is opposing it because it conflicts with what they want to believe is true.

To be extremely blunt, your beliefs have no bearing whatsoever on whether they're actually true or not.  Neither do mine, or anyone else's.  So the way to disprove evolution is to find stuff that actively contradicts it, not just say that it's "not science" because you don't agree with it.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #61 on: June 17, 2014, 08:08:24 AM »
I think the burden of proof relies on those to connect micro-evolution with the introduction of new species and previously non-existent genetic information.

Why?  What is the barrier preventing it?  Remember, "species" is only a convenient label for us.  It helps us understand our environment.  But it is not an actual, physical box that organisms are stuck in.  The only actual barrier is the genetic variation within the breeding group.  That is constantly increased by copying errors, radiation, etc. 
 

I mean, I don't think that the explanation "Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over a longer period of time" is valid based purely on its own claim.

On what basis are you qualified to make that assessment?  What do you know about it?  From your post, it appears you know very little about evolution at all. You probably are not the best judge of what is or is not a good explanation.

Do we actually know how dinosaurs grew feathers?

Look it up yourself, lazybones.  I am sure the information to your question is available.

Have we even observed the shred of the beginning of a macro-evolutionary change?

If evolution is true, then every variation is a potential beginning step toward a different species.

Can a bird really evolve into a different animal by taking the organs and body parts that it already has and simply making them bigger, smaller, thicker, thinner, brighter, darker, longer, shorter, more numerous, less numerous, more resistant to X, less resistant to X, etc.?

How about a mouse?  If you stretch out its "fingers" and maintain the webbing between them you wind up with something very much like a bat.  So, I'd say, yes, birds can evolve into something different.  Just look at the variation within birds as a whole.  Look at the differences between vultures which have huge wings for gliding, hummingbirds, ostriches and penguins.  Small changes.  What will any of those species lead to a million years from now?

Can a bird's beak really evolve into the exact same thing as a human mouth by simply getting stubbier, softer and applying various color changes?

Probably not, but I don't think evolution says any animal can evolve into any other animal that way.  That sounds like a gross misunderstanding of evolution.

Do we have any examples of micro-evolution that doesn't just use pre-existing (as in already existing in the world, contrary to being completely new) processes/structures/organs/etc.?

Look it up yourself, lazybones.  I am sure the information to your question is available.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3956
  • Darwins +265/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #62 on: June 17, 2014, 08:45:19 AM »
Not only is macroevolution science...genetic markers confirm the speciation of ape to human with the telomere marker in the middle of human chromosome two,  exactly what you would expect of a 23 Chromosome being evolved from a 24 Chromosome being.

« Last Edit: June 17, 2014, 08:53:01 AM by Hatter23 »
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3956
  • Darwins +265/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #63 on: June 17, 2014, 08:52:46 AM »
Have we even observed the shred of the beginning of a macro-evolutionary change?
[mod edit: removed unnecessary name calling]
Yes. It is what you, and others like you, call micro-evolution. If you mean speciation...we have three macroscopic observed speciation. But you don't care about evidence, because if you did, you wouldn't be so dead set on denying evolution.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2014, 06:59:26 PM by jetson »
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6951
  • Darwins +941/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #64 on: June 17, 2014, 05:51:31 PM »
Evolution happens every single time offspring are born that are very similar to, yet slightly different from their parents. Like, millions of times a day.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Willie

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 681
  • Darwins +78/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #65 on: June 17, 2014, 10:48:19 PM »
Not only is macroevolution science...genetic markers confirm the speciation of ape to human with the telomere marker in the middle of human chromosome two,  exactly what you would expect of a 23 Chromosome being evolved from a 24 Chromosome being.

I'm sure God just planted that there so that we can have the opportunity to learn to rely on faith rather than knowledge. Just like the light of distant galaxies that He created en route so that we could see things that are more than 6000 light years away. If our DNA were different enough to appear to have developed independently, or if celestial objects 6000 light years away were only recently appearing in the night sky, or if the earth had hardly any geological strata, with all of the fossilized "kinds" intermingled in a single layer barely below the surface, then we'd KNOW that all of the kinds were created separately, not evolved. That knowledge would deny us the free will to believe on faith. And since faith is a requirement for our salvation, displacing our faith with knowledge would condemn us all to hell. So, you see, all of this evidence that God created to make the universe look exactly like one would expect for a universe without gods, is really the most powerful evidence for His existence and for the love that He has for us. Trust not in knowledge. Trust only in Him. He is the way, the truth, and the life.


Offline jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1790
  • Darwins +93/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #66 on: June 18, 2014, 09:40:40 AM »
I'm no scientist. I did actually start out as a biology major back in my college days, but organic chemistry in my freshman year took care of that ambition. Anyway, point being that I'm not conversant on the technical aspects, but evolution has always made perfect sense to me.

I do understand how it is that the theist can look at the wonders of life on this planet and conclude that there is no way all of it could have happened through a natural process; just looking at the intricacies of something like the relationships between flowers and the insects which pollinate them, or various marvels of camouflage can be so mind boggling that they positively scream "creation".

But the thing I always go back to is  the genetic links and the clear similarities between the structures of virtually every life form (animal, at least, though we share genetic similarities with everything, if I am not mistaken) out there. Why is this? Why, with infinite imagination and ability, would god use basically the same template over and over and over? Why would everything he created show evidence of specific links? Why would he make it so easy to lay out a map of evolution from single cells to all the diverse life which exists by following  lines with, at this point, no real gaps of the sort that one's mind couldn't automatically perceive and fill in the progression?

Now, this argument doesn't refute evolution guided by god. Maybe he thought it was a good game to play, seeing how complicated and diverse he could get life to be based on an original bit of life. I don't suppose there is any way to prove that one way or the other, and it doesn't really matter all that much to me as a sort of borderline deist/atheist, but that's not what this conversation is about.

If macroevolution was not science, to my mind, it would not fit so tightly together and support pretty much all the hypotheses which have been thrown at it, getting more and more complex and specific all the time. I can't even imagine what might be necessary to totally falsify it at this point. It's completely obvious to all but the most closed mind that, with or without a deity guiding it, evolution is the way that life on earth reached the point at which it stands.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7313
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #67 on: June 18, 2014, 10:47:23 AM »
jynnan...I would say this...

It's the failures of evolution, not the successes that would eliminate any god being involved. The failures are always left out of the conversation from the creationist perspective. I think that is so unfortunate, that during these conversations, they will almost never acknowledge the serious flaws and truly bizarre and bad designs as a result of what they claim to be an "intelligent designer."

Through the lens of the natural theory, every single mistake or bizarre design is explained with very little effort.

Offline jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1790
  • Darwins +93/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #68 on: June 18, 2014, 11:04:19 AM »
jynnan...I would say this...

It's the failures of evolution, not the successes that would eliminate any god being involved. The failures are always left out of the conversation from the creationist perspective. I think that is so unfortunate, that during these conversations, they will almost never acknowledge the serious flaws and truly bizarre and bad designs as a result of what they claim to be an "intelligent designer."

Through the lens of the natural theory, every single mistake or bizarre design is explained with very little effort.

Good point. In my line of quasi-deist thinking on this, I guess I tend to see evolution as a sort of game of sims for said deity, where wrong turns and dead ends are all possible. But that's anthropomorphising it way too much, really.

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2831
  • Darwins +57/-453
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #69 on: June 19, 2014, 01:16:09 AM »
I'm no scientist. I did actually start out as a biology major back in my college days, but organic chemistry in my freshman year took care of that ambition. Anyway, point being that I'm not conversant on the technical aspects, but evolution has always made perfect sense to me.

I do understand how it is that the theist can look at the wonders of life on this planet and conclude that there is no way all of it could have happened through a natural process; just looking at the intricacies of something like the relationships between flowers and the insects which pollinate them, or various marvels of camouflage can be so mind boggling that they positively scream "creation".

But the thing I always go back to is  the genetic links and the clear similarities between the structures of virtually every life form (animal, at least, though we share genetic similarities with everything, if I am not mistaken) out there. Why is this? Why, with infinite imagination and ability, would god use basically the same template over and over and over? Why would everything he created show evidence of specific links? Why would he make it so easy to lay out a map of evolution from single cells to all the diverse life which exists by following  lines with, at this point, no real gaps of the sort that one's mind couldn't automatically perceive and fill in the progression?

Now, this argument doesn't refute evolution guided by god. Maybe he thought it was a good game to play, seeing how complicated and diverse he could get life to be based on an original bit of life. I don't suppose there is any way to prove that one way or the other, and it doesn't really matter all that much to me as a sort of borderline deist/atheist, but that's not what this conversation is about.

If macroevolution was not science, to my mind, it would not fit so tightly together and support pretty much all the hypotheses which have been thrown at it, getting more and more complex and specific all the time. I can't even imagine what might be necessary to totally falsify it at this point. It's completely obvious to all but the most closed mind that, with or without a deity guiding it, evolution is the way that life on earth reached the point at which it stands.

God guiding evolution is absolutely out of the question. God would never use a process. He gets it right the first time. Evolution doesn't show anything mapped out either. A human made it up. it doesn't mean it's true.

Evolution doesn't explain how pregnancy evolved, how blood evolved, how bones evolved, etc.
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: 2831
  • Darwins +57/-453
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #70 on: June 19, 2014, 01:21:01 AM »
jynnan...I would say this...

It's the failures of evolution, not the successes that would eliminate any god being involved. The failures are always left out of the conversation from the creationist perspective. I think that is so unfortunate, that during these conversations, they will almost never acknowledge the serious flaws and truly bizarre and bad designs as a result of what they claim to be an "intelligent designer."

Through the lens of the natural theory, every single mistake or bizarre design is explained with very little effort.

No, if you go to trueorigin.org you will see that all of the examples of "unintelligent design" have been refuted. They have whole a whole paper on the "inverted retina myth" that Darwinists trot out: http://trueorigin.org/retina.asp

Then there's the fact that the Cambrian explosion refutes evolution because there were no fossils before the Cambrian explosion showing gradual change leading to the cambrian explosion.

No one is avoiding anything. There is no need to when people can refute it.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2014, 01:25:44 AM by skeptic54768 »
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 Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1396
  • Darwins +103/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #71 on: June 19, 2014, 05:29:11 AM »
God guiding evolution is absolutely out of the question. God would never use a process.

Genesis describes a process i.e. this was created then that then the other etc.

He gets it right the first time.

Then why the need for the fall, flood, jesus and every other divine intervention?

Evolution doesn't show anything mapped out either.

Yes it does. You are clearly ignorant of what evolution is.

A human made it up. it doesn't mean it's true.

It doesn't mean it's false either.

Evolution doesn't explain how pregnancy evolved, how blood evolved, how bones evolved, etc.

Yes it does. You are clearly ignorant of what evolution entails.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #72 on: June 19, 2014, 07:24:07 AM »
No, if you go to trueorigin.org you will see that all of the examples of "unintelligent design" have been refuted.

from that site's home page:
Quote
The TrueOrigin Archive comprises an intellectually honest  response to what in fairness can only be described as  evolutionism...

Contradicts itself right off the bat.  Your source is disqualified. You receive an F minus.

It is an anti-science website.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #73 on: June 19, 2014, 07:26:59 AM »
God guiding evolution is absolutely out of the question. God would never use a process. He gets it right the first time.

Is human reproduction a process?  How about digestion?


Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7313
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #74 on: June 19, 2014, 07:51:55 AM »

No, if you go to trueorigin.org you will see that all of the examples of "unintelligent design" have been refuted. They have whole a whole paper on the "inverted retina myth" that Darwinists trot out: http://trueorigin.org/retina.asp

Then there's the fact that the Cambrian explosion refutes evolution because there were no fossils before the Cambrian explosion showing gradual change leading to the cambrian explosion.

No one is avoiding anything. There is no need to when people can refute it.

Wow, a whole paper? That's amazing! How many IQ points will I risk losing if I read it?  :)


Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11208
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #75 on: June 19, 2014, 07:59:00 AM »
Wow, a whole paper? That's amazing! How many IQ points will I risk losing if I read it?  :)

How many do you have? Because you'll lose twice as many.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2343
  • Darwins +437/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #76 on: June 19, 2014, 10:33:40 AM »
God guiding evolution is absolutely out of the question. God would never use a process. He gets it right the first time.

Is human reproduction a process?  How about digestion?

How about salvation through the process of sending his only son to die, be buried, and resurrected?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1396
  • Darwins +103/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #77 on: June 19, 2014, 10:45:45 AM »
God guiding evolution is absolutely out of the question. God would never use a process. He gets it right the first time.

Is human reproduction a process?  How about digestion?

How about salvation through the process of sending his only son to die, be buried, and resurrected?

Fair point. You've got the bit before that as well; the process of knocking up a virgin, gestating for 9 months being born and then growing up.
Not only did god use a process but was actually involved in several processes.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5252
  • Darwins +600/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #78 on: June 19, 2014, 10:50:14 AM »
No, if you go to trueorigin.org you will see that all of the examples of "unintelligent design" have been refuted. They have whole a whole paper on the "inverted retina myth" that Darwinists trot out: http://trueorigin.org/retina.asp
Your link was unreachable (looks like some kind of website problems, as I cannot reach the main site either).  Leaving that aside, a site that purports to refute all examples of "unintelligent design", as you put it, is highly suspicious.  The very term "unintelligent design" looks like weasel wording to avoid even inadvertently admitting that life might not have been designed in the first place, and that does not suggest that the writers even attempted to take an unbiased look at the subject, instead of simply assuming that life was designed.

Life that came about on its own would not be designed, intelligently or otherwise, therefore calling it "unintelligent design" is deceptive at best.  That is why trueorigins.org is not very believable - their entire website is dedicated to the proposition that all life was designed, even though we have plenty of examples of "design flaws" that contradict this.  It is not a matter of proposing that life, or at least some life, could have been designed; it is a matter of declaring that all life was definitely designed and rationalizing away any example that contradicts that.

Quote from: skeptic54768
Then there's the fact that the Cambrian explosion refutes evolution because there were no fossils before the Cambrian explosion showing gradual change leading to the cambrian explosion.
No, it doesn't.  It just means there were no fossils before the Cambrian explosion, easily explained by organisms not having developed hardened organic matter such as skeletons.

Quote from: skeptic54768
No one is avoiding anything. There is no need to when people can refute it.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5252
  • Darwins +600/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #79 on: June 19, 2014, 11:00:40 AM »
God guiding evolution is absolutely out of the question. God would never use a process. He gets it right the first time.
The moment you say something is "absolutely out of the question", you've left the realm of science behind.  It takes more than a statement of faith - and blind faith at that - to justify your opinion on something.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a god was able to know every possible outcome of a process.  Why would that preclude actually trying out said process to see which of those outcomes actually happened?  Knowing the possibilities is not the same as knowing which one will actually happen.

Quote from: skeptic54768
Evolution doesn't show anything mapped out either. A human made it up. it doesn't mean it's true.
Nonetheless, it is still the best natural explanation we have that doesn't involve the recourse of "a god did it by magic", which is an admission of ignorance.  You might be satisfied with being ignorant, but I'm not.

Quote from: skeptic54768
Evolution doesn't explain how pregnancy evolved, how blood evolved, how bones evolved, etc.
Incorrect.  It's not difficult to come up with an explanation that takes evolutionary theory into account.

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1348
  • Darwins +101/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #80 on: June 19, 2014, 03:54:54 PM »
God...gets it right the first time.

Tell that to all the babies who died in the Flood
It's one of the reasons I'm an atheist today.  I decided to take my religion seriously, and that's when it started to fall apart for me.
~jdawg70

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6951
  • Darwins +941/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #81 on: June 19, 2014, 06:00:53 PM »
God...gets it right the first time.

Tell that to all the babies who died in the Flood

And marsupials. God did not seem to get possums and kangaroos right the first time, so he shoved them off into Australia and hoped nobody would notice.  There are at least two species of  mammals that lay eggs, and several species of mammals that give birth to young that are not inside of eggs, but are not quite ready to be born yet. (Do these animals not exist? Talk about a missing link!) 

Evolutionary theory explains the existence of these animals very well, and shows where they fit with other mammals. Evolution also explains why they are found only in a few isolated areas where they had no predators. Evolutionary theory also fits perfectly well with the timing of geological changes like continental drift. Evolution gives answers.

Noah's Ark-type individual creation stories only raise more questions.....

Like, where did marsupials come from in the Middle East? How did enough marsupials to create a viable community (more than just two) get to their specific habitats thousands of miles away, without any food?  And how was it that no predator species could get there? Etc.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #82 on: June 21, 2014, 12:23:48 PM »

God guiding evolution is absolutely out of the question. God would never use a process. He gets it right the first time. Evolution doesn't show anything mapped out either. A human made it up. it doesn't mean it's true.

Evolution doesn't explain how pregnancy evolved, how blood evolved, how bones evolved, etc.

As if that matters. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and haven't actually studied evolution properly. You are attempting to be a Wiki/Google scholar. FAIL. Science (including evolutionary biology) does not seek for "absolute knowledge". In all subjects of science we seek for the best explanation of the given facts. I'm sorry you can't see that. It simply doesn't matter whatsoever if there are certain things within evolutionary biology that have not yet been explained. There are things in other sciences that have not been explained yet either. So what! This does not give you the license to say it cannot be explained - b/c you simply don't know that. You are just making that up on the fly to usher in your confirmation bias (from the conclusion you started with in your theology). But that isn't an honest search for truth. It is the opposite.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Spinner198

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +0/-3
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #83 on: June 22, 2014, 05:52:34 PM »
God...gets it right the first time.

Tell that to all the babies who died in the Flood

I don't see how mankind's messing up of themselves somehow means God didn't get it right the first time, when he created us as perfect beings with free will, and we willfully chose to become corrupted and susceptible to death.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5252
  • Darwins +600/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #84 on: June 22, 2014, 06:50:10 PM »
I don't see how mankind's messing up of themselves somehow means God didn't get it right the first time, when he created us as perfect beings with free will, and we willfully chose to become corrupted and susceptible to death.
You are pretty much substituting doctrine for reason here.  Easier to blame the creation for getting screwed up than the creator, even though according to that same doctrine it was the creator who made it possible for the creation to screw up.

If an adult leaves a stove on, and an unattended child touches it and gets burned, who's fault was it, the adult or the child?  According to your doctrine, the child is at fault and the adult is blameless, even though it could not have happened if the adult had done things right to begin with.  Maybe instead of seeking to keep all the blame off your god, you should take a long hard look at all the vile, disgusting things that your god was perfectly willing to command his worshipers to do, even after the fall.  It was always about power and glory for your god, and was never about him caring about the people he made.

I don't believe in that anymore, but if I did, I would have a far different interpretation of the events depicted in Genesis than that.

Offline Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 794
  • Darwins +28/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #85 on: June 22, 2014, 09:23:38 PM »
God...gets it right the first time.

Tell that to all the babies who died in the Flood

I don't see how mankind's messing up of themselves somehow means God didn't get it right the first time, when he created us as perfect beings with free will, and we willfully chose to become corrupted and susceptible to death.
No, not we. Adam and Eve are fairy tale characters, as is your god. Harsh to hear, isn't it?

If you disagree, I would love some real evidence, the kind we always look for; scientifically testable and verifiable.
"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5679
  • Darwins +51/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #86 on: June 22, 2014, 09:38:22 PM »
I don't see how mankind's messing up of themselves somehow means God didn't get it right the first time, when he created us as perfect beings with free will, and we willfully chose to become corrupted and susceptible to death.

Do you not see the problem with this statement. WE, (meaning those on this forum and the rest of humanity in 2014), chose nothing. We had no say in any of it. If God did get it right the first time, even if Adam and Eve did exist and did fall, what sense does it make for the billions and billions of people that exist and have existed since the fall of man to face the same fate as our ancestors?

Why not just get rid of those two fuck ups and let his beloved creation exist how he intended it to exist?!?
« Last Edit: June 22, 2014, 09:40:57 PM by Emily »
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.