Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Does evolution contradict creationism?
Talk Origins ^ | 1998 | Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub

Posted on 11/30/2004 3:53:55 PM PST by shubi

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 801-850851-900901-950 ... 1,001-1,048 next last
To: derheimwill

There is no theory of macroevolution. Micro and macro are the same process.


851 posted on 12/21/2004 1:03:21 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 850 | View Replies]

To: shubi

Do you know what "semantic argument" means? Whenever there is an overall theory, one may freely name what that theory says about one of its particular subsets "Theory of [process]." For example, there are many theories of microeconomics but, all are part of "economics." It is simply a linguistic shortcut.


852 posted on 12/21/2004 1:14:31 PM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 849 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

Semantics means it is only a matter of words.

You are correct that it is a semantic argument, but it is you that is using it. You are defining macroevolution as something other than it is. That is a rhetorical trick or a false semantic argument.

I simply restate that micro and macroevolution are exactly the same process. I have given you the scientific definitions. Please do not repeat the same semantic argument again in your defense of the cult.

Do you understand the definition of microevolution or not?


853 posted on 12/21/2004 1:19:48 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 852 | View Replies]

To: shubi

There is no theory of macroevolution.
Micro and macro are the same process.

B: Sorry Shubi, but this requires a bit more explanation. It is a source of confusion, not only for creationists, but for scientists as well.

B: Macroevolution is concerned with the splitting of lineages and long term trends in the fossil record. To explain some of these trends, GOuld, Eldrgidge, Stanley and others have proposed processes which operate on top of the microevolutionary processes with which you're familiar. The most often written about one of those is "species selection". Species selection is anologous to the selection that takes place within a population, but on the level of species. Species which are more fecund (in terms of spawning new species) will influence subsequent evolution more, than species which are not prone to splitting. Other things which effect the course of evolution, include macorevolutionary processes like "mass extinction".


B: What it boils down to, to a certain extent, is different levels of abstraction. For example, all chemical processes are ultimately reducible to the laws of quantum mechanics. This is why Physicists often joke that Chemistry is a solved problem. On the other hand to describe a simple chemical process such as dissolution of salt in water on a purely quantum basis would tax even the largest supercomputers. If you want to understand things like that, chemistry is the appropriate level of abstraction. You won't make much headway if you use QM, even though at its most basic level this process is governed by QM.

B: GOuld and others argue (and correctly IMHO, if that has any weight) that trends in the fossil record require a different level of abstraction to be explained rather than using microevolution. Still, one aspect of macroevolution, speciation, is indeed reducible to microevolutionary processes. But macroevolution is more than just *speciation*. Creationists caricature this difference as meaning micro and macro are completely different and unrelated processes. I hope I've been able to illustrate why this is false, and how micro and macro are related, and how they are different.

B: For more information, I suggest "Macroevolution" by Steven Stanley and "Extinction" By David Raup. After reading those, you will certainly be up to speed on this issue.


854 posted on 12/21/2004 1:24:49 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 845 | View Replies]

To: shubi
Again, no. Cinnamon Girl said, "I just don't believe in the theory of macro-evolution." All I was arguing is that we all knew what she meant by it.
855 posted on 12/21/2004 1:37:28 PM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 853 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine
I hope I've been able to illustrate why this is false, and how micro and macro are related, and how they are different.

Good post - the terminology is laid out nicely.

Creationists caricature this difference as meaning micro and macro are completely different and unrelated processes.

I don't know what other Creationists are saying but, as a biblical literalist, I don't find enough historical time for macro.

856 posted on 12/21/2004 1:43:05 PM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 854 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine

You know far more about Hitler than I. And look how long it took you to accomplish that. You are almost too stupid to converse with...bye.


857 posted on 12/21/2004 1:47:37 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 821 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Archaeopteryx! OK, now click your heels together 3 times and say, "I wish I was in Kansas." That is an even better fantasy.

Look back in one of my previous posts for MY evolutionary professor who disagrees...kay, you guys boor me.


858 posted on 12/21/2004 1:50:29 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 823 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine

I think I understand macroevolution better than you do.
Besides being a minister, I am also a biologist.

Micro and macro are the same process. It is allele frequency changes in populations over time. Macro is simply the result of accumulations of micro changes.

IT IS THE SAME PROCESS!!! SAME!!!!!!!


859 posted on 12/21/2004 2:00:29 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 854 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

What Bible college is your evolutionary professor in?


860 posted on 12/21/2004 2:01:22 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 858 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

Archaeopteryx! OK, now click your heels together 3 times and say, "I wish I was in Kansas." That is an even better fantasy.

Look back in one of my previous posts for MY evolutionary professor who disagrees...kay, you guys boor me.

B: I did and already refuted it. First off, Feduccia does not, that I've read, claim Archeaopteryx is not a transitional form. Certainly the little snippet you provided doesn't indicate that. Feduccia argues that birds didn't evolve from theropods, but from a more primitive group of dinos known as, if memory serves me, Pelycosaurs. Second it is laughable to suggest that in order for science to come to a consensus all scientists must agree. In the case of the birds are dinos hypothesis, the overwelming majority of paleontologists as typified by the likes of Kevin Padian regard the issue as settled. The number of dissenters, like Feduccia, can be counted on the fingers of one hand. And given recent work on the development of bird embryos, Feduccia no longer has a supportable argument. He's an important scientist, so I figure eventually unless he comes up with a good argument to support his hypothesis, he'll eventually give up on it. Thats a hard thing to do when you've staked much of your professional career on it. There's no harm in being wrong, however.

B: Sorry, you still lose. But feel free to continue and play pretend you didn't read what I wrote.


861 posted on 12/21/2004 2:04:37 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 858 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine

"But macroevolution is more than just *speciation*. "

Not really. Since speciation is the only step from one "form" to another, it is only speciation that macroevolution describes. When you get into Genus and above it is simply multiple steps of divergence through speciation.

OK?


862 posted on 12/21/2004 2:05:19 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 854 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Dr. Jonathan Wells who wrote "Icons of Evolution" is on the Michael Medved show right now.


863 posted on 12/21/2004 2:11:02 PM PST by Cinnamon Girl (OMGIIHIHOIIC ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 842 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Never claimed special creation is scientific, just that observable data fits it better than evolution. Now tell me something...Since man is related to the apes, and men descended from apes, and yet, when born, apes come out face up.

But humans come out face down. The mechanics and chemical signals and specifics for such a little thing as this is stupefying. So did the axial rotation of how humans are born face down, versus face up happen all at once? Or by degrees?

What is the advantage of babies only rotating one degree, or two or twenty? Knowing that with our large heads we could be crushed at birth if not situated in the birth canal...just so. If all at once, what happened to barely discernible "natural selection?" If all at once, what accounts for such drastic change? Must have happened to some ape woman about 200,000 years ago.

And modern man "supposedly" being about 200,000 years old, has undergone spectacular, almost unbelievable changes:

True bipedalism

Tripling of brain size

Loss of fur or covering

All the mechanics for human speech

True opposable thumb

An incredible firestorm of evolutionary change...practically natural selection working at the speed of light.

Meanwhile at the same time:

Apes never change one iota.

Cockroaches are still EXACTLY the same.

Dolphins, sharks, whales...the same!

Crocodiles...the same!

But Giraffes suddenly appear with their enormously lengthened necks with all that entails...with no, absolutely not one, preceding hint of any fossil of anything even remotely like them!

Heck, and all the explosion of change for one species, the miraculous appearances of others, and the utter stability of others...all living under the same sun and all presided over by that incredible, magical, non-mathematically described force? thingy? collusion of forces? unaware idiot presider over complex biological processes? "Natural Selection!"

I hope your kids are smarter, otherwise we are doomed, won't be able to change a light bulb in another 50 years under evolutionary teaching.
864 posted on 12/21/2004 2:12:41 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 825 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine
I've never seen it fail, after evolutionists have their butts kicked they slink off to a room and perform intellectual fellatio with each other.
865 posted on 12/21/2004 2:14:42 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 836 | View Replies]

To: shubi

I think I understand macroevolution better than you do.
Besides being a minister, I am also a biologist.

Micro and macro are the same process. It is allele frequency changes in populations over time. Macro is simply the result of accumulations of micro changes.

IT IS THE SAME PROCESS!!! SAME!!!!!!!


B: I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Again parts of macroevolution do result from microevolution, speciation for example. But macroevolution sum toto, is not microevolution. Again, I strongly suggest you read the references I gave you. And the distinction between the two is not often stressed on the undergraduate level. I'm not a biologist. I'm a geophysicist who got his Ph.D. in the same Dept. where Steve Stanley teaches. So much of what I know about it came straight from one of the founders of macroevolutionary theory. If you want to argue that macroevolution is nothing more than an accumulation of microevolutionary changes, you'll continue to be in error. THis is true for speciation, but other processes like, mass extinctions, do not result from microevolutionary processes like drift or selection.

B: I realize that creationsits have greatly abused these terms, however, they are well defined by evolutionary biologists, and there's not point in ceeding our terminology because creationists have made a mess of it.


866 posted on 12/21/2004 2:15:50 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 859 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine
B:Energy can't be destroyed, per se, but converted into mass and vice versa. THis is observed routinely. Yet again, realizing that he has no facts and no ideas, jehu resorts to his favorite chestnut, the argument from "Personal Astonishment". The basic problem with the argument from persoanl astonishment is that, when you're ignorant, just about everything astonishes you.

There is no "per se," about it, you incredibly smug moron. Energy cannot be destroyed or created...what is in the universe now, (energy wise) is fixed! If I was Right Wing Professor, Shubi, or Thatcher, I would disown your dofus self. At least they actually know the ignorant drivel they spout, you are simply a parrot, and not a very bright one at that. That energy and mass are convertible I will allow even an insufferable moron like you may know. How your mind ever grasped Einstein's equation is a marvel almost as great as 1 billion monkeys typing out a single meaningful sentence in 1 billion years.
867 posted on 12/21/2004 2:26:50 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 833 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill
I don't know what other Creationists are saying but, as a biblical literalist, I don't find enough historical time for macro.

Indeed so, as a biblical literalist you are in opposition with so much observed reality (physics, astronomy, cosmology, geology, biology) that your rejection of evolution barely warrants a mention on the "head in the sand" scale.

868 posted on 12/21/2004 2:28:03 PM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 856 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

I see that jehu's ad hominem nastiness is proportional to the perceived intelligence and knowledge of the person who he abuses^h^h^h^h^h^h "refutes". Jehu just can't handle BDK's command of the material so he resorts to abuse. Fortunately I am not clever and knowledgeable enough ever to have attracted that level of venom. "insufferable moron"! LOL.


869 posted on 12/21/2004 2:31:48 PM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 867 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
so much observed reality (physics, astronomy, cosmology, geology, biology...

That is your error.
Physics is not reality. A proton is.
Astronomy is not reality. Stars are.
Evolution is not reality. Mutation, birth, death, etc. are.

870 posted on 12/21/2004 2:35:40 PM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 868 | View Replies]

To: shubi
Being a minister, how do you tell your congregates the necessity of Christ's sacrifice for original sin? We either descended from Adam...who sinned or we descended from apes. If the Genesis account is allegorical only, then what part of the Bible is not? How do you tell? If allegorical, how do you know the story of Christ is not allegorical also? If your faith is not specific then what is it based upon? Why actually bother?
871 posted on 12/21/2004 2:37:02 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 860 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill
Physics is not reality. A proton is. Astronomy is not reality. Stars are.

How do you know that protons exist and that stars are balls of hot gas like our sun? Theories of physics and astronomy tell us these things and many other things besides. You pick and choose the evidence that you want to accept according to whether it matches folk tales of bronze-age middle-eastern animal herders who were probably highly intelligent but had no conception of any of these things. They had myths that made sense to them but that make no sense in the light of modern physical knowledge.

872 posted on 12/21/2004 2:45:02 PM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 870 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine
Give me the steps from scales to feathers. YOU propose how that came about. Archeopteryx is a bird. Or if you prefer call it a reptile. You don't even know if it was cold blooded or warm.

Or a thousand other things that would identify it as one or the other, or as something in between...it was lost with the DNA! So my bird expert is just as good as any of your LABEL game experts, no matter how much they stamp their evolved little hoofs and say, "it is settled!"


All you have are fossils, no DNA, you can only SAY it is a transitory species. It cannot be proven. Once again the ability of ToE to have the only evidence in science that cannot be falsified is a marvelous mechanism to keep this circular logic machine alive.
873 posted on 12/21/2004 2:46:41 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 861 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

Never claimed special creation is scientific, just that observable data fits it better than evolution. Now tell me something...Since man is related to the apes, and men descended from apes, and yet, when born, apes come out face up.

B: I'm not sure what Jehu is talking about here.

But humans come out face down. The mechanics and chemical signals and specifics for such a little thing as this is stupefying.

B: You haven't given any reasons why such a thing requires a large change in signals and specifics (whatever Jehu means by that). Perhaps it is simply that compared to chimp infants human babies have proportionally larger heads.

B: THere is no telling what creationists will say next. Every moment is like gift waiting to be unwrapped with these folks.


So did the axial rotation of how humans are born face down, versus face up happen all at once? Or by degrees?

B: Beats me. But it should be pointed out that enhanced encephlazation acquired during the course of hominid evolution did not occur all at once. Jehu again has nothing to offer other than his principle of "Personal Astonishment". All we get from Jehu is that " I can't figure out how this happened, ergo science must be wrong." Will somebody please inform Jehu, that the world doesn't revolve around him.


What is the advantage of babies only rotating one degree, or two or twenty? Knowing that with our large heads we could be crushed at birth if not situated in the birth canal...just so.

B: THis is precisely the same kind of muddled thinking that creationists always engage in. Again encephalazation was at best a step by step, if not a gradual process. Hence changes need to have occured all at once, one after the other, but concurrently. And to note, death during childbirth was a pox on humanity for a long time (it still is in many places). Indeed, did you think the designer couldn't have better made the female pelvis so that this wouldn't be necessary?


If all at once, what happened to barely discernible "natural selection?" If all at once, what accounts for such drastic change? Must have happened to some ape woman about 200,000 years ago.

B: Nobody says it happened all at once. Once again Jehu confuses his mishmash muddled thinking with scientific thinking.


And modern man "supposedly" being about 200,000 years old, has undergone spectacular, almost unbelievable changes:

True bipedalism

B: Again Jehu displays his abundant ignorance. Folks, I hope your paying careful attention here. Its not often one witnesses such ignornace coupled with hubris. It is a thing to behold.

B: True Bipedalism originated long before modern humans evolved. This is again one of those basic facts that Jehu continually gets wrong.

Tripling of brain size

B: Actually more than that. But following hominid evolution from Australopithicus to Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus to Archaic Homo Sapiens this increased brain size didn't occur all at once. Unfortunatley this increase in brain size did not benefit everybody.


Loss of fur or covering

B: That appears to relatively recent.

All the mechanics for human speech

B: What mechanics? Be specific. And post any information that claims what ever mechanics you're talking about had to happen all at once.


True opposable thumb

B: All primates have an opposable thumb. Opposable thumbs predate humans only by 65 million years.


An incredible firestorm of evolutionary change...practically natural selection working at the speed of light.

B: If one thinks 65 million years of primate evolution is "the speed of light".


Meanwhile at the same time:

Apes never change one iota.

B: Proof?


Cockroaches are still EXACTLY the same.

B: Proof?

Dolphins, sharks, whales...the same!

B: Proof? And aquatic mammals actually have a pretty good fossil record of their development. As evidence of your intellectual impotence you are writing blanks now.


Crocodiles...the same!

B: Proof?

( Rest of similar nonsense snipped)

I hope your kids are smarter, otherwise we are doomed, won't be able to change a light bulb in another 50 years under evolutionary teaching.

B: I hope yours are no smarter than you. Mine will need people to work for them.


874 posted on 12/21/2004 2:46:47 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 864 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
Once again the ability of ToE to have the only evidence in science that cannot be falsified is a marvelous mechanism to keep this circular logic machine alive.

You still haven't said why the falsifications suggested in Theobalds article wouldn't falsify ToE. (eg finding modern creatures in old strata, or finding some creature with completely different DNA, or DNA species comparisons coming out unexpectedly, or finding duplicated mutations that didn't fit the phylogenetic tree, or finding ancient creatures in the wrong strata) To continue to assert that ToE is not falsifiable without doing so labels you a liar.

875 posted on 12/21/2004 2:55:40 PM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 873 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine

You are wrong.


876 posted on 12/21/2004 2:57:00 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 866 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
Go back and read some of his cut and paste drivel then. He deserved the slap upside the head. I am an accomplished engineer and for someone to lecture me about the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy is ludicrous, but what is worse he was in error in his little lecture, there is no "per se," in proved physical law. I will reserve "per se" for evolution, since it has the most rickety mathematical scaffolding of any scientific theory. And some of the better critics and growing enemies of this "theory," are mathematicians! Who demand accuracy and specifics. Not the unbelievable evolutionist's practice of throwing shit on the blackboard and seeing what sticks "Punctuated Equilibrium indeed!"
877 posted on 12/21/2004 3:00:03 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 869 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine

Yes, macroevolution does involve some other concepts but it all comes down to the same process. Mass extinctions also change the allele frequency.


878 posted on 12/21/2004 3:00:09 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 866 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

Give me the steps from scales to feathers.

B: Recent experiments suggest not too many steps needed. Second, I'm under no obligation to list a number of steps. You however, have an obligation to prove it can't happen. Second recent experiments suggest this happened fairly quickly. Bird feathers and scales are formed from the same proteins. It also appears that they are governed by a similar genetic regulatory cascade. Have you not ever observed a chicken's leg? It has both scales and feathers. But none the less, keep telling us that there is no link between birds and dinos. You sound very convincing. Not.

B: A little later I'll post an experiment in which scales were inadvertantly converted to feathers. Scales and feathers are the same stuff, but in different forms.


YOU propose how that came about. Archeopteryx is a bird. Or if you prefer call it a reptile.

B: I prefer to call it a transtional bird. Thats what it is. Reptile is not a useful taxonomic rank.


You don't even know if it was cold blooded or warm.

B: Most likely warm blooded.

Or a thousand other things that would identify it as one or the other, or as something in between...it was lost with the DNA!

B: Well, you're right there. We don't have any archie DNA. But our genomes contain much flotsam and jetsam acquired during our evolutionary history, as do birds.

So my bird expert is just as good as any of your LABEL game experts,

B: Your bird expert is outside the mainstream of evolutionary thought when it comes to bird evolution. Furthemore, you still haven't documented that Feduccia has claimed that archie is not a transitional form. Your attempt at argument from authority has failed. Either give us some reasons why we should not accept archie as a transtional form, or move on to another argument.



no matter how much they stamp their evolved little hoofs and say, "it is settled!"

B: It is. Only Feduccia can decide for himself when it is time for him to abandon his failed hypothesis. The vast array or data, from comparative genetics, homologies with therapod dinos, cladistic analyses, embryology and the fossil record are so heavily in favor of the bird theropod-dino link, its not funny.


All you have are fossils, no DNA, you can only SAY it is a transitory species. It cannot be proven.

B: Proof not required in science. THis is science 101. Theories in general can't be proven, only falsified. The simple fact is, is that Archeaopteryx has features common to either therapod dinos or birds. By any meaningful defintion, it is a transitional form between major taxons. Birds don't have boney tails. Theropods too. Theropods don't have flight feathers. Birds do. Either present data which refutes that or move on. Arguing the "data is wrong" not a good scientific argument.



Once again the ability of ToE to have the only evidence in science that cannot be falsified is a marvelous mechanism to keep this circular logic machine alive.


B: To be clear, the problem Jehu is having, is not the evolution is unfalsifiable, but that evolution is so far unfalsified.


879 posted on 12/21/2004 3:07:26 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 873 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

As I am only a poor engineer too I don't understand your objection to the words "per se", and I don't see why you couldn't use it when referring to energy destruction/conversion and could use it when referring to evolution. I thought it just meant "as such" but I must have missed some pejorative sense carried by "per se".


880 posted on 12/21/2004 3:08:04 PM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 877 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

We didn't descend from apes. We both came from a common ancestor, but apes split off millions of years before.

Genesis is not allegorical. Allegory is specifically where every symbol means something else.

There is hardly any allegory in the Bible. A long time ago, there were those that interpreted everything as an allegory, but that just did not hold water.

Similarly, a literalist translation does not hold water.

I think the concept of original sin is misunderstood by the literalists. I simply believe Adam is a story of how some ancient peoples tried to explain their existence. I think there are some spiritual lessons there, but they may not be exactly what you interpret them to be (or what your pastor thinks they are).

The Bible is a book about the Spirit and the Kingdom of God. If you are an engineer, you may be looking for too much precision. Nothing is certain. God is not about to reveal all his secrets. A God that did would not be much of a God. I know that I make mistakes (sin) every day. To me this is a continual fight between my animal nature and my spiritual nature. It is spiritual warfare. If you reject the fact you have come from animals, you are endangering your spirit, for you will not recognize the battle until it is too late.


881 posted on 12/21/2004 3:09:56 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 871 | View Replies]

To: shubi

Yes, macroevolution does involve some other concepts but it all comes down to the same process. Mass extinctions also change the allele frequency.

B: Yes, but in this case the change is not due to selection, drift, or (insert other favorite microevolutionary process here) but an eviornmental catastrophe or meteorite impact. The point Stanley and others make, is that you can't make much progress understanding long term trends in evolution simply by stating " change in allele frequency ". Any more than looking at a chemical reaction and say "thats due to QM".


882 posted on 12/21/2004 3:11:18 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 878 | View Replies]

To: shubi

You are wrong.


B: Would you believe, I've heard that before? :-)


883 posted on 12/21/2004 3:13:47 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 876 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
Look back in one of my previous posts for MY evolutionary professor who disagrees...kay, you guys boor me.

You promised to cite an evolutionist who denies Arcaheopteryx is a transitional form. Now you want me to go find one in your old posts. No dice. Do what you promised. Cite please.

884 posted on 12/21/2004 3:15:03 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 858 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

I hope I've been able to illustrate why this is false, and how micro and macro are related, and how they are different.
Good post - the terminology is laid out nicely.

B: Thank you. Whether we will continue to disagree or not, I appreciate anybody that admits they've learned something.

Creationists caricature this difference as meaning micro and macro are completely different and unrelated processes.

I don't know what other Creationists are saying but, as a biblical literalist, I don't find enough historical time for macro.

B: Well as someone who reads the "original Bible" :-). I haven't found anything in it which suggest there isn't.


885 posted on 12/21/2004 3:17:22 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 856 | View Replies]

To: shubi
We didn't descend from apes. We both came from a common ancestor, but apes split off millions of years before.

Don't you mean chimps or monkeys? We *are* apes aren't we? I stand ready to be corrected by one who knows his taxonomy though.

886 posted on 12/21/2004 3:18:12 PM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 881 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

You know far more about Hitler than I. And look how long it took you to accomplish that. You are almost too stupid to converse with...bye.

B: ? Some people just don't like having their balloon popped.


887 posted on 12/21/2004 3:18:32 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 857 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine
The same proof in the fossil record that you use to claim Archeopteryx is a transitory species. So modern man began 65 million years ago?

And go find out what it takes for human speech, no ape or monkey has the equipment. And if we descended from apes? Why the difference in birth positions? What is the advantage being bequeathed by "natural selection?"

You're the expert, you tell me. Certainly you have an idea? Or do you need time to Google and find some professor that can tell you, and you can cut and paste HIS idea.

NONE of you can propose anything on your own. You lack the ability to use this theory you so lovingly clasp to your breasts, to account for all the specificity in species. From the woodpeckers beak, to the angler fish spitting a stream of water at low branches to knock off insects that he feeds on. And that fish had to figure out the air/water interface bending of light to come up with this circus act! But all a happy accident. Believing in evolution, you have lost the ability to think, mistaking arguments over process as understanding and knowledge, puffed up by mutual admiration societies of the arrogant, leading the proud to their frontal lobotomies. Cause there is only chance, or design, nobody has ever been able to propose a third way, although evolutionists pretend "natural selection," is a new animal, not chance...but not design either. Sort of a hybrid, like maybe rap/disco sung by a Country Western artist.
888 posted on 12/21/2004 3:20:05 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 874 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon Girl

Dr. Jonathan Wells who wrote "Icons of Evolution" is on the Michael Medved show right now.

B: Wells should spend more time trying to get his "ideas" published.


889 posted on 12/21/2004 3:21:30 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 863 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

Can't we finish dealing with the old arguments before you wheel in a whole bunch of new ones. Have you worked out why those falsifications that Theobald suggests wouldn't falsify ToE yet?


890 posted on 12/21/2004 3:22:05 PM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 888 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Look back in one of my previous posts for MY evolutionary professor who disagrees...kay, you guys boor me.
You promised to cite an evolutionist who denies Arcaheopteryx is a transitional form. Now you want me to go find one in your old posts. No dice. Do what you promised. Cite please.

B: I'll help you out. He claims Feduccia did.


891 posted on 12/21/2004 3:25:37 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 884 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
But as a BTW why we are going on with this...

A fish that jumps close to the right place gets more flies and passes on the tendency to jump close to the right place. The better it gets at it the more advantage it has.

A proto-woodpecker with a beak only marginally bigger or stronger than other birds gets more insects to eat and is more likely to pass on the genes that keep it from going hungry.

892 posted on 12/21/2004 3:26:01 PM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 890 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
But humans come out face down

Head down, most of the time. So do chimpanzees, most of the time. The only difference is that humans tend to turn 90 degrees at the last minute so the long axis of the head is along the wider axis of the brith canal. It's not a major change; it may well simply be caused by the pressure of contractions.

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/origins/babies.html

Dolphins, sharks, whales...the same!

Nonsense. there is a full set of transitional species for whales and dolphins.

But Giraffes suddenly appear with their enormously lengthened necks with all that entails...with no, absolutely not one, preceding hint of any fossil of anything even remotely like them!

Haven't you ever seen an okapi?

893 posted on 12/21/2004 3:26:13 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 864 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
I accept all the primary evidence. I only "pick and choose" when it comes to the secondary stuff. The original question was "Does evolution contradict creationism?"

I am a creationist as a result of studying scriptural history. Over 2000 years, 40 different authors wrote down the things they witnessed, without any contradictions, and without having conferred. This proves the coherency of canon to me. Prior to Moses (Exodus, chapter 2), there is mostly only oral tradition (which Moses compiled). Oral tradition may seem fallible but, in oral societies, it is taken seriously and even a secular story may go hundreds of years unchanged. In the case of Genesis 11 through 50, there is little reason to doubt the tradition. Abram was only born 4 centuries before Moses. With this much coherency, I am not going to doubt Genesis 1 throught 10 without definite proof that it is untrue. A scientific theory which uses only its own internal logic, no matter how well it describes the universe, does not explain it.

Evolution does not contradict creationism. Created things evolve. It is creationism which limits evolutionary theories to a time period. What happened before that is not the purvue of evolution as a theory. This is the purvue of geology, astronomy, ontology, theology, cosmology, etc.

Whatever terminology these sciences come up with, whatever processes they describe, there is no proof they always existed. This is the central issue. One can neither prove nor disprove the assertion that time has a beginning. One day, time began. See?

894 posted on 12/21/2004 3:27:29 PM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 872 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine
He claims Feduccia did.

Lucky him; I have a copy of 'The Origin and Evolution of Birds' at home. I'll post some highlights.

IIRC, the only thing he cited was a quote where Feduccia called Archaeopteryx a bird, which it surely is. That doesn't mean it isn't transitional. Homo erectus is a hominid, but it's for sure transitional between habilis and sapiens.

895 posted on 12/21/2004 3:29:19 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 891 | View Replies]

To: shubi
You are in error about original sin. I agree we are in spiritual warfare between two natures. However we are doomed without outside help. Nothing God does is vague. It is all very specific. Jesus is not a magic wand. He came to fulfill law, and execute a new covenant with man.

The Bible makes no mistake in mentioning original sin. To deny that central tenet is to deny most of the Bible, and all most all of Paul's writings. He could only take away sin from us ALL, (as one man himself), if that sin came into ALL of humanity through one man. The account of Genesis stands as is. There cannot be common descent from another species, we must all have only a common parent!

I am not a young earth believer. I do believe the Gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. Unless I can be dissuaded about original sin I will view evolutionary teaching as a direct attack upon the central tenet of original sin.

I really personally could care less if God did things by evolution, or fiat. But the revelation of original sin, the teachings of the Bible, and my own experience and observation, and the writings of hundreds of Christian scholars persuade me that this is correct.

Evolution, (as taught now) is in contradiction to original sin, and is my basis to oppose this theory vehemently, until either it, or Christianity is vanquished! You are fighting the wrong battle on the wrong side.

I have not even touched upon the utter disaster evolutionary theory has wrecked upon humanity from a sociological viewpoint. It turns loose a nihilism upon man we cannot afford. For that reason alone it should be rejected.
896 posted on 12/21/2004 3:38:36 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 881 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

The same proof in the fossil record that you use to claim Archeopteryx is a transitory species. So modern man began 65 million years ago?

B: I didn't claim that. What I did claim, and anybody without a reading comprehension problem could understand, was that most of the features you listed as properties of modern humans, actually predate humanity. Opposable thumbs, is a general property of primates, even prosimians. Hence, opposable thumbs were present at the dawn of primate evolution, 65 or so million years ago. THis is not rocket science. It is an easy to follow argument, whether or not one agrees with it.



And go find out what it takes for human speech, no ape or monkey has the equipment.

B: Thats quite right. We know the brain has an area which seems to be important in speech. Its called "Broca's Area" or Broca's Bulge. Even though brains aren't fossilized, the outer sturcture of the brain is preserved on the inside of the skull. THis is called a "cranial endocast". Chimps don't have a Broca's area. Neither did the Australopithicines, so far as I am aware. But it is present in the early hominid skulls, and becomes more pronounced during subsequent evolution. I would venture that this is strong evidence that speech evolved during the course of human evolution.


And if we descended from apes?

B: Evolution means change. Again, I don't see what you're on about.


Why the difference in birth positions? What is the advantage being bequeathed by "natural selection?"

B: Greater reproductive success. Women who tend to give breech births or babies facing the wrong way aren't as reproductively successful as women who do. Because either they or the child dies. That was an easy question.


You're the expert, you tell me. Certainly you have an idea? Or do you need time to Google and find some professor that can tell you, and you can cut and paste HIS idea.

B:Sorry, I have my own ideas.

NONE of you can propose anything on your own. You lack the ability to use this theory you so lovingly clasp to your breasts, to account for all the specificity in species.



B: Funny, but very little of what I have posted, perhaps 2-3% is not my "own words". You sir are a liar, and are ill suited and equipped to deal with the scientific evidence in a rigorous and even handed manner.


897 posted on 12/21/2004 3:41:53 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 888 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

He claims Feduccia did.
Lucky him; I have a copy of 'The Origin and Evolution of Birds' at home. I'll post some highlights.

IIRC, the only thing he cited was a quote where Feduccia called Archaeopteryx a bird, which it surely is. That doesn't mean it isn't transitional. Homo erectus is a hominid, but it's for sure transitional between habilis and sapiens.

B: Which was my take exactly.


898 posted on 12/21/2004 3:43:26 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 895 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Actually I don't care what Theobald says, a quick perusal assures me it is just another in the enless semantic tricks of evolutionists, and if the pre-Cambrian explosion of life is NOT enough falsification of this theory, then what possibly could be?


899 posted on 12/21/2004 3:43:38 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 890 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

A quick perusal is certainly all you managed, as you demonstrate no interest in learning anything that might contradict your religion. That is why you missed the math, presumably.


900 posted on 12/21/2004 3:44:59 PM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 899 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 801-850851-900901-950 ... 1,001-1,048 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson