Creation -v- Evolution: For The Young People

We won't be hearing from Lil Woofer anymore. You did the right thing, Tink. I only had time to deal with one issue tonight, and this was one ripe for intervention. Your report brought it to my immediate attention. It wasn't the belief in evolution that was the final straw, it was the rudeness and the insults. It was becoming clear that her agenda was to troll, not to educate or edify.
 
Rusty said:
Right on, Rumely...I appreciate your dealing with rude blokes and trolls...I know your time is limited, but your attention apparently not!

Can the thread stay open anyway?
Click to expand...

The thread will remain open. Let Lil Woofer's fate remind us that there is an art to persuasion and insults and condescension are poor instruments for that art. Now she has lost her voice in this thread and on this subject.
 
Lil Woofer said:
Gravity is no more or less of a "theory" than evolution. You can test that too if you like. Funny, both seem to make predictions about relationships that are empirically verified. Science is not the enemy...ignorance is the enemy
Click to expand...
I have to laugh at this statement!! :rolleyes: The bold is rather ironic.

The theory of gravity has not yet been superseded, unlike evolution. Unbiased scientists have proven that if you marry a frog and are able to live for millions and millions of years, it will never turn into your dream prince. It seems many never got the memo.

Those intelligent people giving the criteria for the definition of a theory cannot accept Creationism as a scientific theory .....:rolleyes: But believing in nothing as opposed to something is? Clearly biased English professors (I dare say scientists) failing at maths and probability eqautions.
 
Lil Woofer said:
It is clear you know nothing about evolutionary trees, cladistics, or anything that has to do with evolutionary biology.

Wonder how that superbug came about??? Hmm...natural selection come to mind? If it doesn't then you need to brush up on your science.
Click to expand...
Natural selection will NEVER result in a new species, just a playing out of the natural variations which help a given species survive.
 
KingJ said:
I have to laugh at this statement!! :rolleyes: The bold is rather ironic.

The theory of gravity has not yet been superseded, unlike evolution. Unbiased scientists have proven that if you marry a frog and are able to live for millions and millions of years, it will never turn into your dream prince. It seems many never got the memo.

Those intelligent people giving the criteria for the definition of a theory cannot accept Creationism as a scientific theory .....:rolleyes: But believing in nothing as opposed to something is? Clearly biased English professors (I dare say scientists) failing at maths and probability eqautions.
Click to expand...

What! You mean there's a contradiction in 'evolution'! Heresy!

What kills me is that those who are so knee deep into it can't see the obvious pink-polka-dotted elephant in the room...

Goes with all man-made doctrines though....:D
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

There is no debate anymore. Evolution happens. And yes, the Lenski experiment is an actual example of a species mutating and gaining an attribute. There it is... evolution taking place as us observing it.

There is something called Scientific Literacy. It is a real thing, if you don't really understand what science is, what it does, then you won't understand its claims. I do find it interesting the only people with a problem with evolution are the only ones who need it to be false in order for their philosophy to not perish.

here's your "missing links"


evolution is a beautiful theory, one which I believe communicates the nature of God.
 
I asked my (very strong unbelieving) friends today during a debate about Christianity how we obtained a conscience, and they just stood there stammering and then said it evolved. We just evolved a conscience. Oh yeah, right. That totally makes sense. Ha!
 
I guess it depends on your definition of scientist, Rusty. I do scientific research, but I do not have my Ph.D yet.

Lifeasweknowit, how did we evolve a conscience, or a consciousness? A conscience is a working knowledge of social mores, what is and is not acceptable behavior/thought. There is no fossil record of having a conscience, but there are examples of conscience in every species of animal. The basis of conscience, whether something is good or bad, is based on the biological imperatives of the individuals of a group, brought to a social level of agreement of mutually beneficial behavior. We obtained a conscience when we became a species that groups together, at it has been changing ever since that point to suit different biological imperatives and better thought out rules.

example: a biological imperative is for a mother to take care of her child. However, if an individual in a species wants to gain power within its pack/group, killing the young of competitors is advantageous. We see infanticide in power struggles in multiple species, including humans. While that tactic serves the purpose of the individual vying for power, it does not serve the greater good, and so is logged in the social conscience as bad.

We developed a consciousness by the gradual improvement of our faculties of observation... to the point where we could observe ourselves, and recognize an action as coming from ourselves. That is the beginning of self-awareness.
 
Humble_Servant said:
There is no debate anymore. Evolution happens. And yes, the Lenski experiment is an actual example of a species mutating and gaining an attribute. There it is... evolution taking place as us observing it.

There is something called Scientific Literacy. It is a real thing, if you don't really understand what science is, what it does, then you won't understand its claims. I do find it interesting the only people with a problem with evolution are the only ones who need it to be false in order for their philosophy to not perish.

here's your "missing links"


evolution is a beautiful theory, one which I believe communicates the nature of God.
Click to expand...

Yup you win-evolution is a real theory! <throws hands up in the air-walking away>
 
Hi rusty,

I guess I did come off fairly strong. My apologies. I just want to say that I respect everyone in this forum regardless of how much we do or do not agree.

I am a graduate level student in behavioral neuroscience. I'm also a published author. However, I don't think my status has anything to do with the validity of any arguments.

The first link I posted, to information on Lenski's e. Coli study, is a concrete, 100% observable example of evolution taking place. That's why I said there was no longer a debate, because it has been clearly demonstrated there... and other similar experiments.

The information I gave regarding conscience is a common evolutionary psychology explanation, I can find a source for you if you like, but I don't have one off the top of my head.
The information regarding consciousness is the result of research. Antonio damasio is a researcher in that area and a good source for what I previously said.
 
I never understood how you can classify micro and macro as different processes.... I mean if you admit that a species can change attributes through genetic mutation then what's to stop a species changing so much that it becomes something else?

Its not diversification, it is a species gaining an ability through a random mutation... something that should not happen if there is no such thing as macro evolution.
 
Rusty said:
Your status, no: your expertise, yes.

Micro diversification is not evolution of species to species in your mind is it?
Click to expand...

I don't think that anyone here would argue that "variations" happen-as Brother Rusty stated -"micro diversification'" AKA: 'micro-evolution' is an observable fact. However, 'variations' in the scientific mind somehow translates to 'macro-evolution' -species to species mutation- which has NEVER been observed or proven. Only theorized.

"Science" is what we can 1: observe, 2: test, and 3: prove-or at least take a step in the proving. The problem I have with the main theory of evolution; they have been trying to prove the evolution of ANY species from one to another since its conception and all we end up with is more theory.
 
Rusty said:
Hmmm...Simple: There are many breeds of horses that diversified to become what they are from Clydesdale to Shetland ponies....But none have evolved to become cows, hippos or wombats.
Click to expand...

So again-is anyone arguing 'variation' within a species or "kind"? I think it has been well documented that DNA code / gene traits within a species provides variation within a species.

The problem I have is that evolutionists take a giant leap for science and ASSUME that variation/ mutation/ diversification could possibly happen cross species.... (hence it is a theory).

When no DNA evidence is provided to suggest such other than comparing DNA of species and telling people they are 'similar'. Similarity does not automatically prove that anything evolved...

I am sure that a rubber ball and a plastic ball look similar and possibly have similar molecules-but the sources are different...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top