Dawkins 1 - Creationists 0

[cybrsage]

You're attempting to confuse the issue yourself. Macroevolution is just microevolution over a broad time and scale. Macro / Micro evolution is just two terms referring to the same thing - very few neo-Darwinian writers use the term, preferring instead to talk of evolution as changes in allele frequencies without mention of the level of the changes (above species level or below).

To act like microevolution and macroevolution are different things is misleading.

Apparently, you know more than the professors at Berkeley University. Bravo!

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01

If you look on the left hand side, you will see different sections for macro and micro evolution.

Macro happens across species, micro within a single population. They are definately related and definately different.

Of course, you are free to write Berkeley and tell them about how they are wrong and you are right if you wish.

 

[cybrsage]

Even if aliens did tinker with human genes at some point in the past, it wouldn't stop evolution from occurring. In order to tinker with genes in the first place, a species would have to have knowledge of ... get this... evolution!

While you are correct that tinkering with genes does not stop evolution from happening, you are incorrect that a species has to understand evolution to know about genetics.

Regardless, if a species changes the DNA of another species, it has overridden any natural evolution and therefor you cannot use evolution as an explaination for all of that species changes.

 

[cybrsage]

Evolution does not disprove the existence of God and the existence of God does not disprove Evolution. Live with it.

It does disprove the bible though. Some people have issues with the literal interpretation of the bible disproven and they tend to drag less crazy religious people into the argument. That or they use ID as a stepping stone to getting religion back in school (something the founder of ID has admitted to several times).

Matt is correct. The Bible is very vague about the creation. You can always use the programmer analogy as a good explaination.

Carmack created Doom. When I put the floppy into my PC and played Doom, I knew it was Carmack who created it. However, Carmack was never at my house, nor was he beaming electrons onto my screen, so how did Carmack create the game I was playing?

Easy, he created the mechanisms by which the game would appear on my screen. He caused my computer to show the images and responses via the programming he created.

God did the same with the Universe. I find it more amazing that God caused the Big Bang to happen in such a way that the rules by which our universe are governed would form so that stars would be created, planets created, Earth created, and eventually humanity created. God created man just as surely as Carmack created Doom.

 

[cybrsage]

you disingenuous prick
fuck face
shit-for-brains
dickhead

You need a vacation. Reported.

 

[Paul98]

You need a vacation. Reported.

For telling the truth?

hahaha, I love your idiotic rants

 

[RabidMongoose]

I think that it depends on what kind of evolution won out here. UK 'evolution' is different than most countries since it also involves the british belief in one specific family being of superior evolutionary bloodlines than the rest.

 

[cybrsage]

This. You get taught things about outdated science (especially the ones that didn't actually use science to come to their conclusions (Aristotle I'm looking at you)) in classes like Civ. Not in Physics 1001.

They do still teach that Newton's failed Universal Theory of Gravitation is correct, when we know it is so broken it cannot be fixed (which is why Einstein's theory of gravity replaced it).

 

[cybrsage]

For telling the truth?

hahaha, I love your idiotic rants

Now now, don't sully yourself with his rant. It is unbecoming...and hard to get off your shoes.

 

[Paul98]

While you are correct that tinkering with genes does not stop evolution from happening, you are incorrect that a species has to understand evolution to know about genetics.

Regardless, if a species changes the DNA of another species, it has overridden any natural evolution and therefor you cannot use evolution as an explaination for all of that species changes.

He is correct on all accounts and it's funny you continue to spout your idiotic vies on logic which you clearly have no understanding of. Instead you try and pick up on insignificant unsupported ideas that you can find on your google search to support your delusions. As you will never use any scientific or logic to support your blinded by ideology views.

I would love to see a logical view that supports your ideas but since those don't exist I don't ever expect to see one. All I see is emotional arguments where you don't bother to explain anything and will continue to.

Guess what you can't argue against evolution, any thought that you can is based purely on ignorance as clearly shown here.

 

[Paul98]

It's not very often that you hear people who are highly intelligent, and all of what they say is written for your average idiot. Why do you think that so many people think mass actually increases as your get close to the speed of light, or wonder since e=mc^2 how can a photon have energy. Just like many wonder if one species evolves from another why is that first species still around, or that talk about the second thermodynamics which clearly has no barring.

 

[cybrsage]

Which Hebrew words?

Do you know ancient Hebrew? Since I assume not, I will let the great RAMBAM explain:

Some medieval philosophical rationalists, such as Maimonides held that it was not required to read Genesis literally. In this view, one was obligated to understand Torah in a way that was compatible with the findings of science. Indeed, Maimonides, one of the great rabbis of the Middle Ages, wrote that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted. Maimonides argued that if science proved a point, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly. Rabbi Yitzchak of Akko (a 12th-century student of Maimonides, agreed with this view.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewsevolution.html
But lets get more modern, eh?

One of the most prominent writers on this subject in the Orthodox Jewish community is Gerald Schroeder, an Israeli physicist. He has written a number of articles and popular books attempting to reconcile Jewish theology with modern scientific findings that the world is billions of years old and that life has evolved over time. (Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible) His work has received approbations from a number of Orthodox rabbinic authorities.

Rabbi David J. Fine, who has authorized official responsa for the Conservative movement's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, expresses a common Conservative Jewish view on the subject:
Conservative Judaism has always been premised on the total embrace of critical inquiry and science. More than being compatible with Conservative Judaism, I would say that it is a mitzvah to learn about the world and the way it works to the best of our abilities, since that is to marvel with awe at God's handiwork. To not do so is sinful. But here's where the real question lies. Did God create the world, or not? Is it God's handiwork? Many of the people who accept evolution, even many scientists, believe in what is called "theistic evolution," that is, that behind the billions of years of cosmic and biological evolution, there is room for belief in a creator, God, who set everything into motion, and who stands outside the universe as the cause and reason for life. The difference between that and "intelligent design" is subtle yet significant. Believing scientists claim that belief in God is not incompatible with studying evolution since science looks only for the natural explanations for phenomena. The proponents of intelligent design, on the other hand, deny the ability to explain life on earth through solely natural explanations. That difference, while subtle, is determinative. David J. Fine, Intelligent Design

But to get more specific, GOD rested on the 7th day, the Earth did not rest, it continued to create and change. God's work in creation was done, but that was just the beginning of things, not the end.

 

[cybrsage]

He is correct on all accounts...

Wait, you just said that if one species alters the DNA of another, that alteration was a naturally occurring change?

You really believe this?

 

[Paul98]

Wait, you just said that if one species alters the DNA of another, that alteration was a naturally occurring change?

You really believe this?

How do you define natural? and you once again prove my point.

And once again you also totally missed the point of his post, which isn't surprising.

 

[cybrsage]

How do you define natural? and you once again prove my point.

Well, most people already understand this, but I will use pictures:

A natural dam:

A dam which is not natural:

I hope this was educational.

 

[Paul98]

Well, most people already understand this, but I will use pictures:

A natural dam:

A dam which is not natural:

I hope this was educational.

Clearly you don't understand, but as expected.

 

[cybrsage]

Clearly you don't understand, but as expected.

I don't understand? I am the one who used dams to show you the difference between natural and not natural. Now you are pretending to be the one who knew the difference...

You very explicitly asked:

How do you define natural?

I showed you via pretty pictures. I figured pretty pictures would work to help you understand. Do you get the difference yet, or do you need more pictures?

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Matt is correct. The Bible is very vague about the creation. You can always use the programmer analogy as a good explaination.

I used the term literal interpretation for a reason. It's not vague at all if you take it at face value as some people do. The rest of your talk is just drivel. You can make an analogy to show anything. In other words analogies are only as good as the initial premise you're trying to talk about.

 

[Paul98]

I don't understand? I am the one who used dams to show you the difference between natural and not natural. Now you are pretending to be the one who knew the difference...

You very explicitly asked:



I showed you via pretty pictures. I figured pretty pictures would work to help you understand. Do you get the difference yet, or do you need more pictures?

So we are unnatural?

 

[Whiskey16]

It is certain futility to lecture wilful ignoramuses upon the long developed and well-honed disciplines of genetics, geological dating methods, ecology, etc...

Excellent thread for point out all the intellectually challenged. A++ would read again.

I needed a laugh. Thank you, this thread does have value!

Among those is re-enforcing the disappointment upon this forum by a certain member who joined only 2 months ago and now approaching 3000 posts resulting in prolific thread derailing, goal post moving, misquoting, strawman, and intentional dishonest argumentation all to yank everyone's chain for his psychotic jollies.

Creationism has been among his favourite tangents to frustrate those present for an honest discussion. So infamously predictable after years old repetitive and disruptive behaviour before banishment in the Rage3D P&R forum, NVNews, etc...

Guys, your choice to respond to and thereby feed him or not.

 

[HypX]

Creationism has been among his favourite tangents to frustrate those present for an honest discussion. So infamously predictable after years old repetitive and disruptive behaviour before banishment in the Rage3D P&R forum, NVNews, etc...

Guys, your choice to respond to and thereby feed him or not.

Really the same guy? There's a group of creationists in every forum, and they always the same, and they pretty much always get banned sooner or later.

 

[PingviN]

But to get more specific, GOD rested on the 7th day, the Earth did not rest, it continued to create and change. God's work in creation was done, but that was just the beginning of things, not the end.

And this you want to be taught in science? That God created the world. In science class.

 

[ericlp]

Do I go to your church telling you how to teach? I could give a shit less what you do in your church...

Come tell me how I should teach in my science class room and that when were gonna fight. The religious right sucks and are just a bunch of fucking blow hards. Yay for England!

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house and a collection of facts is not necessarily science.

 

[Veliko]

Victory in crushing opposing opinions.

Don't like someones opinion, just regulate it out of existence.

I think equal time should be given to different opinions on how the universe and life began. Science has proven itself to be wrong from time to time.

Why should we take something that is always changing as fact? If it changes, then its clearly not fact. Since science changes its opinion on the history of the universe and how life began, then it should not be blindly accepted as fact.

2+2 = 4 is fact. We can prove that all day long.

Wait a few months or a few years, and science will change its opinion on the universe. But yet we are supposed to accept it as fact?

Someone doesn't quite understand what science is.

Well done Mr Hiker.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

RAGE! Theorems do not belong in schools either! Fuck you Pythagorean theorem! God decides the relationship between triangle sides!