Evolution, not a fact??????

john:

Argument from incredulity. Even if we can't explain it currently with evolution theory, that isn't somehow evidence for design. You see, this is the problem with Creationists, they have no positive evidence for their 'theory' (more like fantasy). So they are forced to resort to attacking evolution.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

john smith:

LOL, what an idiot. I guess he's never heard of an 'arms race'. What makes him think that predators were always as strong as they are today? Predators and prey often enter an 'evolutionary arms race', where they both evolve to become faster/stronger, but there is no 'net' gain on either side (since they are progressing at the same rate).

Saying that the bears wouldn't have been able to defend themselves assumes that...

1. 20% muscle is necessary to defend yourself adequately. 15% muscle may not be as good as 20% muscle, but bears can still use it to fend off attackers.

2. Predators are as strong today as they were in the past.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh I think you're a firm believer in the theory of evolution Mountainhare, but you take it alittle too far with your talk of superior races, boasting about being 'Aryan' and requesting more 'lebensraum' at the expense of lesser races. I'd be careful John, or he'll expose you to his 'Final Solution' and either subject you to Zyklon B or starve you to death simply because you're a 'lesser' race - in his case John, you're no match for the ubermensch! That's Mountainhare's theory of evolution!! Remember, Mountainhare, blame the Jews for everything!! (Apparently I'm a 'Zionist' for 'claiming' that 6 million Jews, and 5 million gypsies/gays/politcal prisoners etc died in concentration camps!!) LOL! He likes that word "Zionist".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You gotta love him!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

 

So, in the first instance you fool yourself; in the second instance you make life unpleasant for those around you by your lack of manners. In other words, both are applicable.

 

Is that a bunny?

 

Yeah. It's heads kinda lob-sided, but I thaught it was'nt a bad attempt if I may say so myself. Got bored.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Some more information on this odd theory of bears and God:

- "Dandy Designs". Does God Exist, v.22, n.5. October 1995. See http://www.doesgodexist.org/SeptOct95/DandyDesigns.html ​

I wonder if the speaker mentioned in the topic post left some sort of organization contact information, so we can find them on the net. There's not much. It appears to be a question so dubious that the average creationist does not consider it useful in the quest to call the untestable hypotheses of creationism "science".

Frankly, I have never heard something so ... well, frankly, stupid ... as what our topic poster describes of this speaker. What age are the students, that such a speaker could expect such an argument to have any relevant impact?

I found a second, useless link that mentions bears in a religious context, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

I would go so far as to wonder why such a speaker would be allowed inside what kind of school. Is there some detail we still need, perhaps omitted accidentally for brevity?

Or would someone like to attempt to do a better job Googling this odd assertion?

Truly, this is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. I can't find much more than the barely-coherent 1995 DGE article listed above. This argument against evolution, or in support of creationism, or whatever it is intended to be, is new to me, and--thank you very much--brings a warm, much-needed chuckle.

 

In the first instance I chew everything, and in the second instance I spit out the garbage. Basically I only digest the good stuff. This is just an example, I don't mind bacon rine

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It was quite good. I likey.

 

The (Salem, Oregon) Statesman Journal includes on its Nov. 25 Opinion page a commentary by a gentleman named Irv Blake, entitled, "Evolution needs God in control". I will continue to monitor the website for the online publication, but it seems they're a bit behind. To the other, though, the Ron Eachus column he responds to is still available.

Mr. Blake's commentary is restrained, somewhat dignified, but a perfect example of what is wrong about the creationist argument:

This is a logical fallacy; there is no testable hypothesis by which we can prove or disprove said proposition. When the "scientists" over at intelligent design headquarters propose a testable hypothesis, then we can get about the "science" of "intelligent design".

Mr. Blake is not without his "scientific" considerations, however:

It is almost a compelling argument, but riddle me this, please: What reason, impetus, stimulus, has the dahlia to change? To what does any given adaptation respond? Why should we expect that the wild dahlia should change at all over the last five centuries?

So what Mr. Blake proposes then, is simple enough:

- Creationism, argument in favor: Go look at what botanists can do when tampering with breeds.
- Evolution, argument in favor: A bunch of bones.
- Evolution, argument against: The wealth of information does not tell enough of a story.​

Mr. Blake's article is an example of why creationism is attractive to the ignorant. It identifies itself primarily against a theory without offering a testable alternative. What is "enough of a story"? Artists know that the story simply is; what it means has as much to do with the person receiving the story as the content of the story itself. If the record does not tell enough of a story for Mr. Blake, it well could be his own fault.

I will watch the Statesman website for whenever they manage to post Mr. Blake's article online. Who knows if they will get to it anytime soon?
__________

Notes:

Blake, Irv. "Evolution needs God in control". Statesman Journal, November 25, 2005; page 11C.
​

See Also:

Eachus, Ron. "Intelligent design built by controversy, not science". SatesmanJournal.co, November 21, 2005. See http://www.statesmanjournal.com/app...D=/20051121/COLUMN0703/511210344/1097/OPINION
​

 

macroevolution (speciation) has been ovserved. Even some creationists admit it (like answersingenesis... they cite the mosquito one) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

I have no problem with speciation, it MUST have happened

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What I mean by macro evolution is for example a dog becoming a horse, sort of complete change of species or what the Bible calls kind.

 

Macroevolution is the conglomerate of many microevolutions, referring to the large-scale changes that occur over geologic time. You are probably thinking in terms of the 'one species evolving into another' definition that anti-evolutionists use. To put it bluntly, the fossil record, with all its gaps, is profound evidence for macroevolution.

For example, I wonder where all those half man/half monkeys are today...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Precisely, the fossil only prooves that the creature died.

 

You seemingly aren't aware of the other options, which makes some people unable to answer your poll (including me).

Evolution is only what is to be observed naturally through different selection processess, of course evolution in it's core is true and a fact. The evolution of the different species however is not so easily observed as is the core of evolution (that things can change by selection processess).

One example of true evolution would be if 5 were the only way to survive.

Now the numbers entitys from 1 to 9 came to this kind existance (where only 5 could live):

1 - died
3 - died
4 - died
9 - died
5 - stayed alive
8 - died
2 - died
7 - died
6 - died

5 is the only left.

This is evolution at it's core, and it is true.

Evolution happens as well as in my example as in nature of course, there is nothing that say that this is the only way things can change by though.

The theory of evolution does in such not disprove God.

That there were a creation process doesn't disprove God as He set the rules, also we must be aware that there may be other processess by which things might change. Evolution can thus be seen as water scaling of the surface of a "rock" in such a way that it in the end is in a shape that isn't affected by water anymore - water has then done it's bit. That there are other means of change is not that unimaginable, and what created that rock in the first place is not evolution, since evolution only deals with change.

 

and why in the living hell (I just like saying that, no offense meant) would you ever think that if one species becoming another is possible, that it's not possible that in millions/billions of years they turn into other genera, families, orders, etc?

I don't get how people can believe that kind of thing (two thirds creationism, one third evolution). I mean, there's NO reason why all the way evolution couldn't happen.

 

To be honest, neither have i, i left the class feeling rather annoyed.

The age is 17- 18, but everyone thought he was talking outa his ass, and what was even more annoying was when we questioned his 'theory' and said that he was completly bias for God, we got a bollocking from the teach!!

Honestly non at-all, i felt so peved at this 'talk', that as soon as i could obtain net access i posted this thread, just to see if any one else thought the same way as him, and if i was actually in the wrong. Every so often, this christian dude comes into our RE class, and gives us a talk on whateva subject we are covering in the syllabus at this moment in time. This time it was Science vs Religion in the origin of the universe, hence the terrible bias documentry we were 'forced' to watch.

it just plain pissed me off, we werent even allowed to argue for what we believed was correct, as it 'went against' his!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

yes, sorry about that. By the way thank you for the example in your post, was very intresting

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The Guy on the video, when questioned about dinosaur fossils, stated that they were simply 'put there' to 'test us', i suppose he ment test our faith in God....?