First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
Post Reply What excuse do you have for not believing in macro evolution?
26597 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Nestled between e...
Offline
Posted 2/2/15 , edited 2/2/15
What excuse do you have for lambasting others with such inflammatory attacks on a CR general discussion forum?
This sort of post is something that is clearly baiting argumentative commentary or dismissal.
It's fit for a topical forum on another site, but on here it is essentially just flame material.

Even if I have issues with someone's beliefs, I'll never make them feel like subhumans for thinking differently.
This kind of flippant, overtly intolerant and radical posturing of any issue only causes disagreements in general.

Fact: Your rhetorical remarks are snide and self-serving.
Fact: You give no conceivable quarter to those who don't feel compelled to believe you. Leave them alone.
Fact: You present yourself as a messenger, yet act like another holier-than-thou proselytizer, quasi-maven.
Fact: You welcome commentary or reproach, but admonish anyone who has even the slightest difference in opinion.

Learn a little bit of civility and less mudslinging, you'll win on many fronts.
No one has to prove anything to you, and I'm just trolling because it seemed given at this point. :]
41690 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Somewhere
Offline
Posted 2/2/15 , edited 2/7/15
Okay I'm gonna give my two cents. I'm gonna probably play from a more skeptical side and neutral ground. I respect your opinion and in no way am trying to attack you.
Creation and Evolution are both Origin Theories. We can't not prove either scientifically. You can't prove Evolution with the scientific method. I can't prove Creation with the scientific method. So you cannot claim Evolution as fact and I can't claim Creation as fact. One falls more into Theistic Science while the other falls more into Methodological Naturalism. Thiestic Science is basically taking theological considerations into account when doing science(I have my issues for this side,but that's for another time). Methodological Nauralism is believing only the physical world exists and does not bring supernatural means into science(it does not have to entirely dismiss the supernatural). Science can be defined as this....taken from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science
So one is just as much scientific as the other, but should not be considered facts( I should mention I'm focusing more on the second definition). The thing is both Creationist and Evolutionist share something in common...we all have the exact same evidence. We have the same fossils, we have the same rock layers, etc. The only difference is how we interpret it. Here is a picture to further show what I mean...it's not the best, but it gives the general idea.

Why do you think this debate is still going on with no conclusion in site? Both sides are like" Haha I found something to disprove you and here is how it proves me right." One side might say do to it's complexity it proves Creation. While the other may say that because it was found in this rock layer and it's very old it proves Evolution( Sorry if bad example, but I'm trying to not get to detailed). When you really think about what both sides use as evidence it becomes apparent that it's the same, but interpreted differently. Also both sides have had blunders. Apparently we do not share the Tear Enzyme with a Chicken(Creation argument says we do). Excerpt taken from National Center for Science Education. http://ncse.com/cej/3/1/closer-look-at-some-biochemical-data-that-support-creation
As for Evolution there was the Piltdown Man hoax. I shall link some info on it. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/science-of-natural-history/the-scientific-process/piltdown-man-hoax/ I personally do not think we will draw a real conclusion on our origin in this lifetime or really ever. If we by some chance are able to go back in time to see what happened we will know who was right.

How can you prove we came from monkeys? Can you witness this change from monkey to man? Yes, we may share common things with apes, but who is to say we don't share common things with other animals? Where is the miising-link?

Are you sure you are not confusing Macro-Evolution with Micro-Evolution?
I would agree that Micro-Evolution is true. Micro-evolution is basically just a mutation leading to new varieties in a species. It also takes place over a short period of time. We have a better chance of witnessing this.
Macro-Evolution is one species into another over a long period of time.....how can we witness this? If Evolution takes millions of years and involves one species to become another, we can never test this idea. It can only remain a theory.

However I can not prove that some Intelligent designer created everything. To me Intelligent Design falls into the supernatural category and I can not use science to prove the supernatural. The Supernatural is beyond my realm of understanding, while science is in my realm of understanding.

The reason Creationist deny Evolution is not because they want to be superior to animals, but because the take the same exact evidence and interpret it differently. Also believing in Creation or God is not foolish. If that was the case I can say as a Christian and Creationist that it is foolish to believe in evolution and say there is no God( I know you didn't say God didn't exist I'm just making a point). So since I feel like I'm starting to repeat myself I guess I'll end it hear. I'll be honest this was a lot of fun. If I need to clarify anything please let me know and I will. I do hope that I covered all or at least your important points. I also hope that I made sense and made things easy to understand from my point of view

In conclusion I say that neither side is Scientific fact, but are just theories.
P.S. If Evolution is proven Scientific Fact( by use of scientific method) then goody for it. Same goes for Creation. Till then I hold each as a personal belief with me siding with Creation.

Additional Note. I don't claim any of my beliefs as fact, but keep them as beliefs.
39137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 2/2/15

Ctonhunter wrote:


P.S. If Evolution is proven Scientific Fact( by use of scientific method) then goody for it. Same goes for Creation. Till then I hold each as a personal belief with me siding with Creation.


except creationism can't be scientific fact because it can't make predictions. For that matter, "being scientific fact" is basically tautological to "making predictions." E.g., I can say Newton's Laws are a scientific fact, even though strictly speaking, we know Newton's Laws aren't the most comprehensive laws in nature.
41690 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Somewhere
Offline
Posted 2/2/15 , edited 2/2/15

Zoraprime wrote:


Ctonhunter wrote:


P.S. If Evolution is proven Scientific Fact( by use of scientific method) then goody for it. Same goes for Creation. Till then I hold each as a personal belief with me siding with Creation.


except creationism can't be scientific fact because it can't make predictions. For that matter, "being scientific fact" is basically tautological to "making predictions." E.g., I can say Newton's Laws are a scientific fact, even though strictly speaking, we know Newton's Laws aren't the most comprehensive laws in nature.


Maybe Scientific Fact was the wrong word for me to use there. Maybe proven true would have been better.
This may be a terrible response but it did just come to mind. Wouldn't "God did it" be a prediction? Personally I hate bringing in God-of-the-gaps as I don't like assuming God did it as an immediate answer, but I do not toss out the assumption completely(it's like a last answer). Now I'm actually taking Philosophy right now and tautological is a new word for me. Apparently looking it up it means...taken from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tautology

Do you mind explaining tautology further?
Sorry if what I added is confusing or makes no sense. Explaining tautology more may help me explain my side better. I'm just a tad confused.


20695 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / Kansas
Offline
Posted 2/2/15
You say that Adam was not created by mud. Adam means "Of the Earth", the idea here is that Adam is made from the same elements as everything else on the planet. And mud is mostly water as well. Further, couldn't the "primordial sludge" that some scientific types say life orginated in resemble mud?

Your honor, I am a caveman. I don't understand your "science" and your "electricity". But what I do know is that you seem to think Darwinism is a religion. You proselytise creationists with the fervor of a zealot.

You also say that other animals can be considered superior to humans. Actually, that is only true of two animals. Dolphins, and mice.
39137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 2/2/15 , edited 2/2/15

Ctonhunter wrote:

Maybe Scientific Fact was the wrong word for me to use there. Maybe proven true would have been better.
This may be a terrible response but it did just come to mind. Wouldn't "God did it" be a prediction? Personally I hate bringing in God-of-the-gaps as I don't like assuming God did it as an immediate answer, but I do not toss out the assumption completely(it's like a last answer). Now I'm actually taking Philosophy right now and tautological is a new word for me. Apparently looking it up it means...taken from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tautology

Do you mind explaining tautology further?
Sorry if what I added is confusing or makes no sense. Explaining tautology more may help me explain my side better. I'm just a tad confused.




Tautology means logically equivalent.

"God did it" isn't a prediction; it's a post-diction. Saying something like "the mosquitos in London Underground won't be able to breed with mosquito above ground in the near-future" (and thus, by definition, will be a different species and thus macro-evolution) is a prediction; as I'm saying what will happen in the future. The fact that DNA existed as it did was itself a(n implicit) prediction of the theory of evolution as well as genetics for that matter.
41690 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Somewhere
Offline
Posted 2/2/15


Thanks for explaining tautology.
*Facepalm* I figured well thought I would ask instead of just throwing the question out all together. Now I know.
okay I see where you are going with this and see how your example would fit macro-evolution. The long period of time that is affiliated with macro-evolution isn't really specified is it? Just curious.


1656 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
15 / F
Offline
Posted 2/2/15
I NEED SOME POPCORN!! THIS IS ENTERTAINING!!
Posted 2/2/15 , edited 2/2/15


I not saying you are wrong or right.I do believe in evolution thou.I deal with family members who are religious.This what I always do when they bring religion on the conversation. I it ignored it. If they want to believe in a fairy tale I let them. I know I smarter than they are.So why should I get down to their level ? Trying to argue with them is like talking to a wall. Is truly a fools errand. Now calm the fuck down. Listing unless they are creating some kind of bullshit religius law. You should't let their baseless argument get under your skin. When you do this. You are acknowledging their argument.
39137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 2/2/15

Ctonhunter wrote:

Thanks for explaining tautology.
*Facepalm* I figured well thought I would ask instead of just throwing the question out all together. Now I know.
okay I see where you are going with this and see how your example would fit macro-evolution. The long period of time that is affiliated with macro-evolution isn't really specified is it? Just curious.




I brought up mosquitos because I remember reading about it recently. That said, insects reproduce extremely quickly and their populations are divided relatively easy compared to other animals. As such, insects tend towards becoming different species extremely quickly (to the point, for example, "fruit fly" isn't even a species--it's a genus--because there's too many damn flies).

When species become different species (i.e. when they can no longer interbreed), macro-evolution has occurred by definition. When micro/macro-evolution occurs is an extremely arbitrary distinction that few scientists put much weight on. It's about as important as the difference between hydrogen bond and polar bond in chemistry, for the sake of an example.
Posted 2/2/15

cpdion wrote:

I NEED SOME POPCORN!! THIS IS ENTERTAINING!!


I just waiting for the idiots to bite into the bait.
Posted 2/2/15

cleruninja wrote:

You say that Adam was not created by mud. Adam means "Of the Earth", the idea here is that Adam is made from the same elements as everything else on the planet. And mud is mostly water as well. Further, couldn't the "primordial sludge" that some scientific types say life orginated in resemble mud?

Your honor, I am a caveman. I don't understand your "science" and your "electricity". But what I do know is that you seem to think Darwinism is a religion. You proselytise creationists with the fervor of a zealot.

You also say that other animals can be considered superior to humans. Actually, that is only true of two animals. Dolphins, and mice.


I think there been other animals who a show high levels of intelligence beside those two.
41690 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Somewhere
Offline
Posted 2/2/15


Hmm well I must say you have given me a lot to think on and research more on. So there isn't to much of a difference between micro/macro evolution? I'll look more into the fly studies. I've heard of that, but never looked to deep into it. Well when I can hopefully get some free time, I may come back with a counter or more questions. I had fun and thanks for being cool and mature in responding to me. I am curious, did my original post make sense? Is there maybe anything I could improve on in my arguments? Was it even decent? I'm always looking to improve and learn, so I'm curious. Again thanks

P.S. Discussing Evolution/Creation while listening to Journey is definitely a great way to spend some time.

11012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/2/15
WWJD
What Would Jojo Do?
7597 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Offline
Posted 2/2/15

Ctonhunter wrote:


P.S. Discussing Evolution/Creation while listening to Journey is definitely a great way to spend some time.



Escape is the perfect feel good song.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.