1. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49970
    15 Mar '06 10:02
  2. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49970
    15 Mar '06 10:03
    Just wondering what the creationists think about this one.
    If bird flu mutates into a virus capable of being transmitted from human to human then that would in effect prove one of the mechanisms of evolution- that is, mutation of a genome.
    So, would the creationist position be that such a bird flu mutation would be impossible, or would it be a divine manipulation?
  3. Standard memberXanthosNZ
    Cancerous Bus Crash
    p^2.sin(phi)
    Joined
    06 Sep '04
    Moves
    25076
    15 Mar '06 10:10
    Insert crazy ranting including pseudoscience and an attempt to show that microevolution is possible but macroevolution is completely ludicrous.
  4. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49970
    15 Mar '06 10:13
    Originally posted by XanthosNZ
    Insert crazy ranting including pseudoscience and an attempt to show that microevolution is possible but macroevolution is completely ludicrous.
    Insert slapping head with hand ... of course, the old microevolution in the shoe trick. Missed the macro by that much ...
  5. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    15 Mar '06 10:14
    Originally posted by amannion
    Just wondering what the creationists think about this one.
    If bird flu mutates into a virus capable of being transmitted from human to human then that would in effect prove one of the mechanisms of evolution- that is, mutation of a genome.
    So, would the creationist position be that such a bird flu mutation would be impossible, or would it be a divine manipulation?
    A priori, the creationist is not necessarily committed to a denial of evolutionary theory. Such a mutation could still be perfectly compatible with a creationist account.

    If they were to say it was 'divine manipulation', it wouldn't exactly paint their creator in such a favorable light -- His going out of His way to cause people to suffer and all.

    Of course, if you're talking about the young earthers, or those who vehemently deny evolutionary theory, then who knows what they will say. They come up with all kinds of gibberish.
  6. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49970
    15 Mar '06 10:17
    Originally posted by LemonJello
    A priori, the creationist is not necessarily committed to a denial of evolutionary theory. Such a mutation could still be perfectly compatible with a creationist account.

    If they were to say it was 'divine manipulation', it wouldn't exactly paint their creator in such a favorable light -- His going out of His way to cause people to suffer and ...[text shortened]... ionary theory, then who knows what they will say. They come up with all kinds of gibberish.
    And yet so much creationist literature portrays it as antithetical to evolution.

    I'm keen to see the type of gibberish they use for this topic ...
  7. Standard memberXanthosNZ
    Cancerous Bus Crash
    p^2.sin(phi)
    Joined
    06 Sep '04
    Moves
    25076
    15 Mar '06 10:46
    Originally posted by amannion
    And yet so much creationist literature portrays it as antithetical to evolution.

    I'm keen to see the type of gibberish they use for this topic ...
    Thread 39719
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    15 Mar '06 11:09
    Originally posted by amannion
    Just wondering what the creationists think about this one.
    If bird flu mutates into a virus capable of being transmitted from human to human then that would in effect prove one of the mechanisms of evolution- that is, mutation of a genome.
    So, would the creationist position be that such a bird flu mutation would be impossible, or would it be a divine manipulation?
    Just an interesting question, if virus' evolve as we all know they do, and if virus' are not considered to be alive, then it is not only life that evolves. This clearly violates the popular creationist, no evolution before life statement.
  9. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    15 Mar '06 11:39
    Originally posted by amannion
    So, would the creationist position be that such a bird flu mutation would be impossible, or would it be a divine manipulation?
    Strawman and a fallacy of definition; you present microevolutional evidence and suggest it being proof of macroevolution. The virus mutated into a virus, which will mutate into another virus. There is no evidence of the genetic barrier being broken and it mutating into an essentially living (and non-viral) organism such as a bacterium.

    Btw, a virus requires an already advanced DNA/RNA duplication system to be able to reproduce.
  10. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    15 Mar '06 11:401 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Just an interesting question, if virus' evolve as we all know they do, and if virus' are not considered to be alive, then it is not only life that evolves. This clearly violates the popular creationist, no evolution before life statement.
    What? Since when do creationists deny mutations?

    See my last sentence above...
  11. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    15 Mar '06 11:41
    Originally posted by amannion
    And yet so much creationist literature portrays it as antithetical to evolution.

    I'm keen to see the type of gibberish they use for this topic ...
    Gibberish? Bigot. 😛🙁
  12. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    15 Mar '06 11:45
    Originally posted by XanthosNZ
    Insert crazy ranting including pseudoscience and an attempt to show that microevolution is possible but macroevolution is completely ludicrous.
    Macroevolution isn’t completely ludicrous; it merely lacks observable proof.
  13. Standard memberRagnorak
    For RHP addons...
    tinyurl.com/yssp6g
    Joined
    16 Mar '04
    Moves
    15013
    15 Mar '06 11:50
    Originally posted by Halitose
    Macroevolution isn’t completely ludicrous; it merely lacks observable proof.
    "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

    Your names not D. Thomas, by any chance, Halitosis?

    D
  14. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    15 Mar '06 11:56
    Originally posted by Ragnorak
    "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

    Your names not D. Thomas, by any chance, Halitosis?

    D
    Ah... but this is science, not theology.
  15. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    15 Mar '06 12:24
    Originally posted by Halitose
    Ah... but this is science, not theology.
    Different standards of proof?
Back to Top