A common claim of creationists is that the theory of macroevolution cannot be proved, and experiments cannot be done that would give strong evidence for it. This may or may not be true. Let's assume it is.
Macroevolution is an extrapolation of something that can be studied via experimentation and has been basically (as much as anything can be) proved: microevolution.
Creationism is not. Therefore macroevolution is superior to creationism.
Would anyone like to argue the opposite?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe Bible states that microevolution will take place, as well.
A common claim of creationists is that the theory of macroevolution cannot be proved, and experiments cannot be done that would give strong evidence for it. This may or may not be true. Let's assume it is.
Macroevolution is an extrapolation of something that can be studied via experimentation and has been basically (as much as anything ca ...[text shortened]... Therefore macroevolution is superior to creationism.
Would anyone like to argue the opposite?
"...after their own kinds.
Therefore the Creatonist model is better, because it explains the Cambrian explosing, irreducable complexity, and the origin of birds and humans.
Oh, and DNA.
Originally posted by DarfiusWow that's a stretch. Did you learn that from the Hebrew as well?
The Bible states that microevolution will take place, as well.
"...after their own [b]kinds.
Therefore the Creatonist model is better, because it explains the Cambrian explosing, irreducable complexity, and the origin of birds and humans.
Oh, and DNA.[/b]
You make a lot of mileage out of a few phrases.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWould you mind explaining how microevolution proves macroevolution?
A common claim of creationists is that the theory of macroevolution cannot be proved, and experiments cannot be done that would give strong evidence for it. This may or may not be true. Let's assume it is.
Macroevolution is an extrapolation of something that can be studied via experimentation and has been basically (as much as anything ca ...[text shortened]... Therefore macroevolution is superior to creationism.
Would anyone like to argue the opposite?
Originally posted by dj2beckerI didn't say it did.
Would you mind explaining how microevolution proves macroevolution?
Macroevolution is simply the assumption that the microevolution we observe on human time scales continues to act over long periods of time. The time required to produce the observed species agrees with the conclusions of other fields of science. The more time that goes by, the more things will change via microevolution, until it becomes convenient to call the whole effect macroevolution.
It's similar to assuming gravity acts over long distances or worked the same way it does today the last several million years, or that any other observed natural process is essentially unchanged today from the way it worked in the past.
Microevolution = small amounts of evolution
Macroevolution = large amounts of evolution
Both are evolution.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYes, but only one has been proven.
I didn't say it did.
Macroevolution is simply microevolution that takes place over large amounts of time. The more time that goes by, the more things will change via microevolution, until it becomes convenient to call the whole effect macroevolution.
Microevolution = small amounts of evolution
Macroevolution = large amounts of evolution
Both are evolution.
Macroevolution claims one species will spawn into an entirely new animal.
Such as a fish into a human being.
Originally posted by DarfiusYes, but one has been proven. Nothing remotely related to creationism or ID has been proven to the satisfaction of the scientific community.
Yes, but only one has been proven.
Macroevolution claims one species will spawn into an entirely new animal.
Such as a fish into a human being.
Originally posted by DarfiusHere's a logical chain for you to analyze:
Yes, but only one has been proven.
Macroevolution claims one species will spawn into an entirely new animal.
Such as a fish into a human being.
1. The process of microevolution exists.
2. Microevolution changes organisms in proportion to the amount of time that passes.
3. The more time that passes, the more microevolution will change organisms.
4. Fossils have been found which are scientifically dated to be billions of years old.
5. Other fields of science agree with the conclusion that the Earth is billions of years old.
6. If billions of years have passed, then microevolution will produce extremely dramatic changes in organisms due to 2. and 3.
7. This acting of microevolution over billions of years is labelled macroevolution.
What do you think?
Originally posted by DarfiusDuane Gish made this assertion thirty years ago. As far as I can tell, not even most Creationists take his work seriously these days.
Such as a fish into a human being.
Fish to Gish is a gross oversimplification; and it garners no support from anyone familiar with the details of evolutionary theory, or the hundreds of thousands of intermediate species in the fossil record.
But you know all that. You are not really attempting to offer reasonable argument in defense of your views. You just want to stir up quarrels.
Read Karl Popper, and debate his perspectives on scientific method with the likes of bbarr, and then you'll earn the respect of a great many here.
Here's a logical chain for you to analyze:
1. The process of microevolution exists.
Agreed.
2. Microevolution changes organisms in proportion to the amount of time that passes.
Agreed. Though there's no evidence that time is the driving force, but rather outside stimuli.
3. The more time that passes, the more microevolution will change organisms.
That doesn't follow. If outside stimuli doesn't force a change, a change will not occur. For instance, flies not exposed to a chemical won't develop a resistence to it by shedding information or switching information around. Time has nothing to do with it.
4. Fossils have been found which are scientifically dated to be billions of years old.
Agreed. The Bible agrees with the age of the earth as well.
5. Other fields of science agree with the conclusion that the Earth is billions of years old.
Agreed. The Bible agrees with the age of the earth as well.
6. If billions of years have passed, then microevolution will produce extremely dramatic changes in organisms due to 2. and 3.
Doesn't follow. Time has nothing to do with it. It is a result of outside stimuli. Now if within those billions of years, there were many changes in outside stimuli, then changes may occur, but information has never been proven to be ADDED.
7. This acting of microevolution over billions of years is labelled macroevolution.
Yes, wrongly so. Macroevolution implies addition of information, which has never been proven to occur. Neither has the fossil record yielded explanations for the LACK of transitional fossils that Darwin promised would validate his theory. Instead, it has invalidated it even more.
What do you think?
I think the Hebrew makes it clear the earth is old, and that God created the first of all animals at different periods of earth history, culminating in human beings. After he made them (and us), microevolution occurred as a way of adapting to changing stimuli, which is a clear indication of intelligent design.
Why should animated matter respond to other stimuli in a defensive manner? Can a book defend itself? Why should we be able to, unless a greater mind gave us the ability in His handiwork?
Originally posted by DarfiusIf 40% of scientists are Christian, 1000young's assertion is simple to fathom once you realize that most Christian scientists can distinguish between theology and biology, faith and reason. The vast majority of scientists who are Christian neither carry their science into full-fledged mechanistic theory (as does Richard Dawkins), nor do they believe their religious beliefs must trump all human understanding.
Thousand...if 40% of all scientists are Christian, how does that mold with your statement?