Creationism vs. Macroevolution

Originally posted by Wulebgr
If 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.

Please quit comparing faith to being irrational. Let us all agree there is evidence and that you do not find it compelling. I will not be labeled irrational or crazy for my beliefs. Wrong I can handle. Crazy is simply rude.

Originally posted by Darfius
Please quit comparing faith to being irrational. Let us all agree there is evidence and that you do not find it compelling. I will not be labeled irrational or crazy for my beliefs. Wrong I can handle. Crazy is simply rude.

please stop putting words in keyboard: I did not and have not ever called faith irrational

I distinguish between faith and reason: reason stems from human capacity to construct knowledge, faith affirms what cannot be known through reason (see Hebrews 11)

faith may be perfectly rational, or it may be terribly irrational: your confusion of terms is a fine example of irrationality in the name of faith. Whan you begin to demonstrate that you can handle being shown to be wrong, fewer will think of you as irrational or crazy (although I've accused you of neither)

Originally posted by Darfius
Thousand...if 40% of all scientists are Christian, how does that mold with your statement?

Is that Christian by your standards or by their own self claims?

Most self proclaimed Christian scientists I've met believe all life arose from a single organism, as I do.

Originally posted by Darfius
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 th ...[text shortened]... le to, unless a greater mind gave us the ability in His handiwork?[/b]

Agreed. Though there's no evidence that time is the driving force, but rather outside stimuli.

You're trying to have it both ways. Either microevolution changes things in proportion to the amount of time that passes, or it doesn't.

You are right that outside stimuli drive microevolution. Why don't I add these steps in the argument:

1.3 Microevolution is caused by outside stimuli.
1.7 The more time that passes, the more stimuli will (on average) act on an organism, and the more effect any one stimulus will have.

information has never been proven to be ADDED

Oh, ok, so you do subscribe to this belief. I was trying to determine if that was the case or not. Can you define 'information' for me so I can try to show that you are wrong? Here are a few likely candidates - the combination of gene duplication with mutation of the new gene, mutation of introns to add a start codon and therefore create a new gene, mutation of stop codons to lengthen an existing gene.

Yes, wrongly so.

How can a label be wrong?

Macroevolution implies addition of information

I never said that. However I do believe that it would be hard for you to define 'information' such that microevolution did not increase it.

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.

This is incorrect. For example, a 2001 paper by Philip D. Gingerich describes a fossil of a whale with legs - a clear transitionary fossil.

Gingerich, P.D. et al. 2001. "Origin of Whales from Early Artiodactyls: Hands and Feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan." Science, 293:2239-2242 (21 Sep). This report hinges largely on new fossils of Rodhocetus.

microevolution occurred as a way of adapting to changing stimuli, which is a clear indication of intelligent design.

No it's not.

Why should animated matter respond to other stimuli in a defensive manner?

Because the animated matter in question reproduces. Those versions of animated matter (life) which did not defend themselves from dangers to reproduction did not reproduce as well as those which did and therefore are not observed today in competition with those organisms which do.

Originally posted by Darfius
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]

Which verse is this that states microevolution will take place?

Macroevolution explains all those things in at least as much detail as creationism. There's not a whole lot of detail in "God just did it that way for his own reasons".

Originally posted by Darfius

Macroevolution claims one species will spawn into an entirely new animal..

Darfius, what are your thoughts about whether polyploidy has actually happened in the plant kingdom?

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Polyploidy.html

Originally posted by Darfius
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]

The Cambrian Explosion occured because of a large extinction due to an iceage. Because of the niches ready to be exploited and the oxygen richer environment at the time a large number of different lifeforms were viable. Most only in the short term.

Irreducible complexity is a fundamentally flawed concept plain and simple.

I'd also love to hear your argument for how DNA confirms creation over evolution (read: laugh at).

Originally posted by Darfius
Thousand...if 40% of all scientists are Christian, how does that mold with your statement?

Interesting Darfius. How does this statement 'mold' with the one you made in the 'Is there a God?' thread just a bit over a month ago?

posted by telerion to Darfius
First, a lot of scientist believe in a god. Many are Xtians, so you are completely misinformed if you think scientists approach everything with the belief that God does not exist.

response from Darfius
A lot of scientists do believe in a god. However, the overhwelming majority do not.

If the majority of scientists are non-theists, and 40% of scientists are xtian, then less than 20% are non-xtian theistic scientists.

This seems pretty suspect on its own if we consider just the scientist that are Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu.

But you say something stronger than that just a majority are non-theists. You say that an overwhelming majority are non-theistic. This suggests that much less than 20% are non-xtian theist, an implication that is very suspect.

If 'overwhelming' means greater than 60%, then your statements contradict.

Originally posted by telerion
If 'overwhelming' means greater than 60%, then your statements contradict.

Ah, but if you go back to the original Greek, you will find that the word translated as 'overwhelming' has an alternative definition: 'slightly, barely at all, not worth mentioning.'

Originally posted by Paul Dirac
Darfius, what are your thoughts about whether polyploidy has actually happened in the plant kingdom?

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Polyploidy.html

Let me see if I understand, as a result of inter-species breeding, a new species was formed?

The Cambrian Explosion occured because of a large extinction due to an iceage. Because of the niches ready to be exploited and the oxygen richer environment at the time a large number of different lifeforms were viable. Most only in the short term.

Nice theory. Actually, it's weak and lacks proof, so nevermind. Horrible theory.

Irreducible complexity is a fundamentally flawed concept plain and simple.

Nice support of your argument. Have you even read Behe? I doubt it, that's frowned upon at talkorigins.com.

I'd also love to hear your argument for how DNA confirms creation over evolution (read: laugh at).

Simple. DNA is an absurdly high amount of information. Such information has only been observed to come from intelligence.

For example, if you were hiking up a mountain, and you saw rocks forming "Hello there, and welcome, Xanthos." would you assume it had formed naturally from an earthquake? What if your brother had gone up before you? Whom would you assume it was?

Originally posted by telerion
Interesting Darfius. How does this statement 'mold' with the one you made in the 'Is there a God?' thread just a bit over a month ago?

posted by telerion to Darfius
First, a lot of scientist believe in a god. Many are Xtians, so you are completely misinformed if you think scientists approach everything with the belief that God does not exis ...[text shortened]... very suspect.

If 'overwhelming' means greater than 60%, then your statements contradict.

Yes, they contradict. Such is the result when one learns new information.

I suppose that unravels my whole stance! 😛

Originally posted by Darfius
Yes, they contradict. Such is the result when one learns new information.

I suppose that unravels my whole stance! 😛

Nope. I just wanted to get it on the record that your position had actually changed. I wouldn't want you to go back to saying that the overwhelming majority of scientists are atheists when you find it convenient.

If you have changed, then I commend you for recognizing your error and renouncing your previous position.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I didn't say it did.

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, unti ...[text shortened]... = small amounts of evolution
Macroevolution = large amounts of evolution

Both are evolution.

Whoa Dude! The assumptions do fly freely! What you are referring to as microevolution, the creationist calls variation within kinds. It is one of the beautiful and deliberate design features established at the beginning. A way to give us all the delight of surprise and discovery; like when a litter of puppies is born and the family gathers to see what they look like.

So within the dog kind there is tremendous variety, but no matter how much time goes by (the ultra assumption of evolutionary minded scientists), two dogs will never give birth to a cat (and even if they did, they would certainly never tell their dog neighbors!).


I especially liked this quote.

"The time required to produce the observed species agrees with the conclusions of other fields of science."

Using this as some kind of proof is like saying "Moe, Larry and Curly all agreed on the best way to hang wallpaper"

One more thing. It is 'convenient for people to call the whole effect macroevolution' because it is convenient for people to say anything that helps people deny the claim of God (their personal creator) on their lives.

Yes, you have revealed very well the role that grand assumptions play in supporting the whole wobbly structure of evolution theory.
Uniformitarianism etc.

Originally posted by chinking58
Whoa Dude! The assumptions do fly freely! What you are referring to as microevolution, the creationist calls variation within kinds. It is one of the beautiful and deliberate design features established at the beginning. A way to give us all the delight of surprise and discovery; like when a litter of puppies is born and the family gathers to see w ...[text shortened]... ons play in supporting the whole wobbly structure of evolution theory.
Uniformitarianism etc.

I've asked some Creationists around here to no avail, "What is the 'scientific' definition of a 'kind'?"