Evolution - defies accepted science

reply to post by milkyway12


Why do creationists always rely on this dichotomy of evolution to strengthen their points?

Macroevolution refers to how new species and taxa are created, I realize this. There are different types of speciation (allopatric, parapatric and sympatric); speciation is a topic of much debate among evolutionary biologists; but what do you suggest - Goddidit? Hello, we have molecular clocks!

________________________________________________________________________

Concerning natural selection and humans, technological advancements in medicine and the standard of living have improved in developed nations, so we are protected (somewhat) from the vagaries of nature.

Natural selection has not stopped, but it has been slowed down. Sexual selection is still at work and natural selection still operates in parts of the developing world.

Cultural evolution is working faster than biological evolution, but both have to be taken into consideration regarding the changes in our species.

reply to post by IEtherianSoul9


That was exactly my argument. Both Creation and Evolution should be taught. Pretty much all science is "accepted" theory (In what we consider fact). You shouldn't say, "well this is all we got, so let's teach it."

The students should have a choice.

I am not against Science; I love science, matter of fact, I am a student of Number Theory. However, I do think students should be able to make a choice, or their parents at the least.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by SpearMint

 

If it has not been observed, then it is not fact. It is a Theory, which is being accepted as fact with a very faulty basis.

I didn't think my mathematical sarcasm would be that hard to understand. Guess i was wrong.

edit on 12-10-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

But it has been observed, not this "macro-evolution" which is irrelevant, but evolution. One example is the milk thing I mentioned earlier. We know evolution happens, it is a fact, people refuse to accept that. We have observed evolution a hell of a lot more than we have observed god, that first sentence of yours is very ironic.

And I don't think you understand the concept of sarcasm, but that's not relevant, it has no place here anyway.

Evolution isn't easy to observe because it's such a slow process, but that doesn't mean it's not a fact.

"If it has not been observed, then it is not fact"

Well that's not true, something is either true or false whether you know it or not, but again that's irrelevant because we know it's a fact.

reply to post by SpearMint


Macro-Evolution is the very basis of Evolution.

Micro-Evolution is just adaptations (through a gene pool) and Natural Selection.

reply to post by milkyway12


Out of curiosity which creation are you referring to? Are you talking about the Biblical creation? Would you have problems including other models of creation in the school education? Why or why not?

reply to post by milkyway12

Both Creation and Evolution should be taught.

The problem with that absurd proposition is that creationism describes their theory something like this: God created everything. The end. Everyone knows it, we don't need to be taught it... what the hell is there to be taught that a church can't teach? Where as the theory of evolution is a vastly complex subject with many different sub-topics and areas of research, it can take an entire life time to learn all we know about evolution.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Macro-Evolution is the very basis of Evolution.

Micro-Evolution is just adaptations (through a gene pool) and Natural Selection.

Adaptations is the wrong word, evolution doesn't have a will, mutations are chance. This whole micro macro thing is stupid, evolution on a small scale (micro-evolution) will eventually equal evolution on a large scale (I.E new species).
Stop trying to distinguish two types.

reply to post by Deaf Alien


No, i do not. I just think students should have the opportunity to learn about the Creation prospect, or be able to " Choose " to take a creation view.

If they want to teach the Big Bang, go ahead. I just think a student or parent should be able to choose if their child should take a creation view class and/or an evolution view.

I think the optimal thing would be to let them hear BOTH views.

reply to post by milkyway12


I do not agree that creationism should be taught in schools. To begin with, what God (or gods/goddesses) is responsible for creation? There have been hundreds of religions throughout the course of human history; do you realize how many different points of view will have to be taught?

I'm going to sleep now...deuces

reply to post by SpearMint


Coins don't have will and yet if you toss a coin, you still have 50-50 chance that it will turn up head or tail.

Originally posted by IEtherianSoul9
reply to post by milkyway12

 

I do not agree that creationism should be taught in schools. To begin with, what God (or gods/goddesses) is responsible for creation? There have been hundreds of religions throughout the course of human history; do you realize how many different points of view will have to be taught?

He probably means creationism according to the right religion, which is of course his religion.

reply to post by IEtherianSoul9


In the United States, Christianity is the biggest belief system; Muslims won't be an Issue. They pretty much believe in the Bible's version of events. Creation is in the old testament, which Muslims read.

So two of the word's biggest religions shouldn't have much of a problem.

If the kids want to opt out of the creation class, they should be able to do so and take another class.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Macro-Evolution is the very basis of Evolution.

Micro-Evolution is just adaptations (through a gene pool) and Natural Selection.

Oh god is seems you really don't understand something about this. Macro-evolution relates to large changes over extremely large periods of time. Micro-evolution relates to small changes over relatively small periods of time. Macro-evolution is not the sudden appearance of some new elaborate change in a species, macro-evolution happens because over extremely long periods of times, many small changes build up into huge changes, and the species you started with may no longer even look like the species you finish with.

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Coins don't have will and yet if you toss a coin, you still have 50-50 chance that it will turn up head or tail.

And?

In the same way, mutations will sometimes be beneficial.

Any one who buys evolution is a stupid chump!

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


You either haven't read my argument, or you are making an argument with thin air because it isn't really relating to mine. No offense.

Also, you have not read the definitions posted of the two different event types and you're missing half of it.

Furthermore, the entire basis for Evolution is non existent.

reply to post by SpearMint


And what?

Your quote:

Adaptations is the wrong word, evolution doesn't have a will, mutations are chance.

Oh sorry I just realized. I guess I was arguing with the wrong person lol.

Sorry go on

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

You either haven't read my argument, or you are making an argument with thin air because it isnt really relating to mine. No offense.

Pffftttt what I said was exactly on topic and a direct response to you nonsensical typical cliche argument about macro-evolution.

Any time anyone ever presents anything to counter your ideas and beliefs all you can say is "you're talking in circles" or "you haven't read what I said"... what ever I'm out.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Touche, you have presented zero new information to dispute any claim. Most of your argument is even outdated and denies half the issue of Evolution. You keep starting off in the middle of evolution.

Have a nice night.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

Touche, you have presented zero new information to dispute any claim. Most of your argument is even outdated and denies half the issue of Evolution.

Have a nice night.

Where's your new information? In fact, where is any information that you've presented?