A Microbiologist Explains Her Conversion From Evolution To Creation.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

Your link does not work. Please check it.

Fixed, thank you!

Should slow down with multitasking.

OpenMindedRealist
reply to post by redmage

 

Instead of debating the issue with facts or hypotheses, let's just pick apart each other's posts and miss the major points completely. How's that sound?

Toss in some misused ad hominems like "Darwin worshiper" and it sounds exactly like your posts.

If you read my post again you may see that my criticism is not of Darwin's theory of evolution, and in fact I acknowledge that it is a significant, verified biological mechanism.

Not at all, you tore in with the straw man argument against "Darwinian evolution" as creationists often do. It's a misnomer that doesn't exist. Darwin was a creationist.

I am quite familiar with Darwin's story and his writings.

Then why the straw man argument against "Darwinian evolution", and the misused ad hominem of "Darwin worshiper"?

EDIT: Just noticed that you misread my wording "replacing" as "replicable." Read a little slower, even if you have already decided to disagree.

Ah, ok; however, that still doesn't address creationists' straw man arguments against "the fallacy of assuming that Darwinian evolution is the sole mechanism by which this world blossomed"". The straw man of "Darwinian evolution" is the fallacy here. Darwin was a creationist, and the theory of evolution is a theory, not a fallacy. If a more fitting theory with better supporting evidence comes along, then science will adjust the same as when the flat earth theory was replaced by notions of the world being a global sphere. Hopefully, if such a change does occur, there will be fewer religiously motivated lynchings this time around.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Keep up that condescending tone; you are painting yourself into the corner that I outlined.

You and a few others are the only ones expressing contempt in this thread. All I have done is point out flaws in your approach to understanding. Maybe not so much for your benefit, but for the benefit of any reading this who have not already chosen to disregard anything they might not be inclined to agree with.

reply to post by RedShirt73


what happen to Peppered Moth? did they change the shape or something?

As pointed out very early; Argument from Incredulity

In short; "I don't understand it because it's so amazing, so, it MUST be god/aliens/magic".

Logical fallacy says all further argument on such base is invalid.

Besides that, what's with all the endless proselytizing on this site anyway? Those that believe this stuff already believe this stuff and have heard it all before. Those of us that take a rational approach to understanding the universe as opposed to a faith based approach have also heard it all before and we're not budging.

If you like to drink snake oil and weasle juice, go have at it. Enjoy. By all means, however, keep it to yourself, because like being drunk in public, it's just embarrassing.
It's the same tired song all the time.

Those of us that don't care, aren't going to care.
In fact, some of us, like myself, wouldn't even believe in some god if it came right up and introduced.
If any god even tried to do so, I'd prolly kick it in the fork.
I'm not having any of it.
Don't need any gods.
Don't want any gods.

reply to post by OpenMindedRealist

Keep up that condescending tone; you are painting yourself into the corner that I outlined.

I was being completely sincere. I don't see a corner, I see you frantically digging yourself into an ever-deeper hole. Do you want a rope or a ladder? I promise I won't kick you back in. I'm not like God.

You and a few others are the only ones expressing contempt in this thread. All I have done is point out flaws in your approach to understanding. Maybe not so much for your benefit, but for the benefit of any reading this who have not already chosen to disregard anything they might not be inclined to agree with.

Our approach? Fix your car before you fix our road, unless you plan to keep hitchhiking with every bandwagon poster who happens along. As far as I can tell, the game is over and you're still shouting for a rematch because the grass was wet and we weren't playing fair. It's not our fault you came ill-prepared.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

Don't need any gods.
Don't want any gods.

But you have no choice in the matter and it's delusional to think you do .

randyvs
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

Don't need any gods.
Don't want any gods.

But you have no choice in the matter and it's delusional to think you do .

Oh, yes. Yes, we do. And for every soul sent to hell, that is one more instance of God losing. That's what it means when you break a puzzle instead of solving it. It means you lose.

Back to the topic...

For those telling that evolution can't explain diversity of life on earth... just take for example today man's best friend - dog. DNA shows that modern dogs split from wolf lineage around 100K years ago and so far we have unearthed fossils that date back to 30-36 thousands years.

Yet, with selective breeding we have today huge number of different breeds of dog. Look at wiki for nice pictured list. en.wikipedia.org...

Now, just imagine what nature can do and what it did in millions of years...

reply to post by redmage


Forgive my impatience. I will clarify my point in simple terms, in case others missed it as well. And this time I promise I won't call you any mean names.

I left your name out because I intended to make a point about the majority who insist that Darwin's theory is the be-all end-all to the development of lifeforms on Earth. You just happened to be the first to make the point about the need for a replacing theory that incorporates Darwinian mechanisms.

I am not arguing for creation, though the atheists assumed so and swooped in to stifle me. I am criticizing the human tendency to cling to unraveling theories to the dying end, rather than working toward a new theory that is more substantiated.

The fallacy is leaping to the conclusion that random adaptations are the sole explanation for this diverse world.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Perception is often reality, but your perception is not necessarily the same as that of the silent observers in this thread.

randyvs
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

Don't need any gods.
Don't want any gods.

But you have no choice in the matter and it's delusional to think you do .

Really?


I beg to differ.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


There is a God or there isn't. None of us have a choice in what is the truth.
But we all have a responsibility to ourselves to find out and know that truth.
Choosing the most convenient to the lifestyle we want or anything we want.
Is definitely not going to lead us to that truth.

On topic.

reply to post by SuperFrog


I said already that I am not arguing for creationism over evolution, but this point has to be made.

You are arguing for creation with your statements about dogs. The only reason we have so many unique, specialized breeds is because of intelligent human engineering.

You said it yourself, but maybe you had better verify if with your 8 year old.

Too much snark? Nah, the atheists have already flooded this thread with it.

OpenMindedRealist
I am not arguing for creation, though the atheists assumed so and swooped in to stifle me. I am criticizing the human tendency to cling to unraveling theories to the dying end, rather than working toward a new theory that is more substantiated.

The fallacy is leaping to the conclusion that random adaptations are the sole explanation for this diverse world.

How did you manage to place this in the same post, it is beyond of my understating. This is 'last' straw creationist are trying to hold, that diversity of life is not possible. It might not be possible in case of their view of age of earth. (6.5 thousands of years)

But we know that earth is much older and that we have millions of year of evolution of life... thus huge diversity.

This is old news, but there were more finds since then:

www.livescience.com...

You can call it 'random' adaptation (there is no random in evolution), but how do you explain that birds are related to dinosaurs?! Still random minor adaptation?

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


Differ ? Are you saying God isn't a scientist ? I beg to differ.
and I don't think there would be any amputees if we still
had a relationship with our maker. Why are there amputees
in the first place ? Because of mans in humanity to man.
Cancer and diabetes have been cured. Your point is nil.

Keep setting em up. They're drop'n like flies.

OpenMindedRealist
reply to post by redmage

 

I intended to make a point about the majority who insist that Darwin's theory is the be-all end-all to the development of lifeforms on Earth.

Which is a straw man. Darwin's theory was creationist and involved natural selection. There's a difference between believing God created life and the strongest, fastest, smartest, and most adapted survive to pass on their genes... and notions that ooze became monkeys to later become men.

You just happened to be the first to make the point about the need for a replacing theory that incorporates Darwinian mechanisms.

Must have me confused with someone else. I did make a point about how proving theories is done through replicable evidence though.

I am not arguing for creation, though the atheists assumed so and swooped in to stifle me. I am criticizing the human tendency to cling to unraveling theories to the dying end, rather than working toward a new theory that is more substantiated.

True enough. You've bashed both "the blindy religious" and "Darwin worshipers" (though you've certainly favored bashing the straw man of "Darwinian evolution"). So, what in your opinion is this "new theory that is more substantiated"?

randyvs
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

Differ ? Are you saying God isn't a scientist ? I beg to differ.
and I don't think there would be any amputees if we still
had a relationship with our maker. Why are there amputees
in the first place ? Because of mans in humanity to man.
Cancer and diabetes have been cured. Your point is nil.

Keep setting em up. They're drop'n like flies.

edit on 29-10-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Right, because:

OpenMindedRealist
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

I said already that I am not arguing for creationism over evolution, but this point has to be made.

You are arguing for creation with your statements about dogs. The only reason we have so many unique, specialized breeds is because of intelligent human engineering.

You said it yourself, but maybe you had better verify if with your 8 year old.

Too much snark? Nah, the atheists have already flooded this thread with it.

Please, don't negate your creationism, and don't hide behind this ' small adaptation''.

Question was not what caused evolution of today's dogs, but is it possible to diversify it in short period of time. Now, multiply that by 1000, that is how much time nature had to get to today's point. 90% of species went extinct in process.

It is sad that my 8 year old might be able to teach you on this subject, I agree. Growing without limitation made by religion, just like my parents allowed me to live - interesting how kids learn to question everything and what sort of questions they can create.

I am glad that you are somewhat interested in science, but you should start to see that there is difference between evolution and small or random adaptation.

To go back to our small lesson about dinosaurs and crocodile, what might be factor/reason crocodile survived dinosaur's extinction. What is very important about their feeding habit and how long they can live without food? Can they hibernate?

reply to post by OpenMindedRealist

No, I am not going to put together a lesson plan for you. Do it yourself, if you really care to understand things on your own. You can keep your marks. I am not going to bother quoting you, either, so read slowly and concentrate.

I am quite familiar with the material, thank you. My reading speed and comprehension are also adequate.

I included two off-hand examples -- geocentric theory and the practice of blood-letting on the sick.

The first is not a scientific hypothesis. Science as we know it was, in fact, born in the process of disproving it. The second is actually a perfectly valid treatment for certain medical conditions, but the practice antedates science by roughly 1,500 years. Neither of your 'offhand examples' is relevant. No marks for this answer.

You evidently don't understand Darwin's theory.

Oh no?

Adaptations are a way that species survive in changing environments. We have evidence to support this... But there are countless "niche adaptations" that cannot be explained by normal deviations in physiology.

Really? You astonish me. Can you provide an example of one of these adaptations — just one will do — that cannot be explained by natural selection?

For example, there is a species of caterpillar that rolls away like a wheel when threatened. If you want more, open up an advanced biology book.

My question, which you cannot evade simply by refusing to quote it, is why you think 'pure Darwinian evolution' cannot explain the incredibly diverse, ingeniously adapted, blah blah blah. No marks for this answer either.

Now, let's not forget this:

The claim that it is all a result of random mutation is full of holes.

I asked you to cite a scientific paper that describes natural selection as being 'all the result of random mutation'. Will you cite one now, or withdraw the statement?

Lastly, that was a sarcastic response to redmage's post in response to my earlier one.

That does not stop it from being admirably pertinent to your own most entertaining thrashings-about. Now answer the question, or admit that you're just making things up as you go along, and not very consistently either.