bdp Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Note, any pettiness will be held against you. 'reap what you sow' ring any bells with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bird28 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 There's not one ounce of intelligence in this thread from the Atheist camp. So, here's a challenge for anyone to step out from the choir and support some of your empty rhetoric. Point out any process, without conjecture, but with blind selection, which produces variations on a theme and then selects some portion of these themes for further production will demonstrate an evolutionary pattern Blind Selection? Selection is not blind! It's called survival of the fittest. Anyway the main creationist falacy is that small changes, like different breeds of dogs or even different Darwin's Finches is acceptable, but dinos into birds is a no-no. Where is this dividing line? Ducks hybridize across genera, but there is so much variation in duck appearance and lifestyle. Two species of duck that look totally different and one dives while one doesn't can hybridize... so all ducks evolved since the flood from one duck? Why are animals not rapidly evolving today then? Oh and Neon Genesis, mixed breeds of dogs are used by Creationists to support their theory by saying that closely related species are like breeds of dogs, derived rapidly from a Noah's Ark animal. Some Creationists are trying to figure out how many "kinds" there are, that is how many original animals there were that all other animals could have evolved from. But they can't figure this out quite because of course there is no good dividing line between "macro" and "micro" evolution. Creationist believe in Evolution in a way, they just don't call it that. Oh, and the thing that always bothered me... Australia, only Marsupials (except rodents and bats actually, though most people don't know that) but anyway, it's obvious those marsupials evolved from each other during a good amount of time to reach that amount of diversity. I saw Creationists say that then there was one marsupial on the Ark, but if that was the case, then there might as well have been only one placental... etc... and the bible doesn't say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Davka Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Point out any process, without conjecture, but with blind selection, which produces variations on a theme and then selects some portion of these themes for further production will demonstrate an evolutionary pattern. Every year, a variation on the flu virus infects multiple human beings. Our immune systems kick in and rid our systems of the virus, making our bodies unsuitable hosts for future infections. And every year, the flu virus mutates just enough to get past our immunological response to last year's strain. The virus adapts itself to the changing environment through random blind processes. Our immune systems serve to select for the variations most able to reproduce at the expense of human cells. The same process takes place for many types of bacteria. We see evolution in action most clearly in very simple, single-celled creatures and viruses. This is because their lifespans are short enough and their reproduction fast enough that we are able to observe the incremental changes which lead to speciation. In higher animals (such as humans), this is more difficult. We can rely only on the fossil record. We have fossil links through many shifts from pre-humans to humans. This fossil is touted as a "missing" link because it connects simians to lemurs. You should take a look at a human fossil exhibit at a major museum some time. It is amazing how many of the in-between steps are known today. Darwin would be proud of how far science has come in such a short while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalOkie Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Every year, a variation on the flu virus infects multiple human beings. Our immune systems kick in and rid our systems of the virus, making our bodies unsuitable hosts for future infections. And every year, the flu virus mutates just enough to get past our immunological response to last year's strain. The virus adapts itself to the changing environment through random blind processes. Our immune systems serve to select for the variations most able to reproduce at the expense of human cells. The same process takes place for many types of bacteria. We see evolution in action most clearly in very simple, single-celled creatures and viruses. This is because their lifespans are short enough and their reproduction fast enough that we are able to observe the incremental changes which lead to speciation. In higher animals (such as humans), this is more difficult. We can rely only on the fossil record. We have fossil links through many shifts from pre-humans to humans. This fossil is touted as a "missing" link because it connects simians to lemurs. You should take a look at a human fossil exhibit at a major museum some time. It is amazing how many of the in-between steps are known today. Darwin would be proud of how far science has come in such a short while. Alright Davka.....right on man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Oh and Neon Genesis, mixed breeds of dogs are used by Creationists to support their theory by saying that closely related species are like breeds of dogs, derived rapidly from a Noah's Ark animal. Some Creationists are trying to figure out how many "kinds" there are, that is how many original animals there were that all other animals could have evolved from. But they can't figure this out quite because of course there is no good dividing line between "macro" and "micro" evolution. Creationist believe in Evolution in a way, they just don't call it that.One of my Catholic friends said that even creationists will be forced to admit that eyeless fish are a product of evolution, not intelligent design. I forgot what sort of species this is but do you know if creationists have any arguments against eyeless fish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Davka Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 One of my Catholic friends said that even creationists will be forced to admit that eyeless fish are a product of evolution, not intelligent design. I forgot what sort of species this is but do you know if creationists have any arguments against eyeless fish? Yeah, they do. God created them eyeless because He knew they would not need eyes, since they live in caves with no light. What an incredible creator, he thinks of everything, blah blah blah. Look, creationists have museums showing human beings living side-by-side with dinosaurs. They are unwilling to look at factual evidence because it is "of the devil." Logic will get you nowhere. But it can be fun to try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts