Creationism (or religion's love/hate relationship with science)

[Quiddity]

I've noticed that a lot of anti evolutionists don't seem to appreciate the time involved in many evolutionary processes. Change in a species is often readily observable, but if it doesn't produce an entirely new species in a few years people discount the possibility that it ever could.
Tiny changes, repeated over hundreds, thousands or millions of years can produce results entirely unlike the prototypes. Chihuahuas were once wolves, the Grand Canyon was once a flat plain.
Has anyone ever observed a wolf turn into a poodle? a mountain worn down to a plain? a string of Pacific islands created by vulcanism? All we can observe are tiny segments of an ongoing process, but few people contend that these processes don't occur. But when it comes to biological change, some people seem extrapolation challenged.

I think it was more of the consistant rhetoric of throwing a large number (it took millions and gazillions of years) that irked many students. It almost sounded that no matter what question you asked, they would find an enviroment and a large number to give an answer. Even though we know that some mutations can occur rather quickly.

 

[JerryL]

I think it was more of the consistant rhetoric of throwing a large number (it took millions and gazillions of years) that irked many students. It almost sounded that no matter what question you asked, they would find an enviroment and a large number to give an answer. Even though we know that some mutations can occur rather quickly.

Rather like every timwe we show a link, the creationist wants a link inbetween those; and every time we show a change, they want to see it on a higher order of magnitude.

Mutations happen every generation. A morpological change which would require several mutation working in concert is likely to take a while to appear. Moreso in an unchanging envyronment (which will tend to select for the forms already selected for).

 

[Quiddity]

Rather like every timwe we show a link, the creationist wants a link inbetween those; and every time we show a change, they want to see it on a higher order of magnitude.[/color]

Mutations happen every generation. A morpological change which would require several mutation working in concert is likely to take a while to appear. Moreso in an unchanging envyronment (which will tend to select for the forms already selected for).

What I speak of is a typical classroom environment. I understand that change takes time and it needs certain conditions to do so as well. But if professors would just change the tone a bit, it would get students more interested. I don't know, just trying to find a solution to ignorance of evolution and professor rhetoric at the same time.

 

[Snowbear]

Show me how the wolf changed into a poodle then eventually into a lion and I'll try to swallow the story.

FWIW - I've doubted the evolutionists story since I studied it in college - while I was an atheist! Surpisingly to those of you who claim only creationists dispute it, there were many of us who were anti-religious who questioned the dogmas of the sciences that were continually crammed down our throats.

It's funny how whenever someone points out the gaps and inconsistencies in the fossil record, the anti-creations scream "RELIGIOUS ZEALOT" or some such put-downs

 

[Willamena]

Show me how the wolf changed into a poodle then eventually into a lion and I'll try to swallow the story.

The wolf didn't change into a poodle or a lion, nor does evolution propose that; rather all three came from a common carnivore ancestor.

 

[Quiddity]

Show me how the wolf changed into a poodle then eventually into a lion and I'll try to swallow the story.

Why wouldn't you swallow that story and swallow the story of Christ walking on water?

 

[Snowbear]

That Christ could do anything takes very little faith. I don't have enough faith in me to not question that He didn't have a hand in creation

 

[Quiddity]

That Christ could do anything takes very little faith. I don't have enough faith in me to not question that He didn't have a hand in creation

If he had a hand in evolution, turning a wolf into a poodle would be a slam dunk. Walking on water on the other hand is quiet impressive.

 

[Willamena]

That Christ could do anything takes very little faith. I don't have enough faith in me to not question that He didn't have a hand in creation

You have little faith in Christ?

(Sorry )

 

[Snowbear]

You have little faith in Christ?

Actually, I think so... less than the proverbial mustard seed
What little I do have is pretty solid, though

 

[Valjean]

The wolf didn't change into a poodle or a lion, nor does evolution propose that; rather all three came from a common carnivore ancestor.

I have to take a bit of exception to your assertion, Willamena. Poodles are descended directly from wolves, the two can even produce fertile offspring. Not only are all dogs essentially domesticated wolves, they were all created in only a few thousand years entirely by human manipulation of the same selective mechanism operative in classical Darwinian "descent with modification."

I don't quite understand why a professor's assertion that change may take millions of years would be off-putting. There's nothing particularly hard to comprehend about large numbers, and no-one would contest the fact that not all puppies are identical to their mothers. Why, then, would students balk at the addition of small differences over thousands of generations? It's simple arithmetic!

There's more than one mechanism to biological change. There's a "punctuated" mechanism, relying generally on mutation, that's very fast and would be unlikely to leave fossil evidence of transitional forms -- often because there are none.
Darwinian change can occur either through mutation or through the accumulation of sexual variation between parents and offspring. It can take tens of millions of years to produce new forms, though under some conditions this, too, can produce remarkably fast transitions..

 

[Booko]

I don't quite understand why a professor's assertion that change may take millions of years would be off-putting. There's nothing particularly hard to comprehend about large numbers, and no-one would contest the fact that not all puppies are identical to their mothers. Why, then, would students balk at the addition of small differences over thousands of generations? It's simple arithmetic!

I was wondering about this is well. Does anyone find the time required for major shifts in tectonic plates off-putting? If not, why not?

There's more than one mechanism to biological change. There's a "punctuated" mechanism, relying generally on mutation, that's very fast and would be unlikely to leave fossil evidence of transitional forms -- often because there are none.

If anyone wants a "miracle" to look at, perhaps it's the miracle that there's any fossil record left to examine.

I don't understand the assumption (nay, demand!) that if something existed, we must be able to see it in the fossil record somewhere. Most of the time, dead organisms just end up becoming new soil.

It takes some atypical circumstances for a dead organism to be preserved as a fossil, especially in the case of life on land.

And for this, we may all be thankful.

For if the vast majority of organisms did not decompose and return into the earth, we would be neck-deep in carcases.

 

[JerryL]

FWIW - I've doubted the evolutionists story since I studied it in college - while I was an atheist! Surpisingly to those of you who claim only creationists dispute it, there were many of us who were anti-religious who questioned the dogmas of the sciences that were continually crammed down our throats.

It's not a dogma, as it's neither opinion nor docterine concerning faith proclaimed by a church.

You are attempting to use discriminitory language and are willing to ignore the actual definitions of the words. This causes me to doubt highly the veracity of your claim. The fact that you are currently a theist of an Abrahamic religion causes me to doubt further.

I never found collegite science "crammed down my throat", as the exercise was usually reproving theorums. I'm sure you manage the gist here.

 

[Snowbear]

The fact that you are currently a theist of an Abrahamic religion causes me to doubt further.

Of course you do!!
I would be seriously surprised if anything I said had any validity at all to you.

 

[Snowbear]

It's not a dogma, as it's neither opinion nor docterine concerning faith proclaimed by a church.

You are attempting to use discriminitory language and are willing to ignore the actual definitions of the words.

That's not the only definition. It is you who is ignoring definitions...

dog·ma n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m

-t

)

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).

 

[JerryL]

Of course you do!!
I would be seriously surprised if anything I said had any validity at all to you.

That woudl depend on whether anything you said was a well-supported argument.

I've certainly been around the net long enough for there to be numerous examples of me conceedoing my position to such an argument; as well as me chaning my position based on evidence.