"Evolution taken on faith" taken on faith.

[ImmortalFlame]

It sounds like colleges need a whole year on the differences between something that can be seen and something that cannot be seen, or it really comes down to observable science vs historical science.

Evolution has been directly observed, repeatedly, in lots of species. In fact, it is generally regarded that evolution theory has much more evidenciary support than the theory of gravity does. While we can observe gravity at work, we can also observe evolution at work. Neither of them can be witnessed first-hand on the macro level (i.e: we cannot directly witness the above-species level evolution of any population of animals that live for more than a few years, just as we cannot directly witness the effect of gravity upon distant stars, time or space), and yet you seem content to question one and not, apparently, the other.

The fact of the matter is this: evolution has the evidence, it has the support, it has passed the scientific method with flying colours, and nobody has sufficiently disputed that with anything other than ignorance.

 

[Man of Faith]

Any creationists out there? What have been your experience with biology classes?

I got sick when I dissected a frog and knew it wasn't for me. It's interesting to me that creationists have to be the critical thinkers and skeptics on this subject.

 

[Man of Faith]

Evolution has been directly observed, repeatedly, in lots of species. In fact, it is generally regarded that evolution theory has much more evidenciary support than the theory of gravity does. While we can observe gravity at work, we can also observe evolution at work. Neither of them can be witnessed first-hand on the macro level (i.e: we cannot directly witness the above-species level evolution of any population of animals that live for more than a few years, just as we cannot directly witness the effect of gravity upon distant stars, time or space), and yet you seem content to question one and not, apparently, the other.

The fact of the matter is this: evolution has the evidence, it has the support, it has passed the scientific method with flying colours, and nobody has sufficiently disputed that with anything other than ignorance.

Define evolution and I'll let you know when you get it right. Otherwise we cannot discuss the subject. You are talking about apples and I am talking about oranges. The attempt to remove and eliminate the discussion by definining evolution as anything that can be observed to change creates zombie mutant coolade drinkers that are blinded by the word science and can't see past it. Did you know that there are people that think nothing is true except science?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Define evolution and I'll let you know when you get it right.

Evolution is a change in allele frequency over time in populations of living organisms.

You are talking about apples and I am talking about oranges.

No, we're both talking about evolution. I very rarely talk about fruit.

The attempt to remove and eliminate the discussion by definining evolution as anything that can be observed to change creates zombie mutant coolade drinkers that are blinded by the word science and can't see past it.

I didn't define evolution as "anything that can be observed to change". You're obviously drinking the "zombie mutant coolade" yourself.

Did you know that there are people that think nothing is true except science?

Did you know that that sentence makes no sense, as science is a methodology for observing the natural world not a position or philosophy with regards to the truth of certain claims?

It's like saying "Did you know there are people think nothing is true except cooking?" It means nothing, and such empty rhetoric isn't going to change the tenor of this debate. The fact remains: evolution is an established scientific fact with thousands of testable predictions and applications to its name. To deny this is to deny reality.

 

[Man of Faith]

Evolution is a change in allele frequency over time in populations of living organisms.



I didn't define evolution as "anything that can be observed to change". You're obviously drinking the "zombie mutant coolade" yourself.

 

[Ouroboros]

It's like saying "Did you know there are people think nothing is true except cooking?" It means nothing, and such empty rhetoric isn't going to change the tenor of this debate.

No, that means that cooking is evil and should only be done using an ancient holy book as guideline.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No response? I was expecting a bit more of a challenge.

 

[Man of Faith]

No response? I was expecting a bit more of a challenge.

You definition is flawed and has been dumb down over the years to eliminate discussion, nobody can argue against change.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You definition is flawed and has been dumb down over the years to eliminate discussion, nobody can argue against change.

Except for the fact that you clearly are, since you don't accept that evolution can account for the diversity of life. Despite the fact that it does.

If you cannot argue that evolution does not occur, then you cannot argue that it doesn't account for the diversity of life unless you can clearly demonstrate some scientific basis for it not doing so - in spite of all of the evidence that it does and the vastly, vastly overwhelming opinion of any and all experts on the subject of biology.

Also, nobody is changing or "dumbing down" the definition of evolution. It has always meant precisely the same thing, and referred to the exact same concept in scientific terms. If you were unaware of this, then you are undereducated.

 

[Man of Faith]

Except for the fact that you clearly are, since you don't accept that evolution can account for the diversity of life. Despite the fact that it does.

If you cannot argue that evolution does not occur, then you cannot argue that it doesn't account for the diversity of life unless you can clearly demonstrate some scientific basis for it not doing so - in spite of all of the evidence that it does and the vastly, vastly overwhelming opinion of any and all experts on the subject of biology.

Also, nobody is changing or "dumbing down" the definition of evolution. It has always meant precisely the same thing, and referred to the exact same concept in scientific terms. If you were unaware of this, then you are undereducated.

Change along with diversity in life is supported in the creation model, so essentially when you say you are discussing evolution, you are discussing and supporting creation also. We will need to agree on a definition of evolution that isn't supported by creation in order to disagree on something.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Change along with diversity in life is supported in the creation model, so essentially when you say you are discussing evolution, you are discussing and supporting creation.

No, we aren't, because there is no "creation model" that can be supported. There is no scientific fact which lends any credibility towards any supposed "model" of creation. I am talking about evolution, which does not support (nor does it deny) any possible act of intelligent design. To suggest that evolution supports creation is utter hogwash.

We will need to agree on a definition of evolution that isn't supported by creation in order to disagree on something.

Wrong - because evolution says absolutely nothing whatsoever about creation. If your "creation model" is in line with the process of evolution, then we do indeed have nothing to disagree on. If you need to invent a definition of evolution which contradicts your beliefs in order to disagree with it, then you're obviously not actually in disagreement with evolution. You're just defining disagreements into existence out of nothing.

 

[dust1n]

I got sick when I dissected a frog and knew it wasn't for me. It's interesting to me that creationists have to be the critical thinkers and skeptics on this subject.

If avoiding science is critical thinking and skepticism, I would say they are excelling.

 

[Bunyip]

That's because the definition of evolution has been dumbed down so much that anything and everything is able to be called evolution.

Evolution is commonly defined as changes in allele frequency over time, it is something that can be and has been proven by direct observation of allele frequencies changing over time. It is an established and observable fact.

 

[Alceste]

That's because the definition of a practicing biologist is one that accepts evolution. If they don't accept evolution, then they are no longer practicing because they are ostracized from the profession. I guess that works for the faithful.

That simply isn't true, and please don't bother demanding that I watch Expelled. I can assure you I've already read and watched the very best your camp has to offer from Ray Comfort to Lee Strobel, and it's not in the least bit persuasive. For me, it's embarrassing and painful to see people deceive others and suppress their capacity for critical thinking, and there are lots of more satisfying things I could be reading and watching.

 

[Alceste]

I got sick when I dissected a frog and knew it wasn't for me. It's interesting to me that creationists have to be the critical thinkers and skeptics on this subject.

I am completely sure you don't understand what skepticism and critical thinking entails.

 

[Alceste]

Change along with diversity in life is supported in the creation model, so essentially when you say you are discussing evolution, you are discussing and supporting creation also. We will need to agree on a definition of evolution that isn't supported by creation in order to disagree on something.

Yes, some forms of creationism attempt to account for the changes we have directly observed, but it does not offer any boundary to change beyond what we have observed.

If creationism can't offer some reason that our capacity for change is limited, it cannot compete. Evolution does not require any such limitation, and even offers direct evidence (DNA, for example) that such limitations do not exist.

 

[johnhanks]

You definition is flawed and has been dumb down over the years to eliminate discussion...

No, his definition is spot on. Far from being "dumbed down", evolutionary theory reached full maturity when it was realised that all evolutionary change consists of changes in populations' gene pools, and that all that separates (say) divergence of a subspecies of mosquito from divergence of carnivore families is the quantity of change involved.

... nobody can argue against change.

No indeed, so your only hope is to argue against the amount of change that can take place. So far creationists have failed utterly to show that there are boundaries restricting changes in gene pools.

 

[averageJOE]

Define evolution and I'll let you know when you get it right.

As if your some world renown biologist who has the ultimate say on the definition of the word evolution.

 

[averageJOE]

It sounds like colleges need a whole year on the differences between something that can be seen and something that cannot be seen, or it really comes down to observable science vs historical science.

Now your just regurgitating all of Ken Ham's and Ray Comfort's "arguments".

 

[Man of Faith]

Yes, some forms of creationism attempt to account for the changes we have directly observed, but it does not offer any boundary to change beyond what we have observed.

If creationism can't offer some reason that our capacity for change is limited, it cannot compete. Evolution does not require any such limitation, and even offers direct evidence (DNA, for example) that such limitations do not exist.

You are wanting someone to prove something can't happen that hasn't been observed, such as frog to man. I would suggest that it is up to you to prove something did happen that hasn't been observed to happen. Do you also want me to prove there are no aliens? Proving something wrong that has its base on philosophy, such as evolution does, is pretty hard. It would be like me telling that you need to prove there is no God.