Evolution Vs. Creationism

[dallas1125]

then spit it out, maybe we dont misunderstand each other.

Ok, here I go. What I was saying was that evolution is subject to change based upon new evidence.

I know you misunderstand evolution.

Honestly...why do you keep claiming this? I have not made any claim that evolution was false.

 

[David M]

Sorry, you say it doesnt have gaps then say right after that there are gaps in certain species?

The ToE doesn't have gaps just because there are some gaps between some species.

ToE is an explanation for the diversity of life, it is not a description of the diversification of every single species.

The details of the diversification of species in the fossil record is evidence that the explanation is correct. ToE stands on more than just the fossil record.

 

[outhouse]

Honestly...why do you keep claiming this? I have not made any claim that evolution was false.

because you stated this and its false and then you argued about it.

we might find evidence that evolution wasnt right.

 

[Inkorrekt]

So the only evidence you have for or against evolution is the Bible?

That says quite a lot, don't you think?

Creationists hold on to bible because they are not equipped to meet the challenges. Here is achallenge for you all. If we are the highest form of evolution, then you must predict what man will become? Does the evolutionary chain end up with man?

 

[Tristesse]

Creationists hold on to bible because they are not equipped to meet the challenges. Here is achallenge for you all. If we are the highest form of evolution, then you must predict what man will become? Does the evolutionary chain end up with man?

Evolution doesn't say that humans are the highest form of evolution(not even sure what that means).

 

[ellenjanuary]

Creationists hold on to bible because they are not equipped to meet the challenges. Here is achallenge for you all. If we are the highest form of evolution, then you must predict what man will become? Does the evolutionary chain end up with man?

It is generally agreed what makes man man occurred around two hundred thousand years ago. I just saw a video of a six hundred thousand year old bacteria. We lose there. Off the top of my head, alligators have been alligators for something like two hundred million years, we lose there, too. The global economy is about to collapse, fundamentalists are searching for Armageddon, and climate change may make Earth more like Venus. We're all going to lose there. What's your point?

 

[slowbreath]

Slowbreath, please don't confuse the colloquial use of the word theory with the scientific term.
It only highlights your ignorance.

you get your feathers ruffled easily dont you outhouse, probably when someone poo poo's on your ego.......control will win the day for you my boy.

 

[dallas1125]

because you stated this and its false and then you argued about it.

So? Whats wrong with this statement?

Who knows what we will find in the future, there is a small probability that we might find something that makes us completely have to rethink the TOE.

 

[dallas1125]

The ToE doesn't have gaps just because there are some gaps between some species.

True, but transition species help support it.

ToE is an explanation for the diversity of life, it is not a description of the diversification of every single species.

True

The details of the diversification of species in the fossil record is evidence that the explanation is correct. ToE stands on more than just the fossil record.

Yes it does.

 

[Autodidact]

Ok, here I go. What I was saying was that evolution is subject to change based upon new evidence.


Honestly...why do you keep claiming this? I have not made any claim that evolution was false.

Their defensiveness is preventing them from seeing that you are right, because ToE is a scientific theory, therefore, like all scientific theories, it is subject to change based upon new evidence.

 

[McBell]

you get your feathers ruffled easily dont you outhouse, probably when someone poo poo's on your ego.......control will win the day for you my boy.

This is an interesting reply, given that tumbleweed was merely attempting to give you some sage advice as how to not look like a complete ignorant arse.

Seems you are dead set on doing just that despite the advice.

 

[Autodidact]

Creationists hold on to bible because they are not equipped to meet the challenges. Here is achallenge for you all. If we are the highest form of evolution, then you must predict what man will become? Does the evolutionary chain end up with man?

First, we're not the highest form of evolution, whatever that means, and second, understanding ToE does not enable us to predict what direction any given population will evolve toward, or even whether it will evolve, or go extinct.

 

[DeistPrimate]

well, I for one don't believe in gravity and here are my reasons.
its onley a theory
there is no proof for it
satelites don't fall to the earth
the sun, the stars and the moon don't fall to the earth.
you may be able to show that a rock falls to the earth (micro gravity) but you can't prove that every mass is atracted to every other mass (macro gravity), doesn't that require a leap of faith?
the moon is moving away from the earth with 1,5 inshes each year proving that gravity does not exist.
there is a reason why they changed it from "the law of gravity" to "the theory of gravity" its iis because they know that its just a theory and that they can't prove it. so why believe in it anyways?
jesus walked on water and this couldn't happon if gravity exists.
clouds are unaffected by "gravity"
the expansion of the universe is accelerating thus proving that gravity is a lie.
on his death bed, Einstein admited that he made it all up.
birds and planes are unefected by "gravity".

I cannot understand how all you gravitationalists can just accept the ToG without having any evidence to back it up. and how can you say that believing in gravity requires no faith while god does? god is much more logical then gravity an requires much less faith.

This is completely awesome :clap

 

[DeistPrimate]

This why evolution has it's flaws, due to overgeneralizing. Full article here on overgeneralizing.

Charles Darwin saw a pattern that governs the evolution of all life on earth. Quite a generalization! From that single generalization, new understandings about diseases were discovered that greatly improved the effectiveness of doctors. In fact, whole new sciences have issued from that single generalization.
What I’m trying to say is: The mistakes our brains tend to make (like overgeneralizing) are the inevitable by-products of our great intelligence.
Your ability to recognize a face comes from your brain’s ability to complete a pattern with minimal clues. It has been exceedingly difficult to create computers that can do it, and they still aren’t as good at it as you are on a bad day without even trying. Your brain recognizes faces without any effort on your part. Your brain is so good at completing a pattern that, even in dim light — even if you can only see half of the face — you recognize immediately who it is.
But this amazing ability also sometimes causes us to see patterns that don’t really exist. We see a man in the moon. We see a horse in the clouds. We see the big dipper, the little dipper, Orion’s belt. Our brains can take the most scant clues and see a pattern, without us making even the smallest effort to do so.
But especially given our brains’ bias toward negativity, we also see patterns that create pessimism, cynicism, and defeatism — patterns our brains have created out of minimal clues — patterns that don’t actually exist.
The woman I used to work with who had two failed marriages concluded, “All men are pigs.” From only two examples, she created a generalization that included three billion men! Her cynicism, her unwillingness to allow any men to get close to her, was the side-effect of two common mistakes our brains tend to make: 1) the brain’s amazing ability to see a pattern with minimal clues, and 2) our brain’s tendency to look for evidence that confirms an already-existing conclusion. In other words, your brain tends to overgeneralize and then the world seems to prove you’re right about it.
The two primary mistakes that turn generalizations into overgeneralizations are:

1. Holding the generalization as a fact rather than an hypothesis. Any generalization you make is a guess. You will have some degree of certainty about your guess — you can be quite certain your guess is correct, you can be very uncertain about your guess, or anywhere in between. When you have more certainty about your generalization than the facts justify, it is an overgeneralization. You’ve gone too far.
2. Generalizing from too few instances. Researchers have discovered that people don’t have a very accurate sense of what “chance sequences” look like. People expect sequences of coin flips, for example, to alternate more than they actually do. So truly random sequences can often look like a pattern to us.

​

This could well be the goofiest incongruent to logic long post I've seen. There are no overgeneralizations to evolutionary biology and we certainly have more than enough facts to justify the existence of evolution and the common descent of life on earth.

Darwin and Wallace recognized the process independently and then had to overcome tremendous preconceived notions to get it accepted by the scientific community which they did with overwhelming evidence from multiple fields.

 

[LuisDantas]

Unfortunately, these so-called Evolutionism vs Creationism threads are in fact fact vs fiction.

 

[Maury83]

Why? What does it have to do with evolution?

I repeat, you don't seem to know what the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is. Do you want to learn?

Hold on a second, explain how evolution started then! Was it not linked with the Big Bang theory? after which bacteria started to "evolve" down to our day? Come on man...don't fool around with words. You knew exactly what I refer to!

 

[PolyHedral]

Hold on a second, explain how evolution started then! Was it not linked with the Big Bang theory? after which bacteria started to "evolve" down to our day? Come on man...don't fool around with words. You knew exactly what I refer to!

No. Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang. It applies once you have an organism that reproduces, not before then.

 

[slowbreath]

This is an interesting reply, given that tumbleweed was merely attempting to give you some sage advice as how to not look like a complete ignorant arse.

Seems you are dead set on doing just that despite the advice.

i stand corrected, i got the wrong name in that reply, so forgive me, and apply the reply to yourself.. and thanks for the advice, i think you might know something about how not to look. i think in the future i'll just use the word idea instead of theory because that seems to really upset you.

 

[McBell]

i stand corrected, i got the wrong name in that reply, so forgive me, and apply the reply to yourself.. and thanks for the advice, i think you might know something about how not to look. i think in the future i'll just use the word idea instead of theory because that seems to really upset you.

Seems you are dead set on doing just that despite the advice.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Slowbreath, please don't confuse the colloquial use of the word theory with the scientific term.
It only highlights your ignorance.

you get your feathers ruffled easily dont you outhouse [sic], probably when someone poo poo's on your ego.......control will win the day for you my boy.

Just trying to educate you. However, if you choose to remain ignorant (willfully) on the subject of what defines a scientific theory by using such pitiful statements such as "it's only a theory", then there is little hope for you.