What Americans Think about Evolution

[McBell]

Ok, how about this, how about we just say the Christian God used evolution as a means of creation. I am fine with that. Cool?

Because evolution does not deal with the beginning of life.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Show me an example of an animal producing something different than what it is. As a matter of fact, I will make it easy for you...explain to me how can a dog that is alive today every get to the point of producing a non-dog. Explain to me how can that happen??

I will patiently wait.

Well it was more of a wolf that would become what is now the common dog.

Both dogs and wolves are Canis as a Genus but species wise they are not the same. Wolves are Lupus and Dogs are Familiaris. The genus indicates they are a like, they would be the same kind in that regard, but the species is what divides them and makes breeding a dog and a wolf extremely difficult. In that case they are not the same kind.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What he is saying is that you aren't arguing against evolution. You are arguing against some kind of imaginary created pseudo-science that has been spoon fed to you by your religious leaders.

I don't care what he is saying, actually. I am arguing against a position that I've seen defended by guys like Richard Dawkins and Massimo Pigluicci. So if it is a position that is "imaginary created pseudo-science", then write letters to those guys and tell them that. No need in getting fussy with me

And as far as my religious leaders are concerned, hey...all I know is the bible clearly states that the birds of the air and beasts of the field "brought forth after their kind", and that God "created them after their kind"...and that just HAPPENS to be what I observe, is animals bringing forth after their kind. So since what my "religious leaders" tell me is consistent with what I observe, I will stick with what my religious leaders say. It hasn't failed me so far, in fact, it is right on the money.

What you think "evolution" is is not actually the truth. People have explained it to you but your not interested in learning what evolution is.

Like I said, if what I argue against is not the truth, then take that up with those who hold the position and argue in favor of it. So if it isn't the truth, then that would mean that you disagree with Dawkins. You are saying that his view on evolution is not true and yours is. So take that up with him.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Because evolution does not deal with the beginning of life.

I never said it does.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well it was more of a wolf that would become what is now the common dog.

Both dogs and wolves are Canis as a Genus but species wise they are not the same. Wolves are Lupus and Dogs are Familiaris. The genus indicates they are a like, they would be the same kind in that regard, but the species is what divides them and makes breeding a dog and a wolf extremely difficult. In that case they are not the same kind.

A cheetah cannot breed with any other cat, which basically mean that the cheetah is at the bottom of the gene pool, but it is obvious that a cheetah and a lion are the same kind of animal, frankie.

 

[Runewolf1973]

So you really don't have the right to live, since you aren't living anyway? There are so may angels i can go with that hahaha.

You go with all the angels you want. Lol.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

A cheetah cannot breed with any other cat, which basically mean that the cheetah is at the bottom of the gene pool, but it is obvious that a cheetah and a lion are the same kind of animal, frankie.

Not by the definition you've given Callie, you said that they must reproduce after their same kind. So if a cheetah cannot breed with any other cat, why exactly would it be the same kind as the other cat? A cheetah and a lion with your definition are not the same kind.

How about mules what kind are they? They can't mate with each other despite a horse and a donkey giving birth to them.

Or ligers?

Or Tigons?

very few of them are born with the ability to mate, and even when they can it's not with each other, but with whatever kind their parents were. But not with a cheetah mind you.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I never said it does.

Yes you did

You said that without explaining where life comes from you can't explain evolution.

Maybe you didn't say it directly but it is certainly the implication you've given with your posts Wildy.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You go with all the angels you want. Lol.

I mean angles*, but you get the picture lol

 

[outhouse]

, but it is obvious that a cheetah and a lion are the same kind of animal, frankie.

so very embarrassing.



Please take a grade school biology class, for heavens sake.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I mean angles*, but you get the picture lol

The problem is you are not getting the picture.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Ok, so this poor kids children should expect to have hands just like his father, and so on and so forth, right?

That wasn't the question. You keep moving the goalposts.

Oh it isn't useless, it is just another word...look, you know how in biology things get categorized in about a million different categories....mammal...reptile...carnivore..herbivore...family...genus...species...subspecies, etc.

And it works fine for colloquial, everyday discourse. But when we talk about technical subjects we want precision, and "kind" is hopelessly ambiguous.

Well, tell that to Dawkins and the mainstream evolutionists that holds this position.

I wouldn't need to, they're well aware of what the theory of evolution entails. The fact that they are often also physicalists and naturalists doesn't mean that evolution, in itself, is dependent on or necessitates naturalism or physicalism.

Without intelligent design, sorry charlie, it does. Ok, how about this, how about we just say the Christian God used evolution as a means of creation. I am fine with that. Cool?

You're missing the point; the point is simply that one could hold that, which shows that evolution does not entail naturalism or abiogenesis.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I don't care what he is saying, actually. I am arguing against a position that I've seen defended by guys like Richard Dawkins and Massimo Pigluicci. So if it is a position that is "imaginary created pseudo-science", then write letters to those guys and tell them that. No need in getting fussy with me

But your not.... the things you argue against are profoundly different than what they have actually stated.

Richard Dawkins: "His shirt is blue."
You: "His shirt is TOTALLY not yellow. I mean look at this shirt. Its clearly red. Look as this ******* saying this shirt is yellow."

For you to argue against what they are saying you must first argue against what they are actually saying.

And as far as my religious leaders are concerned, hey...all I know is the bible clearly states that the birds of the air and beasts of the field "brought forth after their kind", and that God "created them after their kind"...and that just HAPPENS to be what I observe, is animals bringing forth after their kind. So since what my "religious leaders" tell me is consistent with what I observe, I will stick with what my religious leaders say. It hasn't failed me so far, in fact, it is right on the money.

Except your not. You don't even know what a "kind" is. You don't even know what a species is. You don't even know what you are. And no matter how many times we explain it you deny it every time with responses that very often do not make logical sense.

Like I said, if what I argue against is not the truth, then take that up with those who hold the position and argue in favor of it. So if it isn't the truth, then that would mean that you disagree with Dawkins. You are saying that his view on evolution is not true and yours is. So take that up with him.

No one argues in favor of what you are arguing against. My view of evolution and Dawkins is the same. He knows it better than is is all. What you are arguing against no scientist (including Richard Dawkins) supports.

 

[Parsimony]

Without intelligent design, sorry charlie, it does. Ok, how about this, how about we just say the Christian God used evolution as a means of creation. I am fine with that. Cool?

No, you are not fine with it. If you were okay with it, you wouldn't be investing so much of your time and energy into arguing that macroevolution (such as the changing of kinds) is false. Otherwise, you'd be accepting of it at best and ambivalent towards it at worst. This following statement of yours:

I can only speak for my God, and my God doesn't need a trial and error process to create life...the bible says he spoke life in to existence and it was so. So hey.

only goes further to demonstrate that you are not "fine" with the idea of theistic evolution.

 

[johnhanks]

...explain to me how can a dog that is alive today every get to the point of producing a non-dog. Explain to me how can that happen??

The dog that is alive today has a body form that we call "dog" because when it was a fertilised egg it had received a set of DNA base sequences that directed its embryonic development to that form. This dog is a member of a population of animals sharing very similar variants of this DNA sequence (their gene pool), so they all look doggy.

Now, the individual dogs don't hang around very long - less than twenty years, usually. Only the gene pool persists, passed on from one generation to the next. And we know gene pools change over time - we see this, we measure it. So after enough generations, the gene pool need no longer be one that makes the fertilised eggs develop into a doggy body, at which stage the animals are non-dogs. What would make this happen? Accumulated genetic alterations (mutations and recombinations) together with selective pressure toward a different body form.

Now that wasn't hard, was it?

 

[shawn001]

Call of the Wild, I don't think according to what you believe you should say

"I can only speak for my God"

 

[McBell]

Call of the Wild, I don't think according to what you believe you should say

"I can only speak for my God"

Many people speak "for their god".

The problem is they cannot show that the god they speak for is the one true god they claim it is.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Many people speak "for their god".

The problem is they cannot show that the god they speak for is the one true god they claim it is.

It's actually considered blasphemy to make such a claim....

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That wasn't the question. You keep moving the goalposts.

So what was the point of you showing the picture?

And it works fine for colloquial, everyday discourse. But when we talk about technical subjects we want precision, and "kind" is hopelessly ambiguous.

And as far as Im concerned, everyday discourse is all we need. Every day, across the entire world, dogs are producing dogs, etc. That is what we see everyday right? It is only when you introduce new concepts that you need to use all of this technical terminology. A dog is a "kind" of animal. A cat is a "kind" of animal. Plain and simple.

You're missing the point; the point is simply that one could hold that, which shows that evolution does not entail naturalism or abiogenesis.

Well, talk to me when we get to that kind of debate.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

But your not.... the things you argue against are profoundly different than what they have actually stated.

Richard Dawkins: "His shirt is blue."
You: "His shirt is TOTALLY not yellow. I mean look at this shirt. Its clearly red. Look as this ******* saying this shirt is yellow."

This is straw man crap. I've already seen to many of Dawkins' debates and his babble. So either you are deliberating attacking straw man, or you just simply don't know what you are talking about, just for the sake of argument.

For you to argue against what they are saying you must first argue against what they are actually saying.

Except your not. You don't even know what a "kind" is. You don't even know what a species is. You don't even know what you are. And no matter how many times we explain it you deny it every time with responses that very often do not make logical sense.

Have you ever seen a female dog give birth and based on the animal that came out her womb, you said "thats not a dog". Have you ever seen this? Doesn't that mean that the female dog produced her own kind? Hmmm. Makes perfectly good sense to me.

No one argues in favor of what you are arguing against. My view of evolution and Dawkins is the same. He knows it better than is is all. What you are arguing against no scientist (including Richard Dawkins) supports.

Ok so from this point, I would like for you to just refrain from talking to me. The above quote is just simply and utterly not true. Richard Dawkins is an ATHEIST, and he opposes creationism/intelligent design. He is also an evolutionist that believes life came from nonlife naturally without intelligent design.

These are facts, and for you to sit there and say "no one argues in favor of what you are arguing against" is being flat out disingenuous, because I clearly described and defined the concept that I am arguing against. So as I said, either you are deliberating attacking straw man or you are ignorant of my position or Dawkins position. Whatever the case may be, just refrain from talking to me because this is ridiculous.