Why do Evolutionists not like to actually debate Evolution and rely on personal attacks?

[ignition]

Really? Nice to meet you. So what exactly is it about evolution that you find unconvincing? Do you believe, for example, that we can observe huge morphological changes in a fairly short number of generations through selective breeding? For example, a huge variety of dogs? Do you believe that the effects of reproductive isolation we see in animal husbandry and pet breeding also exist in the natural world in many different circumstances?

I'm hoping it's a yes and a yes, so I'll move on to the next question: Do you believe there is a limit to the amount of morphological change this reproductive isolation can result in? This is the key point where creationists persistently fail to make their case, in my experience. No specific mechanism is ever proposed that would prevent continuous morphological change, so there's no reason to believe it should ever hit any kind of limit.

Everything else about evolution not only logically flows from the first two observations, it is also supported by dozens of independent lines of evidence from a dizzying variety of different fields of research, including direct observation, both in a laboratory and in the wild.

Nice to meet you too haha

I don't find evolution unconvincing at all. From a scientific standpoint, it withstands scrutiny. There is an astronomical amount of evidence in support of it, if there is ever an issue or a problem found with the theory, it certainly isn't going to come from me. I don't have the expertise to undertake what seems like such a ridiculously difficult challenge. It's like trying to prove the Riemman hypothesis.

The reason why I don't believe in it is purely for theological reasons. The origin of the first human is very explicitly related in my holy book and it is not compatible with scientific research. So there is only the choice between accepting one of the two, and for me, I'm more sure about the fact that my holy book is from God than I am sure about the theory, despite all the evidences it has. The furthest I can go is by accepting the theory as pertaining to all species with the sole exception being human beings. That's where I have to draw the line.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Perhaps if someone explained this

People would be better able to understand why Dogs don't give birth to Cats and why Cats dont' give birth to Dogs.

I don't know much about Evolution (mostly out of my own ignorance), but to start out might be good to explain the entire classification process...not just the one.

 

[Alceste]

Nice to meet you too haha

I don't find evolution unconvincing at all. From a scientific standpoint, it withstands scrutiny. There is an astronomical amount of evidence in support of it, if there is ever an issue or a problem found with the theory, it certainly isn't going to come from me. I don't have the expertise to undertake what seems like such a ridiculously difficult challenge. It's like trying to prove the Riemman hypothesis.

The reason why I don't believe in it is purely for theological reasons. The origin of the first human is very explicitly related in my holy book and it is not compatible with scientific research. So there is only the choice between accepting one of the two, and for me, I'm more sure about the fact that my holy book is from God than I am sure about the theory, despite all the evidences it has. The furthest I can go is by accepting the theory as pertaining to all species with the sole exception being human beings. That's where I have to draw the line.

Well, on a scale of one to ten, I'd only rank my issues with that opinion as about a 3. Not enough to argue about. I'm happy to hear you have found a nice compromise that integrates your religious faith with your understanding of how the world actually is.

 

[savagewind]

Nice to meet you too haha

I don't find evolution unconvincing at all. From a scientific standpoint, it withstands scrutiny. There is an astronomical amount of evidence in support of it, if there is ever an issue or a problem found with the theory, it certainly isn't going to come from me. I don't have the expertise to undertake what seems like such a ridiculously difficult challenge. It's like trying to prove the Riemman hypothesis.

The reason why I don't believe in it is purely for theological reasons. The origin of the first human is very explicitly related in my holy book and it is not compatible with scientific research. So there is only the choice between accepting one of the two, and for me, I'm more sure about the fact that my holy book is from God than I am sure about the theory, despite all the evidences it has. The furthest I can go is by accepting the theory as pertaining to all species with the sole exception being human beings. That's where I have to draw the line.

Excellent! It is where I also draw the line for the same reason. Another reason is humankind is so very different from all other kinds.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Excellent! It is where I also draw the line for the same reason. Another reason is humankind is so very different from all other kinds.

How?

I mean there is the higher thinking portion which is important, but how are we so very different besides that?

I guess it's easy to say...any other species resembling us has died out if you were to go with evolution...but you don't seem particularly to believe in it, so I wonder how are we so different than other "kinds" whatever that may mean.

 

[ignition]

Well, on a scale of one to ten, I'd only rank my issues with that opinion as about a 3. Not enough to argue about. I'm happy to hear you have found a nice compromise that integrates your religious faith with your understanding of how the world actually is.

Thanks lol A lot of people actually don't debate on this either real life or online. I think it might be because I don't have beef with the theory itself. I really do not like dishonesty and I absolutely hate it when religious people pretend their religion is compatible with evolutionary theory when it clearly isn't.

The amount of Christians that talk about such BS is unbelievable. If they're going to deny the Adam was created directly then they might as well deny every single other miracle that God done as well that's written in the Bible including Noah's ark, Jonah's whale, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the splitting of the sea of Moses, the serpent of Moses, the burning bush, the virgin birth of Christ. You could literally deny everything else that is unscientific on the spot as well, you might as well throw the Bible in the bin at that point. It's a complete joke.

 

[savagewind]

How?

I mean there is the higher thinking portion which is important, but how are we so very different besides that?

Haha. Ever hear of a computer chip? Artificial intelligence? Space travel? How about poetry and symphony. Knowing that animals cannot communicate to us if they worship God or not, I can't really honestly add that. I don't know. How are we so similar?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Thanks lol A lot of people actually don't debate on this either real life or online. I think it might be because I don't have beef with the theory itself. I really do not like dishonesty and I absolutely hate it when religious people pretend their religion is compatible with evolutionary theory when it clearly isn't.

The amount of Christians that talk about such BS is unbelievable. If they're going to deny the Adam was created directly then they might as well deny every single other miracle that God done as well that's written in the Bible including Noah's ark, Jonah's whale, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the splitting of the sea of Moses, the serpent of Moses, the burning bush, the virgin birth of Christ. You could literally deny everything else that is unscientific on the spot as well, you might as well throw the Bible in the bin at that point. It's a complete joke.

Quite a bit of Christians find some of these moments to be well...Allegorical. Not things that actually happened but stories past down by the Israelites to bring them closer to God and try to understand God, they take those same stories and apply the "deeper" meaning to their life. When I was little I use to wonder why even include the Old Testament at all...it seemed very different compared to the New Testament.

 

[Falvlun]

How many generation where there from the invention of flight to flight at the speed of sound? Not enough I say. According to evolutionary theory the children of flyers would evolve the skill to fly, is that not so?

No. You are describing the debunked theory of Lamarckism. It was an alternative theory of inheritance and adaptation that Darwin's theory blew out of the water.

 

[savagewind]

No. You are describing the debunked theory of Lamarckism. It was an alternative theory of inheritance and adaptation that Darwin's theory blew out of the water.

I do not know the right words to express it but here's a go at it again. A gene mutation gets passed along. To whom does it get passed to? An offspring and no one else. True or false?

The genetic disposition to make sudden complex decisions is needed for jet flight. True or false?

Where did the genetic disposition come from please?

 

[Freedomelf]

Just curious, Savage, do you have a theory for or against the LUCA? I would like to hear it. (Although I am not on often lately; I've been terribly busy. I'll get back here though. )

 

[savagewind]

Just curious, Savage, do you have a theory for or against the LUCA? I would like to hear it. (Although I am not on often lately; I've been terribly busy. I'll get back here though. )

I don't know what it is

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Haha. Ever hear of a computer chip? Artificial intelligence? Space travel? How about poetry and symphony. Knowing that animals cannot communicate to us if they worship God or not, I can't really honestly add that. I don't know. How are we so similar?

Having hearts, brains, lungs, nerves, ability to reproduce, ability to communicate (I mean who knows what curses an ant shouts at us while we step on it?),. and all of these of course vary, but there are similarities between us and various "kinds".

Ever hear a whale sing?

[youtube]WabT1L-nN-E[/youtube]
Whale Song - YouTube

May not be like how we sing, but it's certainly songs that other whales understand.

Or a Crow speak?

[youtube]rIX_6TBeph0[/youtube]
Ravenmania - Nevermore! - YouTube

Or A Crow using Tools

[youtube]ofjo26O0z_o[/youtube]
Crow uses sequence of three tools - YouTube

[youtube]lcvbgq2SSyc[/youtube]
Tool use in the New Caledonian Crow - YouTube

Or what appear to be Mourning Habits in animals like elephants, chimps, and magpies

Do animals mourn their dead? | MNN - Mother Nature Network

IDK, I think we give animals too little credit.

 

[ignition]

Quite a bit of Christians find some of these moments to be well...Allegorical. Not things that actually happened but stories past down by the Israelites to bring them closer to God and try to understand God, they take those same stories and apply the "deeper" meaning to their life. When I was little I use to wonder why even include the Old Testament at all...it seemed very different compared to the New Testament.

So they think the virgin birth is allegorical? The think Jesus's resurrection is allegorical? I don't think so. Rather, they've mastered the art of picking and choosing.

 

[LuisDantas]

I do not know the right words to express it but here's a go at it again. A gene mutation gets passed along. To whom does it get passed to? An offspring and no one else. True or false?

The genetic disposition to make sudden complex decisions is needed for jet flight. True or false?

Where did the genetic disposition come from please?

The concepts could be a bit better defined, but the answer to your last question is "from previous generations".

 

[LuisDantas]

The reason why I don't believe in it is purely for theological reasons. The origin of the first human is very explicitly related in my holy book and it is not compatible with scientific research. So there is only the choice between accepting one of the two, and for me, I'm more sure about the fact that my holy book is from God than I am sure about the theory, despite all the evidences it has. The furthest I can go is by accepting the theory as pertaining to all species with the sole exception being human beings. That's where I have to draw the line.

It seems to me that you are insisting in a literal interpretation of the origin on humans, then.

Your privilege. I will only point out that it is not the only possible interpretation.

 

[savagewind]

The concepts could be a bit better defined, but the answer to your last question is "from previous generations".

And when I said that you all said "Oh no!" OK?
Instead of asking a poster to be more clear like some kind people here do you jump on every little tiny error that fits your case against another. That is where evolution of the human mind is heading. We who believe in creation are hopeful it won't take over.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

So they think the virgin birth is allegorical? The think Jesus's resurrection is allegorical? I don't think so. Rather, they've mastered the art of picking and choosing.

Some believe that Jesus became the Son of God after being Baptize, some don't believe Jesus was the Son of God, but was rather a prophet sent to Lead us to God.

Some see Jesus as Distinct being an Angel sent, some see Jesus as Someone who became God after the resurrection.

And yes some believe it all to be allegorical.

Some are Christians because the believe in the message that Jesus brought, regardless if he was a man or not.

So yeah Picking and Choosing if you will...perhaps that why it's been so successful.

 

[Alceste]

Perhaps if someone explained this

People would be better able to understand why Dogs don't give birth to Cats and why Cats dont' give birth to Dogs.

I don't know much about Evolution (mostly out of my own ignorance), but to start out might be good to explain the entire classification process...not just the one.

Sure, classification is a language construct. A convenience. A way of describing things. Giving things new or different names makes no difference to the truth of what they actually are.It's important to understand that before you tackle the fact that scientists are always quibbling over what a species is, and whether they've found a new one, and how many there are. If you don't get that they're only talking about what to call things, it might seem like there is uncertainty about what things actually are.

There isn't. We know a great deal about who is related to who, and how, and how long ago they shared a common ancestor, mostly because of DNA, which mutates at a fairly predictable rate.

A "species" is generally considered a reproductively isolated group: an organism that can only reproduce with others of the same type. That definition doesn't necessarily work for everything (plants and asexually reproducing organisms, for example), but it's a good starting point.

When a number of different species are descended from a common ancestor fairly recently, like for example dogs, wolves, foxes, badgers, weasels, jackals, etc. that entire group also gets its own name. In this case, Canidae. That's called a family. In between, there is a level called genus, where you've got all the wolf species, all the dog species, all the fox species, etc. grouped together. The common ancestry within these groups is more recent than the rest of the family, so the morphological differences are smaller.

Above the family, reaching even further back, you have other levels of common ancestry with an ever increasing number of other species at different times in the past.

And so it goes, like this:

Pro memory tip: "Keep Plates Clean Or Family Gets Sick".(You don't really need to remember Life or Domain - there are only 3 domains, and 1 "life")

The idea is, every level here represents common genetic ancestry with other species, with the most recent speciation at the bottom and the most ancient at the top.

Originally, before we had access to DNA evidence, which provides incredible refinement to our understanding of how things are related, we went by morphological similarity. We now understand better than ever what things actually are, so what we call them shifts around as new evidence arises.

To use the example of dogs, the classification would be like so:

Life - (everything)
Domain - Eukarya (multi-cellular organisms)
Kingdom - Animalia (all animals)
Phylum - Chordata (animals with spines)
Class - Mammalia (all mammals)
Order - Carnivora (all meat-eating mammals)
Family - Canidae (all dog-like creatures)
Genus - Canis (all dogs)
Species - Canis familiaris (all domestic dogs)

 

[savagewind]

So the aptitude for complex and sudden decision making came from previous generations. What did previous generations need split second timing and complex decision making for?