or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › That Pesky "Dinsoaurs lived millions of years ago" thing...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

That Pesky "Dinsoaurs lived millions of years ago" thing...  

post #1 of 213
Thread Starter 
...you know the crackpots have gone too far when they created Dinosaur theme parks with religious explanations.

Quote:
From the NYT:
Robert and Schön Passmore took their children to Disney World last fall and left bitterly disappointed. As Christians who reject evolutionary theory, the family scoffed at the park's dinosaur attractions, which date the apatosaurus, brachiosaurus and the like to prehistoric times.

"My kids kept recognizing flaws in the presentation," said Mrs. Passmore, of Jackson, Ala. "You know the whole `millions of years ago dinosaurs ruled the earth' thing."

So this week, the Passmores sought out a lower-profile Florida attraction: Dinosaur Adventure Land, a creationist theme park and museum here that beckons children to "find out the truth about dinosaurs" with games that roll science and religion into one big funfest with the message that Genesis, not science, tells the real story of the creation.


I mean common, don't let good science get in the way of your biblical stories! A biblical story must either be literally true, or it is worthless! Can't learn anything about God or living well from allegories; that's totally impossible and beyond all comprehension and logic.

Better to just brainwash your kids and tell them to only pay attention to science when it suits their religion.

Aldo is watching....
Aldo is watching....
post #2 of 213
*prays for another asteroid*
It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think.
It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think.
post #3 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by Moogs
A biblical story must either be literally true, or it is worthless! Can't learn anything about God or living well from allegories; that's totally impossible and beyond all comprehension and logic.

You do not understand Christianity. Christ taught in allegories most of the time. And there are a wide range of literal-vs-allegorical denominations in the States.

Just because it does not fit YOUR particular comprehension or logic does not mean that it cannot be the foundation of a major world religion.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #4 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by Jubelum
You do not understand Christianity. Christ taught in allegories most of the time. And there are a wide range of literal-vs-allegorical denominations in the States.

Just because it does not fit YOUR particular comprehension or logic does not mean that it cannot be the foundation of a major world religion.

Um, Moogs was being facetious....
post #5 of 213
Don't let "good science" get in the way of exlpaining a "good story."

I always wondered what the whales were eating for millions of years waiting for their baleen to develop.

There is no "good science" surrounding evolution---or to explain it. Some people look to a complete solution, instead of being fed contradicitons.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #6 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
Um, Moogs was being facetious....

Well, then... I will consider my reply as my apologetics exercise for the day. Thanks Moogs for helping me get those extra reps in.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #7 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by Jubelum
Well, then... I will consider my reply as my apologetics exercise for the day. Thanks Moogs for helping me get those extra reps in.

orange you just glad?
orange you just glad?
post #8 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Don't let "good science" get in the way of exlpaining a "good story."

I always wondered what the whales were eating for millions of years waiting for their baleen to develop.

There is no "good science" surrounding evolution---or to explain it. Some people look to a complete solution, instead of being fed contradicitons.

Um, I really don't think we need another discussion on evolution. But not all wales eat plankton. in fact some eat just fish, and some eat both so your answer is in there somewhere.
post #9 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Don't let "good science" get in the way of exlpaining a "good story."

I always wondered what the whales were eating for millions of years waiting for their baleen to develop.

There is no "good science" surrounding evolution---or to explain it. Some people look to a complete solution, instead of being fed contradicitons.

I agree that we don't need another evolution thread, but i have a question about the world view (which I hope is linked to the topic of, you know, enforced insularity).

In order to say there is no good science surrounding evolution, you are required to do some or all of the following:

Not understand what science is.
Refuse to learn what science is.
Refuse to avail yourself of the enormous body of research that is readily available in re evolution and its mechanisms.
Limit your intake of information to the kind of fatuous "gotcha" stuff like "what did whales eat".
Disregard any information to the contrary that you might accidently come across.
Begin to do things like attend theme parks that pander to your ignorance.

Now it seems to me that all of this goes substantially beyond "having faith". It pretty much obliges you to discard science, scientific method, deductive reasoning, logic, and the entire edifice of post enlightenment culture.

So my question is, is that OK with "believers"? In other words, do people who reject evolution reject the rest of science, and its methods, or is the thinking that science is wrong just on this one thing (or I suppose any other things that contradict biblical literalism).

Do people who reject evolution know that they are rejecting science and its methods, since evolutionary theory and its arguments are so much a part and parcel of how science is done?

And if so, is that OK with them?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
post #10 of 213
Many tales in religions of all denominations are allegorical. Unfortunately, they are often coopted by the unscrupulous to coerce, instill fear, manipulate and blind people into believing material that has nothing to do with the original teachings.

"Creationism" is one of the most blatant examples of such literal Sunday School garbage interpretation. It is unbelievable in these supposedly "enlightened" times, where science and proven knowledge is advancing so rapidly, that such bastions of superstitious drivel still find so much support.

In a related story, an expedition is currently underway to try to find the remains of "Noah's Ark" which some people reckon can be seen just below the summit of the almost 18,000 ft high Mt. Ararat in Northern Turkey. (!!!!!) I mean...think about it: for a seagoing vessel to make landfall some 3.5 miles above current sealevel, requires that the Earth at some point in just the last 6,000 years, (according to the "Creationists" who believe this stuff) was almost entirely a watery planet, with just a few small islands represented by todays tallest mountains.

And...they teach this crap in Kansas with official state approval....

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #11 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
I agree that we don't need another evolution thread

...then we don't need another "creationists are complete idiots" thread.

Quote:
Limit your intake of information to the kind of fatuous "gotcha" stuff like "what did whales eat".

This is exactly the point---and no one here can offer a detailed workable soution. This also the reason that evolution is increasingly under popular attack and why ID is gaining legitimacy.


Quote:
Do people who reject evolution know that they are rejecting science and its methods


There IS NO SCIENCE that supports evolution, there is no "science" to regect.

IF the earth was made of prisitine elements, IF you assme to understand the true nature of universe you can logically deduce that the unverse and the earth are quite ancient. The "science" abruptly ends there.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #12 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
....almost 18,000 ft high Mt. Ararat in Northern Turkey. (!!!!!) I mean...think about it: for a seagoing vessel to make landfall some 3.5 miles above current sealevel....


......no uplift to create mountians? How the in world did they form then?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #13 of 213
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
...then we don't need another "creationists are complete idiots" thread

Not all creationists, just the ones that create theme-parks that attempt to debunk legitimate science. Just because all the pieces of the evolutionary puzzle are not understood, doesn't mean the whole theory lacks merit.


Quote:
There IS NO SCIENCE that supports evolution, there is no "science" to regect.


OMG... (pun intended). Wake up.
Aldo is watching....
Aldo is watching....
post #14 of 213
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Jubelum
Well, then... I will consider my reply as my apologetics exercise for the day. Thanks Moogs for helping me get those extra reps in.


Think nothing of it.

Aldo is watching....
Aldo is watching....
post #15 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
......no uplift to create mountians? How the in world did they form then?

6,000 years is an instant in geological time, and not remotely enough time to create a mountain range.

Again, you are obliged to "not know" a great deal to keep this world view form falling apart.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
post #16 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
There IS NO SCIENCE that supports evolution, there is no "science" to regect.

Have you read any much ID literature? I've read a little. The guys who are at least making an effort to be scientific aren't so dimissive as you about evolution. They of course strongly disagree with evolution, and have major points of contention, but they also acknowledge the strengths of the case for evolution and work from there.

Adamantly insisting that there is NO SCIENCE that supports evolution simply bespeaks a complete misunderstanding about how the scientific endeavor works and a partisan rejection of all that could challenge one's own beliefs.

Science is certainly not coming up with something you think is a problem, (whales and baleen, for instance), pondering for a few moments within your own limited understanding of a subject and finding no answer, and then thinking that you've found an utterly conclusive "gotcha" that brings the whole structure of what you disagree with tumbling down.

For a while, for example, some creationists were crowing loudly about "polonium halos" (or "po hos" as they were called for short, not to be confused with financially disadvantaged prostitutes). These radioactive decay patterns found in certain outcroppings of granite were supposed to "prove" that all of the granite all around the world must have been spontaneously formed all at the same time, and not very long ago.

But it's all based on a misunderstanding of the permeability of granite, and the ability of radon gas to penetrate already-formed granite. Now, I'm sure there's been some back-and-forth over this since I last encountered the issue, but regardless, it's hardly the slam-dunk gotcha it was originally made out to be.

I'm sure quite a few creationists aren't even aware of the arguments against the polonium halos because they don't care to investigate any further than hearing what sounds good for them, and simply keep repeating and spreading a bad meme.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
post #17 of 213
God loves evolutionists, too.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #18 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
......no uplift to create mountians? How the in world did they form then?

Yes. but over 10s of millions of years, NOT 6000 years, which is one of the biblical myths that creationists so fervently believe. For sure, an extinct volcano like Ararat took less time (hundreds of thousands of years) to form...but even that timescale is in a totally different ballpark.

Here's how the "creationists" get this crazy 6000 figure:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm

It's truly amazing, and sad.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #19 of 213
No. We don't need another creationists thread.

Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
...then we don't need another "creationists are complete idiots" thread.

This, on the other hand, needs to be said again and again, proudly and unapologetically.
post #20 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo

It's truly amazing, and sad.


and someone else's faith is yours to judge? It's theirs. None of your business what they believe or why. Let em be.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #21 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
...then we don't need another "creationists are complete idiots" thread.

That's actually not my point. My point is that to reject evolution, you are obliged to reject science, since if the science that buttresses evolution is as wrong as you think it is, it safe to say that science as we currently understand it is incapable of forming coherent models of the world.

Now, I'm not proffering an opinion about the wisdom of rejecting science. I actually have quite a bit of sympathy for people with little interest in the sciences and who are preoccupied instead with the metaphysics of day to day life, the notion of a soul and the transcendent power of love.

But I will insist, your notions about this notwithstanding, that to reject evolution is to reject science per se, and that one ought to be honest about that and be prepared to argue from that position.

Moreover, it is simply impossible to reconcile biblical literalism with any recognizable scientific description of the earth's history; and that to try to do so leads one into such torturous mutations of what science actually says it would be far more sensible to just declare science null and void and stick with "because God made it so".
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
post #22 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by Jubelum
and someone else's faith is yours to judge? It's theirs. None of your business what they believe or why. Let em be.

Well, that would be true if biblical literalists were content to carry their faith quietly in their hearts, but they don't, do they?

They programatically pack school boards and begin to clamor for "intelligent design" courses to be taught along side evolution, if they're not calling for a ban on the teaching of evolution altogether.

And of course it doesn't end there; there is the matter of the age of the earth, the mechanisms of it's formation, the age of the universe.... well, once you start to pull out the foundation stones of science, you might as well knock down the building.

At that point "someone's" faith is very much mine to judge, since I'm not real keen on living in a medieval village where natural phenomena are ascribed to gods and devils.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
post #23 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
My point is that to reject evolution, you are obliged to reject science


You have yet to prove this---scientifically speaking, evolution and science are at odds.

Edit: I think you are confusing "well, everyone says so" with having accessable reasons for believing evolution is even possible.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #24 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
You have yet to prove this---scientifically speaking, evolution and science are at odds.

Edit: I think you are confusing "well, everyone says so" with having accessable reasons for believing evolution is even possible.

The "everyone" who says so are the vast majority of scientists working in the field. There is such a thing as "credible sources", otherwise none of us would be able to claim knowledge about anything outside of our immediate vicinity.

Now, the literature supporting the theory of evolution would fill several libraries, so as far as my "proving it" on an internet chat site... a little unwieldy.

How about you point out some instances of how "evolution and science are at odds" and we take it from there?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
post #25 of 213
-actually I asked first, sooooo........

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #26 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
-actually I asked first, sooooo........

Yes you did, but you're kind of on the "swimming against the tide" end of this, so it's customary for the person who intends to refute the already broadly accepted to do the refuting (as in announcing that the universe sprung from the brow of a turtle and then demanding "proof" that it is not so. Given the outlandishness of the assertion , the burden of proof lies with the asserter.)
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
post #27 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
I agree that we don't need another evolution thread,

BWAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA!
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #28 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
You have yet to prove this---scientifically speaking, evolution and science are at odds.

Most scientists would disagree with this. Now, of course, science isn't a popularity contest, but would you care to explain where your expertise on what it means to "speak scientifically" comes from, why it's better than majority opinion, where the majority has gone wrong and you've gotten it right, and what exactly you think "scientifically speaking" means?

The typical caricature of what science is supposed to be that creationist often put forward looks something like this...

Misunderstanding #1: A scientific theory must be utterly, completely, 100% provable beyond a shadow of anyone's doubt. Anything less just "isn't scientific". Of course, this stringent criteria should be applied only to what one wishes to reject, not to the things one wishes to promote.

Misunderstanding #2: Scientific theories aren't much more than passing fads anyway. Science is constantly in total upheaval, with today's "truth" quickly becoming yesterday's laughable ignorance.

Misunderstanding #3: Any flaw, real or perceived, brings the whole structure of a theory down. If a theory doesn't meet my standards, reasonable or not, of complete scientific perfection, I am free to substitute whatever alternative I like, and that alternative is at least as scientific as some other silly, imperfect theory. Ideas are either completely perfect and unassailable, or they're simply up-in-the-air matters of opinion and faith, and I don't have to recognize any distinctions in the quality of ideas beyond this binary ranking if I don't want to.

Misunderstanding #4: The more questions a "theory" answers the better it is. Some so-called scientists have all these piecemeal things like biological evolution, chemical evolution, cosmology, geology, etc. But a simple "God made it that way" solves it all in one fell swoop, so that's obviously more scientific.

Misunderstanding #5: The Second Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible.

The above is certainly not a thorough list of misunderstandings, but it's a start. I'll continue with this in another post.

Quote:
Edit: I think you are confusing "well, everyone says so" with having accessable reasons for believing evolution is even possible.

Are you confusing "accessible" with "I don't have to study anything to understand you", or "so bulletproof I can't possibly simply gainsay what you've said if it suits me to"?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
post #29 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
BWAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA!

It's not my fault! God designed me for this!
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
post #30 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by Jubelum
[B]and someone else's faith is yours to judge? It's theirs. None of your business what they believe or why. Let em be.

Considering that this (re. the age of the Earth) has everything to do with an essay based on erroneous ideas and guesswork (now soundly refuted) renders this piece of their faith redundant. Nowhere in the Bible is there an estimation of the age of the Earth anyway. If they consider themselves Christian, then they should stick to Jesus' teachings, rather than latching onto halfbaked loonytunes ideas like this. These people have no more credibility than the Flat Earth Society.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #31 of 213
Ever since I read that paleontologists believe that dinosaurs had feathers...Jurassic Park doesn't thrill me anymore.

I'd say let God sort it out...oh wait, God did.

Creationists = Afraid of Science (truth)

/confusedandhumoredatthesametime

I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
post #32 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
-actually I asked first, sooooo........

Man's best friend is proof of evolution. I know you wont want to accept this but I'll spill the beans anyway.

Dogs were bread from wolves some 30,000 years ago. The evolution of the dog from wolf was a forced and accelerated evolution where man chose pooches with specific traits and continued to breed for those desired traits. Wolves evolved into the common dog to adapt to a changed environment i.e. closer proximity to man. When we let these lovable pack animals into our caves we changed their everyday survival needs. Humans are better at storing food and wolves are better at taking down bears and the like. Combine the two traits and you have yourself a win-win combination. Wolves didn't have to work as hard or go as long between dinner bells and humans picked up good hunting partners. Once that happened, wolves could evolve into dogs. As further proof (because you're probably thinking God gave us dogs) is how many new breeds of dog do we create? You can easily trace the lineage of breeds if you like and find that we, humans, have caused dogs to evolve into different breeds. The American Bull Terrier is only a couple of hundred years old while the Beagle dates back to about 400B.C.. The Rotweiler, German Shepherd, and Russian Wolf Hound are breeds which have been around for thousands of years.

We have seen the evolution of the dog occur. We have introduced environmental changes into the lives of these pooches and caused change. Granted, the environmental changes we have introduce occurred at much accelerated rate but that doesn't lessen the evolution of the common dog as proof of evolution. Environmental changes happen on a much slower pace than the changes forced by man thus natural (i.e. non-human induced) changes occur at a slower pace.

A lot of creationists think a theory can't be reasoned as fact; however, the earth going around the sun is nothing more than a theory. In science there are no hard facts just theories. As new evidence arises we scientist alter our theories to match the new evidence. Darwin's idea of evolution has been found to be false. The survival of the fittest isn't always the case. In fact what usually happens is survival by coexistence where two weaker species exploit each other or a common resource to survive. There was a study about some species of grasses found in the midwest prairies where weaker species of plants could coexist because each plant used a specific nutrient and when grouped together formed a hardy community.

Back to the earth going around the sun. DMZ do you believe the earth goes around the sun? Or, as the bible puts it, is the earth the center of the known universe. We have a lot of strong evidence that the earth and sun rotate around each other (rotation of the planets only causes a small wobble in the sun due to the relative masses) but scientifically the idea is still a theory but since most churches think the theory is based in fact few religious people question the premise.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
post #33 of 213
It should probably be noted at this point that the defining point where one species becomes two is when they are no longer able to interbreed.
orange you just glad?
orange you just glad?
post #34 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
We have seen the evolution of the dog occur.

I should warn you at this point of the word "microevolution".

Creationists get around such examples by making a distinction between trait evolution within a species, and the development of entirely new species. I don't think the distinction is valid or compelling, but at least you should know that the macro/micro-evolution concept is something you have to deal with when arguing for evolution vs. creationism.

Also, I don't know if dogs are such a good example, as one could say that their evolution was "intelligently directed" by man's mind.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
post #35 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
I should warn you at this point of the word "micro-evolution".

Creationists get around such examples by making a distinction between trait evolution within a species, and the development of entirely new species. I don't think the distinction is valid or compelling, but at least you should know that the macro/micro-evolution concept is something you have to deal with when arguing for evolution vs. creationism.

Also, I don't know if dogs are such a good example, as one could say that their evolution was "intelligently directed" by man's mind.

I know they choose to define the word in such a manner to suit their own designs; however, evolution isn't necessarily the complete transformation. Evolution by definition is the process by which something passes by degrees to a different stage. That is what we have done with the Canine. We have caused it to pass by degrees to another stage. The black/grey wolf is now the little red and white spaniel sleeping on the floor in my living room.

I realize I'm arguing with the wind when I try to show creationists that there is strong evidence to refute their standpoint. That's why I throw the Sun/Earth question in as well. I try to show that changes in environment can cause significant amounts of change and then I ask why they subscribe to one part of the bible as absolute truth and not another. We have a substantial amount of proof about the Earth not being the center of the universe.

Plus, there's always the Peppered Moth. This moth has developed two distinct breeds--one dark and one light--where the pollution levels dictate which type of moth is prevalent. The light and dark variants can interbreed but the resulting offspring will become targets for predators. Mmmm evolution of a species based on environmental change at work.....

Wrong Robot, evolution doesn't require two
separate species as the end result. Orchids, squirrels, mice, rats, etc have all evolved to meet the needs of different locations/environments.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
post #36 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9

Wrong Robot, evolution doesn't require two
separate species as the end result. Orchids, squirrels, mice, rats, etc have all evolved to meet the needs of different locations/environments.

Yeah I know, I merely threw that out there because I had a feeling some might be curious as to what defines one species becoming two(wolfs->dogs)
orange you just glad?
orange you just glad?
post #37 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I always wondered what the whales were eating for millions of years waiting for their baleen to develop.

I always wondered what the humans were eating for tens of thousands of years waiting for George Foreman to develop his grill.
post #38 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by Jubelum
and someone else's faith is yours to judge? It's theirs. None of your business what they believe or why. Let em be.

If they just believed it, that'd be one thing. But creationists are actively trying to do great harm to America's school system by forcing their religious claptrap down all student's throats. American kids are already stupid enough when it comes to math and sciences. We don't need to compound this by teaching them fairy tales as "science" as well.
post #39 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland
I always wondered what the humans were eating for tens of thousands of years waiting for George Foreman to develop his grill.

I just bought one last week, and I wonder the same thing.
It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think.
It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think.
post #40 of 213
Quote:
But not all wales eat plankton. in fact some eat just fish, and some eat both so your answer is in there somewhere.

Some also eat seals (orca).

I was on a long road trip with some Creationist friends recently (not a creationist). Eventually, the conversation arrived at evolution and the ignorance of science (equating biogenesis with evolution, abuse of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, distaste for simian ancestry, etc).

Despite claims like "science doesn't know what binds a positively charged nucleus", I kept my trap largely shut until the topic changed for a peaceful journey (WEAK NUCLEAR FORCE! IT IS NUCLEAR POWER!!!!). I regret not wading in on the side of science when someone mentioned that they had called their biology teacher "deluded" because he was a Christian who accepted evolution as plausible. Now I've remembered I like debate, I'll be prepared for next time.

Anyway, if you beleive in an omnipotent, omniscient creator god, outside of time, etc, couldn't this god use evolution? It's not as if It's going to be surprised.
Stoo
Stoo
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › That Pesky "Dinsoaurs lived millions of years ago" thing...