[quote]mattfelts wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Also, that may be the case now, since evolution has such a strong evidence base to support it…
There is only strong evidence to support adaptation/micro-evolution. You can’t bring any substantial evidence to the table to support large scale transformations. If you think you can here is YOUR chance to become famous. If you think you can do it, have it. The T-Nation world is your stage.
I still don’t think you understand what evolution is. What you describe as “adaptation/micro-evolution” is no different from macro-evolution, we’re just only able to actually see a small snap shot of it.
No, you THINK you can actually see a small snap shot. THAT is the myth. THAT is one of the huge gaping holes in the theory. THAT is why Gould had to come up with punctuated equalibria. You can’t see it in the present so it can’t be observed and tested and therefore inherently can’t be scientific. So you look to the past and exclaim “Wah lah, thar she blows,” but the fact of the matter is it can’t be seen there either despite millions of and millions of fossils. Again IF you could see it in the fossil record Sir Eminent Gould would need no reason to conjure up punctuated equalibria.
Yes, it’s a logical extension of what you call “adaptation”, which we DO actually see occurring in the present. There is an extensive fossil record which shows the adaptation of many species over millenia which all share common traits and therefore can be logically linked. It’s not infallible proof, but again, it’s a fair amount of evidence.
And again, where is the evidence for the alternative?
I actually DO understand what evolution is and paradoxically it appears you don’t. You must ascribe a great deal of faith in your theory to say that even though you can’t observe or test certain (major) tenets, i.e., large scale transformations, you still just know it had to have happened and still is happening. Very, very unscientific state of mind, my friend.
Well, how about geneticism then? Geneticists have discovered that we share 95% of our DNA with that of higher primates like chimpanzees. Now, why would this be true if we were not closely related?
How about modern medicine? I assume that, since you don’t believe that humans evolved from other animals, you don’t use any medications or seek medical attention in the case that you are sick, seeing as how much of what we know about medicine today was gained by doing testing on other animals.
But let’s even assume that you are right, and we have no evidence to support large scale transformations. Do we have evidence to support things magically appearing out of thin air? Has the scientific community (or yourself) ever witnessed a creature materialize out of nothingness?
No, hence the need for faith. Keeps coming back to that, doesn’t it?
However, you might want to tune up a little on Gould’s theory; he explicitly states that many species seemed to have appeared suddenly in the fossil record.
No, it keeps coming back to evidence, of which you have none yet evolution has at least some.
No, absolutely none, nor has this ever happened since the invention of modern technology which could capture such phenomenon in an objective manner. Yet, we have at least some evidence to support the idea that creatures change/adapt based on their environments.
Which I have been agreeing with incessantly all along. What do I have to do, wear a sandwich board and stand in front of your house professing my belief in this observable, testable fact of science?
Never said that you weren’t agreeing with it. So wait, you’re agreeing that there is more evidence to support evolution than creationism? Then why keep arguing against it?
Which lends at least more credibility to evolution than it does to creationism.
There is little credibility in sheer speculation and sheer speculation (and faith) is what it takes to take it from the adaptation that we CAN see to wholesale changes in genera, families, orders, classes, phyla and kingdoms that we CAN"T see.
Creatures don’t ever jump families. And yes, we can see the different genera, families, orders, classes, phyla and kingdoms today, yet if we go back far enough in time, there exist no such classifications. How can this be? We can see through certain biological characteristics that certain families of animals are related, and that at one time all animals share common ancestry.
Watch this video:
In fact there is just so much evidence to disprove the literal creationist theory that it’s almost silly to even argue against it.
Keep in mind that this has absolutely nothing to do with my religious beliefs or what I believe the origin of the universe to have been. I am not saying that God didn’t “create” the universe, only that it’s pretty likely that he didn’t do it in 7 days, or create the creatures of this earth exactly as they are now.
Of course not. Adaptation has changed God’s creation somewhat. What does it take to get this through your head? Why do you insist that creationists demand that the creatures of today appear exactly as they did when they were created? Why? Why are your heels so dug in on this? This mischaracterization of creationism?
Well, because the literalist definition of creationism is someone who takes Genesis at face value. This is the type of creationism that I am familiar with, and the one that is most prevalent here in the states.
If that’s not what you’re professing, and instead simply saying that evolution is one of God’s creations, along with the matter contained in the big bang which became the universe, etc… (meaning that “creationism” to you simply means that God is responsible for the “laws” of the universe and the patterns which it follows) and we did all evolve from “lesser” life forms, then I apologize for misintepreting you.
Otherwise, your position seems like you’re trying to tiptoe around the subject and straddle both sides of the fence. “Yeah, evolution exists, but only where and in the sense that I want it to.”
The only thing that you can literally conclude from Genesis is that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis is a book that shows man fall from the Grace of God into law, however it’s not Christians who take a literalist’s view of the bible but the non-christian who wants to disprove it.[/quote]
Maybe where you are from that is true. But believe me, there are plenty of Christians who take a literalist view of the bible.
If you are just reading it as a metaphor for creation and to teach morality, then okay, no harm in that and certainly no way of disproving that God created the universe. If that’s you, then why would you object to evolution? Evolution is in no way mutually exclusive to God’s existence, divine power, or being responsible for creating the universe.
