Science, CSI and the Evolution/Creationism Debate

[uke2se]

Biologists use "Microevolution" to describe evolution within a species. They use "Macroevolution" to describe evolution leading to new species, and higher taxa.

Are you quite sure about this? I studies biology at uni, and what you call "macroevolution" we called spieciation.

 

[Cabal]

I did get that. I do read with all 4 my eyes.

Good good just making sure I am making my English understandable (sorry if I'm oversimplifying ) but often when I say that about interpretations people assume I am claiming my theistic evolution interpretations are 100% the only true way to read Genesis. Which is not what I am doing!

 

[Dream3wb723]

Is this another broken ninth, AV, or are you really this ill-informed? You cannot even get the science side right. No type of evolution has ever been described by a scientist as one spieces of animal giving birth to another. The offspring will always be of the same spieces as the parent.

Thus, we can safely conclude that your entire post is a grave misrepresentation of the truth, and at worst, an outright lie. "Evolutionists" have never talked about micro and macro evolution, except, I suspect, to explain the more indepth theories about spieciation. If you were taught that in school, your science teacher should have been fired.

uhm???

Not to be funny or anything but I think he got the point. Every one here got a peace of him(AV), or he(AV) got a peace of everyone.

 

[uke2se]

uhm???

Not to be funny or anything but I think he got the point. Every one here got a peace of him(AV), or he(AV) got a peace of everyone.

From my limited experience with AV, he can never be told enough time that he's wrong. It's especially amusing to point out when he's blatantly lying.

For the record, though, I did see all the other answers to his post before I wrote mine.

 

[Dream3wb723]

From my limited experience with AV, he can never be told enough time that he's wrong. It's especially amusing to point out when he's blatantly lying.

For the record, though, I did see all the other answers to his post before I wrote mine.

k...

Just checking.

 

[plindboe]

Are you quite sure about this? I studies biology at uni, and what you call "macroevolution" we called spieciation.

Micro- and macroevolution isn't used frequently by scientists, but they are certainly used once in a while. I've encountered them in bio textbooks on occasion: In my current 800 page textbook, "Evolution" (Barton, Briggs, Eisen, Goldstein, Patel), I see in the index that the word "Macroevolution" is mentioned twice.

"Macroevolution" is frequently mentioned in connection with punctuated equilibrium, and since most creationist sites are rife with Gould quote mines, that's probably why this word has become so popular in creationist circles.

Peter

 

[uke2se]

Micro- and macroevolution isn't used frequently by scientists, but they are certainly used once in a while. I've encountered them in bio textbooks on occasion: In my current 800 page textbook, "Evolution" (Barton, Briggs, Eisen, Goldstein, Patel), I see in the index that the word "Macroevolution" is mentioned twice.

"Macroevolution" is frequently mentioned in connection with punctuated equilibrium, and since most creationist sites are rife with Gould quote mines, that's probably why this word has become so popular in creationist circles.

Peter

Well then, I stand corrected on the usage of the terms. A simple wiki search would have sufficed to correct me on that.

The point of my argument - that micro- and macroevolution are goverened by the same processes - still stands, though. The only difference is the time-period involved.

 

[mpok1519]

That is for each human to go by himself. Just insaine poeple like me will litteraly go into the bible and count the years.(Ps: its not 6000. its more in the line of 8000.)

yes, the Bible says the earth is 6000-8000 years old (its impossible to determine exactly how old the Bible says the earth is; infact, Biblically, the entire universe is that old); however, the physical evidence and proof geology presents us with says the planet is billions of years old.

and we can't have humans going around telling other humans false ideas that have no bearing on reality.

 

[Dream3wb723]

yes, the Bible says the earth is 6000-8000 years old (its impossible to determine exactly how old the Bible says the earth is; infact, Biblically, the entire universe is that old); however, the physical evidence and proof geology presents us with says the planet is billions of years old.

and we can't have humans going around telling other humans false ideas that have no bearing on reality.

According to me this Billion/million years cant be proven exactly as well. some say 20 million, other 200 million .Till they have an exact number, I'm sticking to the 8000 biblical worked out years.

 

[Cabal]

According to me this Billion/million years cant be proven exactly as well. some say 20 million, other 200 million .Till they have an exact number, I'm sticking to the 8000 biblical worked out years.

Not really mate, most cosmologists are saying 10^10 years, easily. Also, what margin of error do you need, given that no physical measurement can measure "exactly"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well then, I stand corrected on the usage of the terms.

So am I still, at worst, a "liar" --- [crosses fingers]?

 

[Dream3wb723]

Not really mate, most cosmologists are saying 10^10 years, easily. Also, what margin of error do you need, given that no physical measurement can measure "exactly"?

10^10 years? You got me there....

explain please?

 

[Cabal]

10^10 years? You got me there....

explain please?

Shorthand for 10 to the power of 10, i.e, 10 billion years. Think the most recent figure is about 13 billion.

A good bit bigger than 200 million anyway....

 

[AV1611VET]

10^10 years? You got me there....

explain please?

10 billion years --- down from 40 billion last year, and 20 billion yesterday.

 

[Dream3wb723]

So am I still, at worst, a "liar" --- [crosses fingers]?

Just chocked. I was expecting the experts to come along and give me an answer. Not calling others a lair, In this case, (sorry) from creationist to a other, till proven guilty (as I'm the newby around here) I will look up the things that was said and here, and put them to the test.

 

[Dream3wb723]

like I said. Some say 40, others 20. 13 sounds interesting.
I'll have a look. Give me 5 min. (and not 5 maya)

 

[Cabal]

like I said. Some say 40, others 20. 13 sounds interesting.
I'll have a look. Give me 5 min. (and not 5 maya)

No, only AV says 40 and 20 on the basis of nothing but cynicism. No actual scientist as far as I know has claimed 40 or 20 billion, and they do not change at the drop of a hat like he would have you believe.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just chocked. I was expecting the experts to come along and give me an answer. Not calling others a lair, In this case, (sorry) from creationist to a other, till proven guilty (as I'm the newby around here) I will look up the things that was said and here, and put them to the test.

Thank you, Dream3, but the fact of the matter is that everyone is a creationist in one form or another.


There's only one of three ways they can admit this earth came into existence:

1. creatio ex nihilo
2. creatio ex materia
3. creatio ex Deo

The only difference between creationists is who or what did the creating.

Whether it was God, or whether it was gravity --- it shouldn't matter.

Atheists are fond in saying that the only difference between them and us is that they believe in one less god than we do (which I've shown to be an incorrect statement), then complain when they have to share the same terminology as us.

 

[Dream3wb723]

No, only AV says 40 and 20 on the basis of nothing but cynicism. No actual scientist as far as I know has claimed 40 or 20 billion, and they do not change at the drop of a hat like he would have you believe.

OK. Im back.

It seems that wiki says: "Mots and geophysicists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2] "

Biblical age according to google is still the same as my maths.
So there are still no proven stady fact that the world is over I dont know haw many million years.

 

[Dream3wb723]

No, only AV says 40 and 20 on the basis of nothing but cynicism. No actual scientist as far as I know has claimed 40 or 20 billion, and they do not change at the drop of a hat like he would have you believe.

OK OK... AV stated something and I just had to go and have a look.
It was the savest thing to do.