Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[AV1611VET]

As I said in an earlier post, the Hindenburg disaster led to Germany abandoning airships and concentrating on aircraft. That led to the early dominance of the German Luftwaffe and the development of large bombers by the allies. So in answer to the question from @AV1611VET "how many lives did the US embargo save?" the answer is, arguably, that it cost thousands of lives.

Appealing to the Butterfly Effect now to try and make the U.S. look responsible for the Hindenburg disaster?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Appealing to the Butterfly Effect now to try and make the U.S. look responsible for the Hindenburg disaster?

Through the political stance of the US government on post-war isolationism and their refusal to sell helium to Germany, they were in part responsible for the disaster, yes.
I would also put some of the blame on the company not going "Welp, we can't get helium! Let's turn it into a boat."

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Appealing to the Butterfly Effect now to try and make the U.S. look responsible for the Hindenburg disaster?

Says the guy trying to blame scientists for the disaster.

You asked a question, I answered it. You not liking the answer doesn't make it wrong, it just shows how you are unwilling to look at possible consequences of actions taken in the past.

 

[AV1611VET]

Says the guy trying to blame scientists for the disaster.

I'm wrong about that, and I'm changing my stance on that, as per Post 378.

 

[Direct Driver]

Not to some evolution deniers...

I can't speak for them. BTW, I just checked the post you were referring to. I think his point is valid as an analogy. The big problem with evolution theory is that until it can offer a reasonable explanation of how life came from lifelessness, it's all just conjecture regarding every claim other than those actually seen in the lab during testing. The thinking almost seems to be "well, we've proven that it is remotely possible that this could have happened, so therefore it did happen because the alternative is "God did it", and we simply refuse to believe that.

That last sentence sums up my perspective on the "evolution as origin of species" argument. Or, to quote Peter Gabriel on the album, "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway": "

They're trying to find themselves an audience. Their deductions need applause."

 

[Direct Driver]

To be fair, you would not be surprised how many times that same argument has been tried to be used.

It does make for a nice analogy. When something DOES evolve beyond what the laws of thermodynamics predict, it's because it was forced via someone intelligence and purpose.

And that is a very good thing. After all, if we are the product of accident, then there is no such thing as the concept of morality, other than what we choose to invent for ourselves out of whole cloth. And at the end of the day, torturing and killing the entire human race is an amoral act since they all are just a product of accident, like the paint splatters on an artist's apron.

Which means I'd watch my back.

 

[Speedwell]

I can't speak for them. BTW, I just checked the post you were referring to. I think his point is valid as an analogy. The big problem with evolution theory is that until it can offer a reasonable explanation of how life came from lifelessness, it's all just conjecture regarding every claim other than those actually seen in the lab during testing. The thinking almost seems to be "well, we've proven that it is remotely possible that this could have happened, so therefore it did happen because the alternative is "God did it", and we simply refuse to believe that.

That last sentence sums up my perspective on the "evolution as origin of species" argument. Or, to quote Peter Gabriel on the album, "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway": "

They're trying to find themselves an audience. Their deductions need applause."

Good morning to you, too. Asserting that abiogenesis is an alternative to "God did it" is a falsehood. Asserting that the the theory of evolution rests on it is also a falsehood. Care to try for three in a row or are you interested in a civil conversation?

 

[Speedwell]

It does make for a nice analogy. When something DOES evolve beyond what the laws of thermodynamics predict, it's because it was forced via someone intelligence and purpose.

And that is a very good thing. After all, if we are the product of accident, then there is no such thing as the concept of morality, other than what we choose to invent for ourselves out of whole cloth. And at the end of the day, torturing and killing the entire human race is an amoral act since they all are just a product of accident, like the paint splatters on an artist's apron.

Which means I'd watch my back.

OK, three in a row, then.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It does make for a nice analogy. When something DOES evolve beyond what the laws of thermodynamics predict, it's because it was forced via someone intelligence and purpose.

And that is a very good thing. After all, if we are the product of accident, then there is no such thing as the concept of morality, other than what we choose to invent for ourselves out of whole cloth. And at the end of the day, torturing and killing the entire human race is an amoral act since they all are just a product of accident, like the paint splatters on an artist's apron.

Which means I'd watch my back.

Really? Really?

 

[AV1611VET]

Asserting that abiogenesis is an alternative to "God did it" is a falsehood.

God kick-started life; not some vague term.

Abiogenesis can take a hike.

 

[Direct Driver]

9

 

[Direct Driver]

Good morning to you, too. Asserting that abiogenesis is an alternative to "God did it" is a falsehood. Asserting that the the theory of evolution rests on it is also a falsehood.

I simply disagree with that assertion. It looks like we may be at an impasse regarding folks motives for their claims.

Care to try for three in a row or are you interested in a civil conversation?

I thought I was being civil. Seriously. Please don't take my comments personally. I've found that those that get deepest in the "evolution vs God" argument on the "evolution" side, are those least likely to be directly involved in the research it is based on. They are just interested in learning and understanding what is going on, and less interested in arguing what hypotheses it may support.

But some on both sides are coming not just from a position of ignorance, but ignorance to the point that they repeatedly expose that they don't know what they don't know. Some of us just like to argue.

 

[Direct Driver]

Really? Really?

Yes, really. That was kind of a Don Lemon-ism.

 

[Speedwell]

I simply disagree with that assertion. It looks like we may be at an impasse regarding folks motives for their claims.


I thought I was being civil. Seriously. Please don't take my comments personally. I've found that those that get deepest in the "evolution vs God" argument on the "evolution" side, are those least likely to be directly involved in the research it is based on. They are just interested in learning and understanding what is going on, and less interested in arguing what hypotheses it may support.

But some on both sides are coming not just from a position of ignorance, but ignorance to the point that they repeatedly expose that they don't know what they don't know. Some of us just like to argue.

There is no "evolution vs. God" argument on the evolution side. There is an "evolution vs. the God of the magic Bible" argument on the evolution side, but most Christians don't have a dog in that fight.

 

[Direct Driver]

You seem to take too much pleasure in pointing out that people died because of something very much avoidable if it weren't for politics.

It means there is a political solution. The first step to fixing a problem is to find out what caused it. And if it's something avoidable, that is a good thing. Lots of problems are caused by water leaks. Once you find the source of the leak, you've avoided a lot of future problems.

 

[Direct Driver]

There is no "evolution vs. God" argument on the evolution side. There is an "evolution vs. the God of the magic Bible" argument on the evolution side, but most Christians don't have a dog in that fight.

Fact is, there IS an evolution vs God argument. You may not be part of that, but the argument is out there, bigly. And yes, it comes from both sides. The challenge is that one side thinks the other is anti-God and the other side thinks that side is stupid.

They are both wrong - and right - in some ways. Those that are actually steeped in the research don't usually engage in these sorts of debates. They're kinda pointless. I dabble in them for fun sometimes and then suddenly catch myself - which I just did - and get back to stuff that matters.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It means there is a political solution. The first step to fixing a problem is to find out what caused it. And if it's something avoidable, that is a good thing. Lots of problems are caused by water leaks. Once you find the source of the leak, you've avoided a lot of future problems.

Except that AV never does that, he just blames every thing that he can think solely on scientists and brings up disasters and horrible events whenever he can as a sort of 'gotcha!'.

 

[Speedwell]

Fact is, there IS an evolution vs God argument. You may not be part of that, but the argument is out there, bigly.

Maybe so, but in this forum and in others I have participated in over the years I have only seen it brought by creationists. In "real life" I have only seen it brought by creationists. Others' mileage may vary, I suppose.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, really. That was kind of a Don Lemon-ism.

I don't get what means other than Don Lemon being a journalist. But I think that you're entirely and flat out wrong if you think that because the theory of evolution is a scientific fact means that people need to give up moral thinking and beliefs.
Evolution is not just 'tooth and nail', that's such backwards Victorian-era thinking. Evolution is about offspring being protected by parents, it's about young animals being protected by adults in a group, it's about a herd coming together against a threat.

 

[Speedwell]

It means there is a political solution. The first step to fixing a problem is to find out what caused it. And if it's something avoidable, that is a good thing. Lots of problems are caused by water leaks. Once you find the source of the leak, you've avoided a lot of future problems.

AV likes to blame it all on "scientists" (which he thinks is a term describing anyone with post-secondary education) as a way of discrediting the scientists who study evolution.