Evolution Promotes Brutality

GrowingSmaller · Feb 10, 2016

I persoanlly believe in evolution and creation, totally inconsistent narratives, the one to be scientifically correct, and the other to be religiously correct.

I am trying to work this out logically, maybe at the levels of axioms theres a difference, but each interpretation is "valid unto itself". I am thinking of this like a web map...

with differnt portals of entry, and I have a split personality so enter two at once.

Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously - Wikipedia.

AV1611VET · Feb 10, 2016

46AND2 said:
They are the same thing AV. Only difference is time.

So how long did scientists stand around observing thousands of instances of macroevolution occurring in laboratories?

AV1611VET · Feb 10, 2016

GrowingSmaller said:
Evoluiton promotes rational attraction to being.

Fight or flight: UFC vs TWA

PsychoSarah · Feb 10, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
Not really, if we are a Christian then we are born again of the Spirit. So we become a new creation we put off the old and we put on the new.

That still leaves the loop hole for death bed converts, and damns everyone else to hell, believers included.

PsychoSarah · Feb 10, 2016

AV1611VET said:
So how long did scientists stand around observing thousands of instances of macroevolution occurring in laboratories?

It's harder to observe, so decades of finding isolated populations of reasonable size in the wild, tracking every individual, recording every trend in traits. On rare occasions, we stumble in on a species right as it is going through extreme changes.

46AND2 · Feb 10, 2016

AV1611VET said:
So how long did scientists stand around observing thousands of instances of macroevolution occurring in laboratories?

First of all, why did you add "thousands" to Psychosarah's statement?

Secondly, according to the scientific definition of macroevolution, I'm not sure how long it took, but it was quite within the lifetime of humans in observation of bacterial speciation, for example.

According to the creationist definition of macroevolution, my answer is that one need not observe something to know that it is true. We know the orbit of Pluto, despite the fact we have not observed it in its entirety.

JonFromMinnesota · Feb 10, 2016

AV1611VET said:
So how long did scientists stand around observing thousands of instances of macroevolution occurring in laboratories?

How do you determine who the murderer was if you weren't there to see it happen? It's called evidence and there is an overwhelming amount of it.

Surely you've been around long enough to know "Were you there" is a terrible argument.

46AND2 · Feb 10, 2016

JonFromMinnesota said:
How do you determine who the murderer was if you weren't there to see it happen? It's called evidence and there is an overwhelming amount of it.

Surely you've been around long enough to know "Were you there" is a terrible argument.

Actually, he thinks it is a fabulous argument.

PsychoSarah · Feb 10, 2016

46AND2 said:
First of all, why did you add "thousands" to Psychosarah's statement?

Secondly, according to the scientific definition of macroevolution, I'm not sure how long it took, but it was quite within the lifetime of humans in observation of bacterial speciation, for example.

According to the creationist definition of macroevolution, my answer is that one need not observe something to know that it is true. We know the orbit of Pluto, despite the fact we have not observed it in its entirety.

If I were to guess, he thinks "thousands" is a number of macroevolution observations that couldn't possibly exist. He wants to make the evidence he would consider legitimate impossible to present.

Funny thing is, depending on how you count it, I do have thousands of examples. I would guess that his next move is to demand the examples be counted in a way that doesn't make them thousands.

joshua 1 9 · Feb 10, 2016

PsychoSarah said:
That still leaves the loop hole for death bed converts, and damns everyone else to hell, believers included.

Everyone deserves hell. Everyone can receive forgiveness. God is an absolute God of Justice, so even those who receive punishment receive what they deserve in direct proportion to their crime and their transgression. Look at our criminal justice system here in America. What if a criminal does a lot of damage breaking into steal something but they only get $10 for their crime. When they get caught and they go before a Judge they are going to pay for the harm and the damage they did. Not what they got out of it. In fact I know someone that went to prison for 7 years and his crime earned him about $700. So he spent a year in jail for every $100 he gained from his crime. Not a very good deal to me. Then he got convicted again under a three time loser law and spent 5 more years in jail. One of those three crimes was a bag of potato chips that they said he stole. So he spend five years in prison for stealing a bag of potato chips. That does not seem right or just to me. That sort of injustice does not happen with God. With God He represents absolute Justice and people will get exactly what they deserve as a punishment. Everyone can be forgiven. Even as you mention on the death bed they can repent and be forgiven. Only then they will have no reward. They will enter into Heaven with nothing. They will suffer total loss. Just as there are people that enter into this world with poverty and with nothing. Also there are people that enter into this world with a great deal of advantage.

AV1611VET · Feb 10, 2016

JonFromMinnesota said:
It's called evidence and there is an overwhelming amount of it.

As I told another poster here:

Pile all that evidence up into a nice neat mountain and watch my faith move it aside.

Your forensics can take a hike.

joshua 1 9 · Feb 10, 2016

JonFromMinnesota said:
How do you determine who the murderer was if you weren't there to see it happen? It's called evidence and there is an overwhelming amount of it.

Surely you've been around long enough to know "Were you there" is a terrible argument.

There is no evidence for macro evolution. Look at the experiments with fruit fly's. After many many generations you start with a fruit fly and you end up with a fruit fly. You maybe able to get the fruit fly to grow a leg out of his head but he is still a fruit fly. He has not become a new species because he has a leg growing out of his head. Because he can not reproduce baby fruit flys with legs growing out of their head. So your proposal is very testable and so far they have failed to prove that one species can evolve into another species though mistakes, errors and mutations. Genetic modification results in sterility and the species loses the ability to be able to reproduce.

AV1611VET · Feb 10, 2016

PsychoSarah said:
If I were to guess, he thinks "thousands" is a number of macroevolution observations that couldn't possibly exist. He wants to make the evidence he would consider legitimate impossible to present.

Sarah, do you remember this post?

And your response to it?

That's where I got "thousands."

It was the word Jon used ... and you defended.

JonFromMinnesota · Feb 10, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
There is no evidence for macro evolution.

The only difference between macro and mirco evolution is time.

Look at the experiments with fruit fly's. After many many generations you start with a fruit fly and you end up with a fruit fly.

This is not a test for macroevolution as you define it. We have better tests for this sort of thing. Nice try though.

So your proposal is very testable and so far they have failed to prove that one species can evolve into another species though mistakes, errors and mutations.

Yep, it is very testable. And these tests have demonstrated the overwhelming evidence for evolution. It has not failed. It's actually passed every test it's faced for 150 years. Let's take a look.

How about all the endogenous retroviruses we share with chimpanzees?
"This leaves only one way the majority of these ERVs could have been inherited: via sexual reproduction of organisms of a species that later diverged into the ones the organisms that share the ERVs belong to, i.e. ancestral species—simply put, most ERVs are orthologous; humans and the other primates must share common ancestry".
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm

Evolution predicts a nested hierarchy and that is exactly what we observe.
"Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record..."
http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IVDhierarchies.shtml

Evolution predicts a fused chromosome in our genome. That is exactly what we see.
I'll let Ken Miller explain that for you.

These are just a few. You can go here for more: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I predict you'll do some mental gymnastics to ignore all this evidence instead of conceding that you are wrong.

JonFromMinnesota · Feb 10, 2016

AV1611VET said:
Pile all that evidence up into a nice neat mountain and watch my faith move it aside.

Your forensics can take a hike.

I know evidence doesn't matter to you AV.
I fear that if you were a juror on a murder case that DNA evidence wouldn't convince you.

Loudmouth · Feb 10, 2016

AV1611VET said:
So how long did scientists stand around observing thousands of instances of macroevolution occurring in laboratories?

Those instances are recorded in the genomes of living species and in the fossil record which anyone can look at right now.

joshua 1 9 · Feb 10, 2016

JonFromMinnesota said:
The only difference between macro and mirco evolution is time.

Gradualism has been falsified. Science now supports punctuated equilibrium. So your time theory is a myth that has been busted.

Loudmouth · Feb 10, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
There is no evidence for macro evolution.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

After many many generations you start with a fruit fly and you end up with a fruit fly.

The common ancestor of chimps and humans was a primate. Humans are still a primate. After many, many generations you start with a primate and end with a primate. Are you saying that this is not macroevolution?

Loudmouth · Feb 10, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
Gradualism has been falsified. Science now supports punctuated equilibrium. So your time theory is a myth that has been busted.

Punctuated equilibrium uses the same mechanisms as microevolution. The only difference is time.

joshua 1 9 · Feb 10, 2016

Loudmouth said:
Those instances are recorded in the genomes of living species and in the fossil record which anyone can look at right now.

Species do not change over time. If you go to the Cambrian you have Trilobites in the beginning and you have Trilobites in the end. They remain unchanged, they did not evolve at all during the whole Cambrian period, from the beginning of when they show up in the fossil record to the end of their existence.

Evolution Promotes Brutality

Muslm Humanist

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Chaotic Neutral

Chaotic Neutral

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Well-Known Member

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Chaotic Neutral

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency