Evolution vs God

[Svt4Him]

Evolution Vs. God - YouTube

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

If all truth is god's truth then how can the facts of nature be against god?

 

[GenetoJean]

He is a good at what he does. I still believe evolution happened though.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He is a good at what he does. I still believe evolution happened though.

He is good until you slow it down and take a few good looks at it.

Then the lies start to become glaringly apparent.

At about 10 minutes in he tries to claim that the evolution observed in Darwin's Finches is not Darwinian Evolution! That one just about left a permanent impression.

 

[GenetoJean]

Oh, I found other problems in the video too. I pulled up UCLA's class listing and they have A LOT of Christian based classes, some that do teach intelligent design. I just meant what he appears to do is catch people off gaurd and I am sure they left out anyone that answered him intelligently. Editting is a wonderfull thing.

 

[EternalDragon]

He is good until you slow it down and take a few good looks at it.

Then the lies start to become glaringly apparent.

At about 10 minutes in he tries to claim that the evolution observed in Darwin's Finches is not Darwinian Evolution! That one just about left a permanent impression.

But it isn't....it is a change in beak size. Not a totally new type of beak or lips where the beak would be. Those finches already had built in mechanisms for survival of changes in their environment. But those mechanisms will never change the Finch into a dog.

 

[lasthero]

Nobody said it would change a finch into a dog.

Do you know what a strawman argument is?

 

[EternalDragon]

Nobody said it would change a finch into a dog.

Do you know what a strawman argument is?

Will it change the Finch into not a Finch?

 

[lasthero]

Will it change the Finch into not a Finch?

Can't you answer this question yourself? You wouldn't be pontificating on a subject with which you haven't even the most rudimentary knowlegde of, would you? Because that be quite arrogant. Maybe even dishonest.

But anyway, my question - do you know what a strawman argument is? And would you agree that you just made one?

 

[GenetoJean]

I think you will find that the UCLA does not teach intelligent design, for a start what would they teach?

Ask a creationists about creationism and they will tell you that evolution is false and tell you nothing about creationism,
their beliefs are based solely on something else being wrong and not on their religion being right.
They think that if they can show evolution to be wrong creationism will be right by default,
conveniently forgetting the thousands of other religions in this world all making the same basic claims they are.

I don't believe they have classes in their catalog that they say they teach but really don't teach.

 

[USincognito]

The title of this puff piece should be "Bananaman vs. the Intelligence of those who view this film".

 

[USincognito]

But it isn't....it is a change in beak size.

Where did you get the impression that the beaks only change size? They also change shape, density and function.

Not a totally new type of beak or lips where the beak would be.

Where did you get the impression that bird beaks should evolve into lips? And wouldn't you consider a slender beak suitable for plucking fruit off a cactus changing into a thick, stubby one suitable for cracking seeds to be a totally new type of beak?

Those finches already had built in mechanisms for survival of changes in their environment.

What mechanisms are you talking about and how do you know?

But those mechanisms will never change the Finch into a dog.

Where did you get the impression that an extant being like a bird should turn into another extant being like a dog?

Finches will never stop being birds, theropods, amniotes, sarcopterygiians, vertebrates, etc. regardless of what they evolve into in the future.

 

[Gordin]

The title of this puff piece should be "Bananaman vs. the Intelligence of those who view this film".

I agree, creationists should in future be ignored and watched, then stepped on when they try to cross the line.

 

[EternalDragon]

Can't you answer this question yourself? You wouldn't be pontificating on a subject with which you haven't even the most rudimentary knowlegde of, would you? Because that be quite arrogant. Maybe even dishonest.

But anyway, my question - do you know what a strawman argument is? And would you agree that you just made one?

I am not using a straw man argument. Am I misrepresenting a position about the Finch? Can the Finch become something other than a Finch? Or rather can a Finch become something other than a bird?

Yes or no? (Me thinks you are avoiding the question). Or maybe a more simple question. Is beak variation any type of mechanism that will or can change the Finch into something other than a bird?

 

[lasthero]

I am not responding to you until you address your most recent post in the Evolution is Religion: Reloaded topic. I am going to give you ten more minutes.

 

[Shemjaza]

I am not using a straw man argument. Am I misrepresenting a position about the Finch? Can the Finch become something other than a Finch? Or rather can a Finch become something other than a bird?

Yes or no? (Me thinks you are avoiding the question). Or maybe a more simple question. Is beak variation any type of mechanism that will or can change the Finch into something other than a bird?

In a sense it could change enough that it has a different name, but it would still be descended from a bird and have markers.

A pug is still a canine, but you don't call it a wolf. It's the same reason we don't call birds reptiles despite laying eggs and being partially covered in scales and feathered like a dinosaur.


EDIT:

Here's a reason not to trust Ray.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW05npbQHVs

 

[Subduction Zone]

But it isn't....it is a change in beak size. Not a totally new type of beak or lips where the beak would be. Those finches already had built in mechanisms for survival of changes in their environment. But those mechanisms will never change the Finch into a dog.

It is still Darwinian evolution.

I wish profanity were allowed here when someone says something amazingly obtuse.

There is a reason that they are called "Darwin's Finches". Think about it!

 

[EternalDragon]

Where did you get the impression that the beaks only change size? They also change shape, density and function.

Where did you get the impression that bird beaks should evolve into lips? And wouldn't you consider a slender beak suitable for plucking fruit off a cactus changing into a thick, stubby one suitable for cracking seeds to be a totally new type of beak?

Of course, but still a beak. Not an example of Darwinian evolution. Just variation in the bird kind.

What mechanisms are you talking about and how do you know?

Why, natural selection and mutations. They have been observed and repeated you know.....

Where did you get the impression that an extant being like a bird should turn into another extant being like a dog?

Finches will never stop being birds, theropods, amniotes, sarcopterygiians, vertebrates, etc. regardless of what they evolve into in the future.

From an evolution chart that shows a drawing of a large dinosaur evolving into a modern day crow. Others show alligators in the chart.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Will it change the Finch into not a Finch?

Haven't I linked what a "clade" is for you yet?

If not Google search it.

Unless you understand evolution you cannot effectively argue against it.

 

[Coelo]

Can the Finch become something other than a Finch?

They believe the Finch came from another ecosystem. Perhaps there was a storm or whatever. The Finch were able to adapt to the new ecosystem that they were now a part of. Often this is a disaster. One example is the Carp we find here in American. They brought them over from Asia but there is nothing to keep them in balance so they multiply out of control. No one wants to eat them here. In Asia people eat them so that helps to keep their population under control.