Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Macroevolution

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 10:16:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Macroevolution is a rubbish pointless term and it's beginning to annoy me.

For evolutionists it is superflous, for creationists it does not actually mean what they need it to mean.

No one denies micro-evolution, the changes within a given a given 'type' or species. Creationists argue that you may get variations on a theme, or recurrent mutations. They often claim that this can not lead to speciation (macro-evolution) however direct scientific observation shows this to be false.

Instead their retort is either
a) That's not macro-evolution! (by which they mean thats not what I assumed macro-evolution is)

or

b) An amoebae can not turn into a human! Which is oddly true and false at the start time.

An intelligent creationist is forced to accept both micro-macro evolution, and simply needs to raise the supposed threshold beyond which evolution is supposedly not possible.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 10:33:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ill summarize what i typed in the "What is macroevolution" Thread.

I have no problem with Macroevolution, just like i have no problem with Quantum Mechanics. The only problem i have is the people who misconstrue the said theories with their own twisted interpretation of it.

Macroevolution is something to which occurs, and has been observed to occur via Speciation. But if the Creationist refuses to accept that macroevolution is Speciation, then either look it up in the dictionary as to what the two definitions are, or go get a PhD in science and revolutionize the world by redefining the term Macroevolution.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 4:59:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The funny thing is there's no reason they need to or should deny speciation itself. The only thing that actually, truly threatens their faith is the evolution of humans.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 5:04:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/19/2010 4:59:59 PM, Yvette wrote:
The funny thing is there's no reason they need to or should deny speciation itself. The only thing that actually, truly threatens their faith is the evolution of humans.

Eh not exactly since evolution of all species ties into the current scientific consensus of the age of the Earth, which conflicts with the particular theology of YEC which is where the majority of vocal opposition comes from.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 5:36:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/19/2010 5:04:13 PM, Puck wrote:
At 8/19/2010 4:59:59 PM, Yvette wrote:
The funny thing is there's no reason they need to or should deny speciation itself. The only thing that actually, truly threatens their faith is the evolution of humans.

Eh not exactly since evolution of all species ties into the current scientific consensus of the age of the Earth, which conflicts with the particular theology of YEC which is where the majority of vocal opposition comes from.

For that particular ideology, yea.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands