Creation vs. Evolution

[Bryan]

there's really not much use to discussing anything beyond that...

Hi lamont! Its been awhile since you've posted in this discussion. Welcome back!

 

[Bryan]

lmao...i don't know what's worse.

1. The atheist trying to convert the christian

or

2. The christian trying to convert the atheist

or

3. The person who does not really care and is just making drive-by commentary

 

[MikeFerrara]

I'm inferring that sitting there watching one specific species evolve into another is not necessary to understand the reality of evolution since every piece of evidence ever uncovered supports the theory and we *have* observed both macro and micro evolution *directly* in nature and in laboratories.

I would like to hear more about where, when and how this was done, specifically the "macro" case. I would also like to hear how the scope of the observed evolution compares to the scope of the unobserved evolution to which the theory is extrapolated.

It is irrational to believe that things would have occurred any other way when we can test this over and over and over again.

I think that to say a thing is irrational is more a value judgement than it is a scientific point of view. We can certainly attempt to assign probabilities but...the seemingly improbable sometimes happens. One reason for that is that our assignment of probabilities is based on what we know when, in fact, there are things we don't know that greatly effect the outcome. In other words, what we thought was improbable was a sure thing all along even though we didn't have sufficient data or understanding of the data needed to correctly predict the outcome.

 

[Bryan]

...what we thought was improbable was a sure thing all along even though we didn't have sufficient data or understanding of the data needed to correctly predict the outcome.

That's a good point... at one time, there were heated debates about whether light was a wave or a particle... there were conflicting experiments that proved one idea, so some scientists used that to rule out the other.

We know now that it is both, and that electrons exhibit wave-particle duality as well.

You can be sure that there were dogmatic scientists in each camp, each invoking the scientific method to support their viewpoint.

Better data became available, and our understanding took a quantum leap.

 

[Thalassamania]

We can certainly attempt to assign probabilities but...the seemingly improbable sometimes happens. One reason for that is that our assignment of probabilities is based on what we know when, in fact, there are things we don't know that greatly effect the outcome. In other words, what we thought was improbable was a sure thing all along even though we didn't have sufficient data or understanding of the data needed to correctly predict the outcome.

Anyone whose outlook is this finely tuned should have no problem understanding Darwinism, at its base is the idea that at least one occurrence of the improbable (a mutation that is positive rather than negative) is a stone-cold certainty given sufficient throws of the dice.

 

[Soggy]

I would like to hear more about where, when and how this was done, specifically the "macro" case. I would also like to hear how the scope of the observed evolution compares to the scope of the unobserved evolution to which the theory is extrapolated.

Warthaug and Thassalmania have both posted many citations regarding this. I have no doubt that you will find them unsatisfactory.

 

[Bryan]

Anyone whose outlook is this finely tuned should have no problem understanding Darwinism, at its base is the idea that at least one occurrence of the improbable (a mutation that is positive rather than negative) is a stone-cold certainty given sufficient throws of the dice.

So, the message is: Given enough time, anything is possible?

How about a Creator? If you wait long enough, maybe one of those will spontaneously appear?

Time is an amazing magic wand.

 

[Thalassamania]

Warthaug and Thassalmania have both posted many citations regarding this. I have no doubt that you will find them unsatisfactory.

Try this and this and this. If, when you're done you need more, you need only ask.

 

[Soggy]

Try this and this and this. If, when you're done you need more, you need only ask.

Whew...that'll take a little while

 

[Hemlon]

So, the message is: Given enough time, anything is possible?

How about a Creator? If you wait long enough, maybe one of those will spontaneously appear?

Time is an amazing magic wand.

Perhaps so. But the creativity would not be retroactive.