• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Evolution

Which Statement Best Approximates Your Views on Evolution?

  • Humans evolved, with God guiding the process

    Votes: 25 25.5%

  • Humans evolved, but God had no part in the process

    Votes: 66 67.3%

  • God created humans in their present form

    Votes: 7 7.1%
  • Total voters
    98
MarineTpartier said:
In other words, ignorant in this instance is insulting because it suggests that someone who believes in a higher power is someone who simply hasn't been educated as to what the "real deal" is. When, in fact, we all know that the theories that contradict things such as creationism are taught in schools everyday.
Click to expand...


Nice way to show your lack of comprehension. True ignorance is not an insult IF the one lacking knowledge has never had the opportunity to learn, deliberate ignorance as a result of refusal to accept knowledge when it is made available, is another matter.

Your continuing misuse of the word "theory" despite the efforts of others to explain it to you, does appear to indicate "deliberate ignorance"

Creationism is a religious belief, there are no "theories" that support said ideology, despite years of effort by those who want to believe the account given in the first book of a certain holy text - actually there are two accounts that contradict each other but that's another problem for the True Believers.
 
Somerville said:
Nice way to show your lack of comprehension. True ignorance is not an insult IF the one lacking knowledge has never had the opportunity to learn, deliberate ignorance as a result of refusal to accept knowledge when it is made available, is another matter.

Your continuing misuse of the word "theory" despite the efforts of others to explain it to you, does appear to indicate "deliberate ignorance"

Creationism is a religious belief, there are no "theories" that support said ideology, despite years of effort by those who want to believe the account given in the first book of a certain holy text - actually there are two accounts that contradict each other but that's another problem for the True Believers.
Click to expand...

Show me a child in western school system that has not been taught this stuff. Evolution and the like are something that are taken as common knowledge in museums, school books, etc. These are obviously contrary to what many religions believe. Yet, that isn't taken into account by anyone. People such as yourself and "scholars" view the beliefs of religions as old wives tales or myths so why would they be included in any school book?
Also, most religious people such as myself will acknowledge that micro-evolution exists. However, this doesn't prove the THEORIES of macro-evolution, organic evolution, stellar and planetary evolution, chemical evolution, or cosmic evolution. None of these have ever been observed and cannot be recreated in a laboratory. Micro-evolution, however, is proven in the Bible by Jacob in Genesis 30: 25-36 when he breeds spotted/black sheep and goats.
Finally, I will show you a link that I have used many times on this website. Carbon dating commonly used by most scientists has been disproven by another group of scientists. This would, in turn, throw all evolution theories (save micro-evolution) on its head.
Doesn
 
MarineTpartier said:
Finally, I will show you a link that I have used many times on this website. Carbon dating commonly used by most scientists has been disproven by another group of scientists. This would, in turn, throw all evolution theories (save micro-evolution) on its head.
Doesn
Click to expand...
Even IF - and that is one huge IF - carbon dating is wrong it isn't going to effect much since most of evolution's history is well before the 60k years ago when we stop relying on carbon dating.
 
RadicalModerate said:
So what is it when many individual micro-evolutionary events happen over long periods of time?
Click to expand...

What you just described, many individual micro-evolutionary events. Micro is the development within a species ie honey bee to Africanized Honey Bee (that was all I could think of off the top of my head). Macro is the development of one species into a different species ie monkey to human.
 
MarineTpartier said:
What you just described, many individual micro-evolutionary events. Micro is the development within a species ie honey bee to Africanized Honey Bee (that was all I could think of off the top of my head). Macro is the development of one species into a different species ie monkey to human.
Click to expand...

Oh I get it, you're making up definitions now. Gotcha.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Even IF - and that is one huge IF - carbon dating is wrong it isn't going to effect much since most of evolution's history is well before the 60k years ago when we stop relying on carbon dating.
Click to expand...
From the article:
Another noteworthy observation from the RATE group was the amount of 14C found in diamonds. Secular scientists have estimated the ages of diamonds to be millions to billions of years old using other radiometric dating methods. These methods are also based on questionable assumptions and are discussed elsewhere. Because of their hardness, diamonds (the hardest known substance) are extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange. Since diamonds are considered to be so old by evolutionary standards, finding any 14C in them would be strong support for a recent creation.

The RATE group analyzed twelve diamond samples for possible carbon-14 content. Similar to the coal results, all twelve diamond samples contained detectable, but lower levels of 14C. These findings are powerful evidence that coal and diamonds cannot be the millions or billions of years old that evolutionists claim. Indeed, these RATE findings of detectable 14C in diamonds have been confirmed independently. Carbon-14 found in fossils at all layers of the geologic column, in coal and in diamonds, is evidence which confirms the biblical timescale of thousands of years and not billions.
 
RadicalModerate said:
Oh I get it, you're making up definitions now. Gotcha.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm not. Don't get defensive when your beliefs are in flux.
Definition
noun, plural: microevolutions
Evolution involving small-scale changes, i.e. within the species level, occurring over a short period of time that results in the formation of new subspecies.
Supplement
Example of small-scale change is the relatively small genetic variations or mutations leading to new varieties within a species.
Microevolution - definition from Biology-Online.org

Definition

noun, plural: macroevolutions
Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of species, over geologic time resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups.
Supplement
Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population.
Macroevolution - definition from Biology-Online.org
 
MarineTpartier said:
Actually, I'm not. Don't get defensive when your beliefs are in flux.
Definition
noun, plural: microevolutions
Evolution involving small-scale changes, i.e. within the species level, occurring over a short period of time that results in the formation of new subspecies.
Supplement
Example of small-scale change is the relatively small genetic variations or mutations leading to new varieties within a species.
Microevolution - definition from Biology-Online.org

Definition

noun, plural: macroevolutions
Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of species, over geologic time resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups.
Supplement
Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population.
Macroevolution - definition from Biology-Online.org
Click to expand...

Your changing the definition of macroevolution to exclude any microevolution in order to fit your belief that macroevolution CAN'T or DOESN'T happen. It wouldn't matter if I listed the countless examples of macroevolution containing lots of microevolution. According to you, whales vary within their taxonomic family but those variations never reach the point of becoming a new species. Which is total BS.
 
MarineTpartier said:
From the article:
Another noteworthy observation from the RATE group was the amount of 14C found in diamonds. Secular scientists have estimated the ages of diamonds to be millions to billions of years old using other radiometric dating methods. These methods are also based on questionable assumptions and are discussed elsewhere. Because of their hardness, diamonds (the hardest known substance) are extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange. Since diamonds are considered to be so old by evolutionary standards, finding any 14C in them would be strong support for a recent creation.

The RATE group analyzed twelve diamond samples for possible carbon-14 content. Similar to the coal results, all twelve diamond samples contained detectable, but lower levels of 14C. These findings are powerful evidence that coal and diamonds cannot be the millions or billions of years old that evolutionists claim. Indeed, these RATE findings of detectable 14C in diamonds have been confirmed independently. Carbon-14 found in fossils at all layers of the geologic column, in coal and in diamonds, is evidence which confirms the biblical timescale of thousands of years and not billions.
Click to expand...

This has been refuted, it was background contamination in the samples.

Modern radiocarbon dating by AMS is a complex process with numerous potential sources of contamination requiring characterization... Each step in this process may introduce a small amount of modern carbon contamination. More processing tends to introduce more contamination. Furthermore, the instrument itself always introduces a background, similar to most other high sensitivity analytical instruments...


If the radiocarbon were intrinsic to the sample, there would be no change in the radiocarbon ratio with sample current. The 14C, 13C, and 12C would change in unison. However, if the radiocarbon were coming from ion source memory or elsewhere in the accelerator, it should give a count rate independent of ion source current. Normalizing the radiocarbon count rate to the ion source current, which is predominantlyC, would result in higher radiocarbon content for lower source currents, as observed. This data provides clear evidence that at least a significant fraction of the radiocarbon detected by Taylor and Southon in diamond measurements did not come from the diamonds themselves and thus could not be “intrinsic radiocarbon.”
Click to expand...

RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination?
 
Last edited:
RadicalModerate said:
Your changing the definition of macroevolution to exclude any microevolution in order to fit your belief that macroevolution CAN'T or DOESN'T happen. It wouldn't matter if I listed the countless examples of macroevolution containing lots of microevolution. According to you, whales vary within their taxonomic family but those variations never reach the point of becoming a new species. Which is total BS.
Click to expand...

Show me proof of macro-evolution. I provided legitimate definitions that were exactly what I said they were. I didn't make up the above definitions.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Show me proof of macro-evolution. I provided legitimate definitions that were exactly what I said they were. I didn't make up the above definitions.
Click to expand...

Whales are proof of macroevolution.

In reality, every animal is proof of macroevolution. But I know you won't accept either of these, so let's just stick with whales. For my sanity.
 
Last edited:
MarineTpartier said:
What you just described, many individual micro-evolutionary events. Micro is the development within a species ie honey bee to Africanized Honey Bee (that was all I could think of off the top of my head). Macro is the development of one species into a different species ie monkey to human.
Click to expand...

This is like saying I believe in micro aging, but not macro aging. We know there are small changes that accumulate that turn a small boy into a bigger boy, but we deny that with enough of these small changes the boy becomes an old man.

After an accumulation of these "micro" changes accrue to a certain point, the respective animals can no longer breed with each other, at that point they are 2 separate and distinct lineages whose further "microevolutionary" changes no longer are shared within the two populations. Macroevolution is when these small changes accumulate to the point where reproduction is no longer viable between the two populations, at this point they have diverged, never to follow the same path again. These accumulated changes to the point of speciation have been observed, in nature (ring species, lizard populations, mosquitoes, and a multitude of plants, and in the lab (notably with Drosophilia.. initially in the early 70's).
 
Last edited:
MarineTpartier said:
What can I say, the experiments were independently checked bro. So it goes with science.
Click to expand...

yes and I posted the results from the examination of their results, it was found to be faulty, and there were inconsistencies that do not support the results they claim,

it was then falsified despite being independently checked, further examination found flaws and critical inconsistencies that contradict their findings. Science... this is how it works. If the isotopes were native to the sample then the isotope ratios of C14 to C13 and C12 would reflect this and would be consistent. The isotopes were not found in a consistent ratio thus it could not be native to the samples. it was contamination and/or background noise from the equipment.
 
Last edited:
RadicalModerate said:
Whales are proof of macroevolution.

In reality, every animal is proof of macroevolution. But I know you won't accept either of these, so let's just stick with whales. For my sanity.
Click to expand...

Too vague bro. Be specific. What about whales makes them proof?
 
marduc said:
This is like saying I believe in micro aging, but not macro aging. We know there are small changes that accumulate that turn a small boy into a bigger boy, but we deny that with enough of these small changes the boy becomes an old man.

After an accumulation of these "micro" changes accrue to a certain point, the respective animals can no longer breed with each other, at that point they are 2 separate and distinct lineages whose further "microevolutionary" changes no longer are shared within the two populations. Macroevolution is when these small changes accumulate to the point where reproduction is no longer viable between the two populations, at this point they have diverged, never to follow the same path again. These accumulated changes to the point of speciation have been observed, in nature (ring species, lizard populations, mosquitoes, and a multitude of plants, and in the lab (notably with Drosophilia.. initially in the early 70's).
Click to expand...

But isn't an old man simply another version of a human being the same as a small boy? He didn't grow from a small boy into a giraffe did he? They are both humans, just different versions of one.
The above mentioned examples are microevolution. These lizards, etc aren't developing into a whole other species. Just a different version of their current one.
I think it is explained well here.
Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes.
Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog.
What Is The Difference Between Macroevolution And Microevolution?
 
MarineTpartier said:
Too vague bro. Be specific. What about whales makes them proof?
Click to expand...

The fact that whales evolved is proof of macroevolution. They came from land based creatures and have traits common to land mammals, not fish or other bony sea life that evolved in the ocean. They have joints and limbs similar to land mammals, their spinal position is likewise unique from other sea life.
 
marduc said:
yes and I posted the results from the examination of their results, it was found to be faulty, and there were inconsistencies that do not support the results they claim,

it was then falsified despite being independently checked, further examination found flaws and critical inconsistencies that contradict their findings. Science... this is how it works. If the isotopes were native to the sample then the isotope ratios of C14 to C13 and C12 would reflect this and would be consistent. The isotopes were not found in a consistent ratio thus it could not be native to the samples. it was contamination and/or background noise from the equipment.
Click to expand...

And, in keeping with my statement, there is a retort to your sources retort.
Feedback: Are the RATE Results Caused by Contamination? - Answers in Genesis
 
RadicalModerate said:
The fact that whales evolved is proof of macroevolution. They came from land based creatures and have traits common to land mammals, not fish or other bony sea life that evolved in the ocean. They have joints and limbs similar to land mammals, their spinal position is likewise unique from other sea life.
Click to expand...

From your source:
The traditional theory of cetacean evolution was that whales were related.......
 
MarineTpartier said:
From your source:
The traditional theory of cetacean evolution was that whales were related.......
Click to expand...

Are we really gonna get into the same ol "what the word theory really means" again?

I don't know why I argue with the ignorant...

MTP caught an intellectual snag three words in, so he just stops there like the rest of the article and sources don't even exist.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom