Posts: 47
Threads: 2
Joined: February 6, 2016
Reputation:
1
RE: An Intersting conversation I had with a Creationist friend of mine.
February 9, 2016 at 4:20 am
(February 8, 2016 at 9:59 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: (February 8, 2016 at 8:36 pm)Cecelia Wrote: Explain to him that he needs to learn what a theory is.
Evolution is a scientific theory.
Creationism is a hypothesis.
Then explain to him that he needs to read sources that aren't creationist craze.
Creationism isn't even a hypothesis. It's a wild assed guess based on cherry picked evidence and logical fallacies.
(February 9, 2016 at 4:09 am)maestroanth Wrote: I don't understand the argument of there is no proof of gaining genetic information. He needs to elaborate more because it simply doesn't make sense. How the Hell do homo erectus evolve up to homo Neanderthalis without gaining information? I mean if he believes there is proof of losing information, that's the same as gaining information because information that changing is both depending on your point of view.. Like if you change a byte from 0 to 1 you simultaneously "gain" the 1 while "losing" the 0.
Evolution from my understanding isn't considered a theory anymore.
Well even a good deal of religious fraternities now accept evolution over creationism.
They have just changed their argument to say basically it shows Gods work is even more beautiful than we first thought.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: An Intersting conversation I had with a Creationist friend of mine.
February 9, 2016 at 4:21 am
It is a scientific theory, which means it has been promoted from being "just a hypothesis" through rigorous examination and testing. The best scientific minds in the world have tried everything they can to try and find problems with it, and they have failed. A theory is the grandest accolade it could have.
The informal use of the word "theory" really means "hypothesis", and this is where the confusion occurs, deliberately or otherwise. Sadly some scientific hypotheses have the word "theory" in them, which confuses things further, such as string theory. Such things aren't yet theories. But evolution most certainly is.
He doesn't understand evolution, he's grasping at straws and trying to apply "common sense" to one interpretation of one aspect of the whole process. He needs to learn more about it, or stop talking crap.
Posts: 19644
Threads: 177
Joined: July 31, 2012
Reputation:
92
RE: An Intersting conversation I had with a Creationist friend of mine.
February 9, 2016 at 4:22 am
The greatest blind is that which does not want to see...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eati...reationism
"the evolution of the enzyme nylonase, which scientists were able to repeat in the lab with another strain of bacteria, is one of a number of cases that show that evolution can be observed as it occurs."
Posts: 11
Threads: 2
Joined: October 23, 2015
Reputation:
0
RE: An Intersting conversation I had with a Creationist friend of mine.
February 9, 2016 at 5:54 am
(This post was last modified: February 9, 2016 at 6:04 am by TanithDaUnicorn.)
(February 8, 2016 at 11:28 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Try micro evolution. It happens on a faster time scale.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...oscales_02
Yeah, I used an example of a herd of gazelles who were running to get away from a Lion, and a few had a gene that allowed better blood circulation to the muscles, those genes are likely to get passed through the generations where the slower ones die off, creating a better species overall.
His response was, "But they're still gazelles"
(February 9, 2016 at 4:20 am)Eclipse Wrote: (February 8, 2016 at 9:59 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: Creationism isn't even a hypothesis. It's a wild assed guess based on cherry picked evidence and logical fallacies.
(February 9, 2016 at 4:09 am)maestroanth Wrote: I don't understand the argument of there is no proof of gaining genetic information. He needs to elaborate more because it simply doesn't make sense. How the Hell do homo erectus evolve up to homo Neanderthalis without gaining information? I mean if he believes there is proof of losing information, that's the same as gaining information because information that changing is both depending on your point of view.. Like if you change a byte from 0 to 1 you simultaneously "gain" the 1 while "losing" the 0.
Evolution from my understanding isn't considered a theory anymore.
Well even a good deal of religious fraternities now accept evolution over creationism.
They have just changed their argument to say basically it shows Gods work is even more beautiful than we first thought. I've never understood the Christians who accept evolution, because then they are denying Adam and Eve, and no Adam and Eve = No original sin =no need for a savoir and the whole thing kinda...... flops in on itself.
Posts: 5356
Threads: 178
Joined: June 28, 2015
Reputation:
35
RE: An Intersting conversation I had with a Creationist friend of mine.
February 9, 2016 at 6:07 am
Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't the observable evidence points towards the fact that we are capable of evolving? Is there any observable evidence to showcase that life can be formed through evolution?
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: An Intersting conversation I had with a Creationist friend of mine.
February 9, 2016 at 6:40 am
Humans can evolve? Certainly.
I'm not sure what you mean by life formed through evolution. If you mean the transition from non-life to life, that would be abiogenesis.
Posts: 5356
Threads: 178
Joined: June 28, 2015
Reputation:
35
RE: An Intersting conversation I had with a Creationist friend of mine.
February 9, 2016 at 8:20 am
Thanks Robby, i read up on Abiogenesis. Awesome stuff.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: An Intersting conversation I had with a Creationist friend of mine.
February 9, 2016 at 8:32 am
You're welcome 
I don't know much about it, but I do know that it's the last remaining hiding spot for anyone to try and shoehorn in bollocks about god's input. And the gap is closing pretty fast.
Also, that the transition from non-life to life isn't binary but rather a gradual scale.
I should learn more about it myself!
Posts: 3837
Threads: 197
Joined: August 28, 2013
Reputation:
38
RE: An Intersting conversation I had with a Creationist friend of mine.
February 9, 2016 at 9:03 am
(February 8, 2016 at 7:56 pm)TanithDaUnicorn Wrote: He is truly a wacko.
"there is no observational evidence, meaning no fossil record evidence, no current happenings. nothing"
"The fossil record supports evolution, but okay."
"Wrong" " the fossil record shows a loss of genetic information, not a gain"
Greenish warblers
Pacific salamanders
Italian wall lizards
Three toed skinks
Darwin's Finches.
All observed examples of evolution.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Posts: 30726
Threads: 2123
Joined: May 24, 2012
Reputation:
71
RE: An Intersting conversation I had with a Creationist friend of mine.
February 9, 2016 at 9:06 am
(February 8, 2016 at 7:45 pm)TanithDaUnicorn Wrote: Me, "What is your view on Evolution?"
Him, "A scientific theory that has yet to be proven" *Long pause* "since it suggests the gaining of genetic information, while the only thing we have ever seen is loss"
Me, "And Creationism?"
Him, "Again, a theory that has yet to be soundly proven or disproven, but each have enough ground to take sides"
Obviously he is dumb but what arguments do you suggest I use to counter this? I am not that fluent in evolution, so could someone point out the flaws in his argument? Thanks
"Interesting" is not the word I would use to describe evolution deniers. "Nauseating" would be a more apt word to describe it.
|
