TV Tropes Org

Forums

On-Topic Conversations:
Evolution-Creationism Debates
search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [2,160]  1 ... 82 83 84 85 86
87

Evolution-Creationism Debates:

yarr
Creationism doesn't agree with mainstream "historical science" either, y'know. It relies on a bunch of stuff happening that we either know didn't or know couldn't have because it would require physics being completely different.
 2152 Best Of, Fri, 21st Feb '14 5:50:30 AM from Finland Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
I read Krauss's column (in post #2142). If I had been given a month to write a reply to Ham it probably would not have occurred to me to point out that according to our models of the inner workings of the Sun, no light from the Sun could have reached the Earth if the Sun had only existed for 6 000 years. This is what's so wonderful about authors like Krauss: they can think of an example that is to-the-point and easy to understand, and that answers the question in a way that just pulls the rug from under an anti-scientist's feet.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
yarr
Of course, Ken would "counter" with some bullshit about it being quicker in the past or some other crap.
 2154 demarquis, Fri, 21st Feb '14 6:17:05 AM from Hell, USA Relationship Status: Buried in snow, waiting for spring
Who Am I?
The point he is trying to make is that the theory of evolution is unrealiable and unscientific because it relies on historical data. You see, a "real" science makes predictions about the future, not the past. It's not true on many levels, and just bugs me.
“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.”
yarr
Evolution doesn't just happen in the past. It happened, it's happening and it will continue to happen. We use principles central to evolution to predict how viruses will adapt to medication and how ecologies shift in response to environmental pressures and a bunch of other stuff.
 2156 Kostya, Fri, 21st Feb '14 6:51:44 AM from Everywhere
The Razruchityel
[up][up]Things that rely on historical data are unscientific? Explain that assertion. It makes no sense. Most of our models for how things work are based on what we know happened. There's also examples of animals evolving right before our eyes. Take various bacteria for example.

edited 21st Feb '14 6:51:58 AM by Kostya

 2157 Best Of, Fri, 21st Feb '14 6:59:32 AM from Finland Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
Kostya, Demarquis was describing Ham's position, not his.

We use principles central to evolution to predict how viruses will adapt to medication and how ecologies shift in response to environmental pressures and a bunch of other stuff.

Ham says that as long as mutation or natural selection or anything else to do with evolution can be directly observed, it's microevolution. Macroevolution is the kind that you have to infer from evidence based on testable models, and that is the kind that Ham rejects.

Of course, anyone who knows anything about biology or science knows that this distinction (between "microevolution" and "macroevolution") is entirely bogus - much as is the distinction between "historical" and "observational" science. It is a piece of rhetoric designed to confuse ignorant and gullible lay people, with zero basis in real science.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
 2158 Kostya, Fri, 21st Feb '14 7:02:28 AM from Everywhere
The Razruchityel
It sounded like that was his argument from the wording. Sorry.

This is my response to that BS. I actually had a biology teacher in high school that pulled that BS. I didn't care at the time but now if I was principal I'd have them fired for trying to undermine the curriculum.

edited 21st Feb '14 7:03:21 AM by Kostya

 2159 demarquis, Fri, 21st Feb '14 7:15:15 AM from Hell, USA Relationship Status: Buried in snow, waiting for spring
Who Am I?
Sorry if I was wording myself in a confusing way- I was actually disagreeing with Hans, not agreeing with him.

That paragraph is pretty cool, and nicely illustrates that the difference between species is just as arbitrary as the difference between colors.
“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.”
 2160 Question Marc, Thu, 27th Feb '14 12:29:54 PM from Down-town Canada Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Screw the King.
AMA by a group of researcher smarter than me.

The AMA was started in part to introduce a new book for children called "Great Adaptation", which aims to explain in clear and easy terms the phenomenon of evolution. There is a link to a kickstarter page to support the project, if you are interested. Tho, comically enough, they already busted the goal by a grand or so.

If you are only interested for the comment by the team of researchers, keep your eyes peeled for the "Great Adaptations" tag.

I thought at least one or two person here would care about it.

edited 27th Feb '14 12:30:10 PM by QuestionMarc

ARYA! I'm telling you, I've looked that King right in his eye socket, and I've said- I've said it, I've said... yaaaaarp
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.
Total posts: 2,160
 1 ... 82 83 84 85 86
87


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy