On January 01 2012 08:48 Oreo7 wrote: I'm not you, but I think that a person isn't just a creationist. Rejection of evolution is also rejection of the though process behind it, and I'm not sure I could date a person who didn't agree with philosophy or the scientific method. Either they've thought about it a lot, and they're dumb, or they haven't thought about it a lot, which means they share different values than me. Either way, we're incompatible.
I'll end this post like I started it. I'm not you, so if you care less about science or logic or any of that shit, then stay with her. If it's important to you to be dating a girl who thinks seriously about life then persuade her or break up with her. Just my 2 cents.
I completely agree, there is no way I myself would want a long-term relationship who truly beliefs in creatonism. If she has a scientific background let her read ''The God Delusion'' by Richard Dawkins maybe you should read it yourself to get some better ideas of what being a creatonist means.
Just get rid of her. That will be a lot easier than trying to make something of the relationship. Ultimately she must have a pretty twisted and warped mind to believe in that, and those thoughts will be bleed into everything else.
i had a girlfriend that was really christian and over the course of two and a half years our disagreements slowly tore apart the relationship in the worst ways. It ended really badly. I can never date a christian again.
lol, apparently I'm a mind-warped idiot for being a Christian? that sucks
but more seriously, I'm willing to accept natural selection as slowly changing the genome of a species... but in my timeframe, there's not really enough time to allow for evolution from one species to something entirely different. Plus, I can't really see the "sequence of tiny, always-beneficial mutations" that would turn a rat into a bat, for example.
On January 01 2012 04:37 CecilSunkure wrote: Why don't you do some research on the subject of creationism yourself. I'm sure you're no expert and it sounds like you're blindly siding with "science" much like you assume she blindly sides with her teachings she heard since she was 8.
I grew up in a really religious family too, though I'm Agnostic. Don't be so quick to judge and trusting in what other people say. Go experience and figure things out for yourself with an open mind, and then make your own conclusions.
On January 02 2012 10:27 ]343[ wrote: lol, apparently I'm a mind-warped idiot for being a Christian? that sucks
but more seriously, I'm willing to accept natural selection as slowly changing the genome of a species... but in my timeframe, there's not really enough time to allow for evolution from one species to something entirely different. Plus, I can't really see the "sequence of tiny, always-beneficial mutations" that would turn a rat into a bat, for example.
But there's no way for you to see your immune system working either, but you don't rush to the hospital or get anti-biotics every time you get a headache.
Not being able to see or experience something is just faulty logic, unless you hold those standards for EVERYTHING and refuse to believe anything outside of your immediate realm of senses. Societies are built upon collective knowledge.
On January 02 2012 10:27 ]343[ wrote: lol, apparently I'm a mind-warped idiot for being a Christian? that sucks
but more seriously, I'm willing to accept natural selection as slowly changing the genome of a species... but in my timeframe, there's not really enough time to allow for evolution from one species to something entirely different. Plus, I can't really see the "sequence of tiny, always-beneficial mutations" that would turn a rat into a bat, for example.
But there's no way for you to see your immune system working either, but you don't rush to the hospital or get anti-biotics every time you get a headache.
Not being able to see or experience something is just faulty logic, unless you hold those standards for EVERYTHING and refuse to believe anything outside of your immediate realm of senses. Societies are built upon collective knowledge.
Ah, but immune systems have been observed. Macroscopic evolution, well, hasn't ("missing links" are found every so often, but how many of these are actually credible?). Evolution as a theory has survived because small-scale natural selection has been observed, and without intelligent design, there's no other way to explain the existence of life. It's an extrapolation that people are willing to make because they're compelled to.
On January 02 2012 10:27 ]343[ wrote: lol, apparently I'm a mind-warped idiot for being a Christian? that sucks
but more seriously, I'm willing to accept natural selection as slowly changing the genome of a species... but in my timeframe, there's not really enough time to allow for evolution from one species to something entirely different. Plus, I can't really see the "sequence of tiny, always-beneficial mutations" that would turn a rat into a bat, for example.
But there's no way for you to see your immune system working either, but you don't rush to the hospital or get anti-biotics every time you get a headache.
Not being able to see or experience something is just faulty logic, unless you hold those standards for EVERYTHING and refuse to believe anything outside of your immediate realm of senses. Societies are built upon collective knowledge.
Ah, but immune systems have been observed. Macroscopic evolution, well, hasn't ("missing links" are found every so often, but how many of these are actually credible?). Evolution as a theory has survived because small-scale natural selection has been observed, and without intelligent design, there's no other way to explain the existence of life. It's an extrapolation that people are willing to make because they're compelled to.
The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the existence of life.
On January 01 2012 04:37 CecilSunkure wrote: Why don't you do some research on the subject of creationism yourself. I'm sure you're no expert and it sounds like you're blindly siding with "science" much like you assume she blindly sides with her teachings she heard since she was 8.
I grew up in a really religious family too, though I'm Agnostic. Don't be so quick to judge and trusting in what other people say. Go experience and figure things out for yourself with an open mind, and then make your own conclusions.
Edit: typo
No don't waste your time researching fairy tales.
I was talking about both sides, I could just as easily call whatever side you're on a fair tale.
On January 02 2012 10:27 ]343[ wrote: lol, apparently I'm a mind-warped idiot for being a Christian? that sucks
but more seriously, I'm willing to accept natural selection as slowly changing the genome of a species... but in my timeframe, there's not really enough time to allow for evolution from one species to something entirely different. Plus, I can't really see the "sequence of tiny, always-beneficial mutations" that would turn a rat into a bat, for example.
But there's no way for you to see your immune system working either, but you don't rush to the hospital or get anti-biotics every time you get a headache.
Not being able to see or experience something is just faulty logic, unless you hold those standards for EVERYTHING and refuse to believe anything outside of your immediate realm of senses. Societies are built upon collective knowledge.
Ah, but immune systems have been observed. Macroscopic evolution, well, hasn't ("missing links" are found every so often, but how many of these are actually credible?). Evolution as a theory has survived because small-scale natural selection has been observed, and without intelligent design, there's no other way to explain the existence of life. It's an extrapolation that people are willing to make because they're compelled to.
The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the existence of life.
Sorry if I was inaccurate; perhaps I really meant "the existence of intelligent life"?
If instead you are defining the "theory of evolution" as "natural selection," I don't see how it even conflicts with creationism, to be honest. And most people here seem to be rejecting creationism, so...
On January 02 2012 10:27 ]343[ wrote: lol, apparently I'm a mind-warped idiot for being a Christian? that sucks
but more seriously, I'm willing to accept natural selection as slowly changing the genome of a species... but in my timeframe, there's not really enough time to allow for evolution from one species to something entirely different. Plus, I can't really see the "sequence of tiny, always-beneficial mutations" that would turn a rat into a bat, for example.
But there's no way for you to see your immune system working either, but you don't rush to the hospital or get anti-biotics every time you get a headache.
Not being able to see or experience something is just faulty logic, unless you hold those standards for EVERYTHING and refuse to believe anything outside of your immediate realm of senses. Societies are built upon collective knowledge.
Ah, but immune systems have been observed. Macroscopic evolution, well, hasn't ("missing links" are found every so often, but how many of these are actually credible?). Evolution as a theory has survived because small-scale natural selection has been observed, and without intelligent design, there's no other way to explain the existence of life. It's an extrapolation that people are willing to make because they're compelled to.
The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the existence of life.
Sorry if I was inaccurate; perhaps I really meant "the existence of intelligent life"?
If instead you are defining the "theory of evolution" as "natural selection," I don't see how it even conflicts with creationism, to be honest. And most people here seem to be rejecting creationism, so...
I think most people here are rejecting the type of creationism that says everything was created 6,000 years ago.
edit. Actually, scratch that. People here are rejecting the type of thinking that leads someone to believe that evolution doesn't occur.
On January 02 2012 10:27 ]343[ wrote: lol, apparently I'm a mind-warped idiot for being a Christian? that sucks
but more seriously, I'm willing to accept natural selection as slowly changing the genome of a species... but in my timeframe, there's not really enough time to allow for evolution from one species to something entirely different. Plus, I can't really see the "sequence of tiny, always-beneficial mutations" that would turn a rat into a bat, for example.
i agree that the time frame of a human life span is vastly insignificant on the grand scale of evolution.
You're misunderstanding the concept of evolution. Its not there's always a sequence of beneficial mutations, there's a plethora of mutations, period. For better or for worse they're present in the population of question. Now over time, you'd expect those who received a slightly beneficial mutation to have an advantage. Then by survival of the fittest where fitness is defined as the ability to reproduce, those who have a slight edge in competition are more likely to remain. Repeat this for hundreds of thousands of generations and you'll get a couple changes. repeat it for millions, and who knows what might happen.
A more fair example in your statement might be the transformation of a common ancestral mouse into the jumping mouse where given the environmental pressures, migrational competition, those who were able to jump further to catch bugs had a better chance of securing a food source. Over the course of millions of generations, it raised the standard leg strength/ratio to promote that kind of travel
On January 02 2012 10:27 ]343[ wrote: lol, apparently I'm a mind-warped idiot for being a Christian? that sucks
but more seriously, I'm willing to accept natural selection as slowly changing the genome of a species... but in my timeframe, there's not really enough time to allow for evolution from one species to something entirely different. Plus, I can't really see the "sequence of tiny, always-beneficial mutations" that would turn a rat into a bat, for example.
But there's no way for you to see your immune system working either, but you don't rush to the hospital or get anti-biotics every time you get a headache.
Not being able to see or experience something is just faulty logic, unless you hold those standards for EVERYTHING and refuse to believe anything outside of your immediate realm of senses. Societies are built upon collective knowledge.
Ah, but immune systems have been observed. Macroscopic evolution, well, hasn't ("missing links" are found every so often, but how many of these are actually credible?). Evolution as a theory has survived because small-scale natural selection has been observed, and without intelligent design, there's no other way to explain the existence of life. It's an extrapolation that people are willing to make because they're compelled to.
The concept of microscopic and macroscopic evolution is incorrect. The distinction itself is meaningless, because a species is defined horizontally in a particular time period by the ability for gene flow (don't jump on me, I know this is simple but not precise) through the population. A chimpanzee is a separate species from a human because we're reproductively isolated, genes from chimpanzee do not enter the human population.
But the same distinction becomes absurd when you try to use this concepts across time. There is no point that you can point out and say species A evolved into species B because by definition, there must have been gene flow from a population of species A into species B. What you call macroevolution is the process of speciation and there have been examples that we've observed happening, and even more, we have evidence for speciation that occurred relatively recently. We know this because these species are adapted specifically for an environment that is verifiably young, as young as 150 years.
On January 02 2012 10:27 ]343[ wrote: lol, apparently I'm a mind-warped idiot for being a Christian? that sucks
but more seriously, I'm willing to accept natural selection as slowly changing the genome of a species... but in my timeframe, there's not really enough time to allow for evolution from one species to something entirely different. Plus, I can't really see the "sequence of tiny, always-beneficial mutations" that would turn a rat into a bat, for example.
But there's no way for you to see your immune system working either, but you don't rush to the hospital or get anti-biotics every time you get a headache.
Not being able to see or experience something is just faulty logic, unless you hold those standards for EVERYTHING and refuse to believe anything outside of your immediate realm of senses. Societies are built upon collective knowledge.
Ah, but immune systems have been observed. Macroscopic evolution, well, hasn't ("missing links" are found every so often, but how many of these are actually credible?). Evolution as a theory has survived because small-scale natural selection has been observed, and without intelligent design, there's no other way to explain the existence of life. It's an extrapolation that people are willing to make because they're compelled to.
The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the existence of life.
Sorry if I was inaccurate; perhaps I really meant "the existence of intelligent life"?
If instead you are defining the "theory of evolution" as "natural selection," I don't see how it even conflicts with creationism, to be honest. And most people here seem to be rejecting creationism, so...
Well i believe the conflict is where people try to put creation myths in the same standing as scientific theory's evolution, special relativity gravity etc. Also you seem to be unaware of the the plethora of evidence supporting evolution. Do you know about vestigial organs?
Fossil record of other hominid species? How do any of the three great monotheisms account for homo erectus? Homo floresiensis which was around as close as 12000 years ago.
On January 02 2012 10:27 ]343[ wrote: lol, apparently I'm a mind-warped idiot for being a Christian? that sucks
but more seriously, I'm willing to accept natural selection as slowly changing the genome of a species... but in my timeframe, there's not really enough time to allow for evolution from one species to something entirely different. Plus, I can't really see the "sequence of tiny, always-beneficial mutations" that would turn a rat into a bat, for example.
i agree that the time frame of a human life span is vastly insignificant on the grand scale of evolution.
You're misunderstanding the concept of evolution. Its not there's always a sequence of beneficial mutations, there's a plethora of mutations, period. For better or for worse they're present in the population of question. Now over time, you'd expect those who received a slightly beneficial mutation to have an advantage. Then by survival of the fittest where fitness is defined as the ability to reproduce, those who have a slight edge in competition are more likely to remain. Repeat this for hundreds of thousands of generations and you'll get a couple changes. repeat it for millions, and who knows what might happen.
A more fair example in your statement might be the transformation of a common ancestral mouse into the jumping mouse where given the environmental pressures, migrational competition, those who were able to jump further to catch bugs had a better chance of securing a food source. Over the course of millions of generations, it raised the standard leg strength/ratio to promote that kind of travel
Hmm, guess I misplaced my modifier there: the sequence of mutations you described there all contribute to the increased survival of the mouse (hence, beneficial). I didn't claim that "all mutations are beneficial."
I agree that some mutations are beneficial, and members of a species with such mutations have improved chances of survival. When I say "my timeframe," I mean that according to my beliefs, the timeframe for existence of life on Earth is insufficient to allow for the "millions of generations" it would take for even a genetically-"close" evolution from rat to bat to occur.
Of course, some may point to radioactive dating methods (i.e. measuring the ratio of U-238 to U-235 in rock samples) as showing the Earth's age to be greater, but there are some underlying assumptions for such dating that I don't necessarily buy (initial distribution of radioactive elements, origin of such elements, etc.) But again, I guess such assumptions are as good as what we've got, so it's quite reasonable to believe them. (Similarly, we hold various assumptions when studying astrophysics: that the universe is isotropic and homogeneous with respect to the laws of physics, etc. Unfortunately, we don't really have any way of empirically proving that just yet.)
Feel free to point out any gross (or subtle) errors I might've made ^^ But basically, too many people (especially we gullible Americans...) blindly trust "science" without understanding what's really going on (I'm guilty of this too), sometimes to the point where one's devotion to "scientific truth" becomes... dare I say, religious?
Edit: oops, I forgot to add: Yes, there is plenty of "evidence" for evolution. But unless we can time-travel and empirically observe any of this happening, there's insufficient evidence to conclusively prove that evolution is how intelligent life came along. So although one may think he's likely to be right, one can't completely discount the other viewpoint all the time!
On January 02 2012 10:27 ]343[ wrote: lol, apparently I'm a mind-warped idiot for being a Christian? that sucks
but more seriously, I'm willing to accept natural selection as slowly changing the genome of a species... but in my timeframe, there's not really enough time to allow for evolution from one species to something entirely different. Plus, I can't really see the "sequence of tiny, always-beneficial mutations" that would turn a rat into a bat, for example.
i agree that the time frame of a human life span is vastly insignificant on the grand scale of evolution.
You're misunderstanding the concept of evolution. Its not there's always a sequence of beneficial mutations, there's a plethora of mutations, period. For better or for worse they're present in the population of question. Now over time, you'd expect those who received a slightly beneficial mutation to have an advantage. Then by survival of the fittest where fitness is defined as the ability to reproduce, those who have a slight edge in competition are more likely to remain. Repeat this for hundreds of thousands of generations and you'll get a couple changes. repeat it for millions, and who knows what might happen.
A more fair example in your statement might be the transformation of a common ancestral mouse into the jumping mouse where given the environmental pressures, migrational competition, those who were able to jump further to catch bugs had a better chance of securing a food source. Over the course of millions of generations, it raised the standard leg strength/ratio to promote that kind of travel
Hmm, guess I misplaced my modifier there: the sequence of mutations you described there all contribute to the increased survival of the mouse (hence, beneficial). I didn't claim that "all mutations are beneficial."
I agree that some mutations are beneficial, and members of a species with such mutations have improved chances of survival. When I say "my timeframe," I mean that according to my beliefs, the timeframe for existence of life on Earth is insufficient to allow for the "millions of generations" it would take for even a genetically-"close" evolution from rat to bat to occur.
Of course, some may point to radioactive dating methods (i.e. measuring the ratio of U-238 to U-235 in rock samples) as showing the Earth's age to be greater, but there are some underlying assumptions for such dating that I don't necessarily buy (initial distribution of radioactive elements, origin of such elements, etc.) But again, I guess such assumptions are as good as what we've got, so it's quite reasonable to believe them. (Similarly, we hold various assumptions when studying astrophysics: that the universe is isotropic and homogeneous with respect to the laws of physics, etc. Unfortunately, we don't really have any way of empirically proving that just yet.)
Feel free to point out any gross (or subtle) errors I might've made ^^ But basically, too many people (especially we gullible Americans...) blindly trust "science" without understanding what's really going on (I'm guilty of this too), sometimes to the point where one's devotion to "scientific truth" becomes... dare I say, religious?
Scientific understanding has advanced to the point that unlike the natural philosophy of the Greeks, it's impossible to personally know and understand in depth more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of human knowledge. You blindly trust electricians and structural engineers and hundreds and hundreds of professions every day without even realizing it, and they're all derived directly from improving our understanding of the world. Unless you wish to claim that everyone in modern society trusts electrical engineers religiously, you have to concede that personal expertise in most areas of your life is simply nonexistant.
You hold your young-earth view in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, and the best evidence you have is a single book which asserts that without a shred of evidence? Evolution didn't happen because there wasn't enough time for it to happen, never mind the fact that the evidence for an old earth and evolution is staggeringly huge compared to the nothing that the opposing camp has? One only has to look at the nature of inquiry on each side to know that one side is clearly playing with words and has little of substance to contribute, no falsifiable predictions, no testable mechanisms, nothing.
By the way, rats didn't evolved into bats. They share common ancestry, like all other pairs of organisms that you care to mention. The distinction is critically important.
EPT
