Creationism (or religion's love/hate relationship with science) (Abiogenesis, soul)

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

I've noticed that a lot of anti evolutionists don't seem to appreciate the time involved in many evolutionary processes. Change in a species is often readily observable, but if it doesn't produce an entirely new species in a few years people discount the possibility that it ever could.
Tiny changes, repeated over hundreds, thousands or millions of years can produce results entirely unlike the prototypes. Chihuahuas were once wolves, the Grand Canyon was once a flat plain.
Has anyone ever observed a wolf turn into a poodle? a mountain worn down to a plain? a string of Pacific islands created by vulcanism? All we can observe are tiny segments of an ongoing process, but few people contend that these processes don't occur. But when it comes to biological change, some people seem extrapolation challenged.

I think it was more of the consistant rhetoric of throwing a large number (it took millions and gazillions of years) that irked many students. It almost sounded that no matter what question you asked, they would find an enviroment and a large number to give an answer. Even though we know that some mutations can occur rather quickly.

[JerryL]

I think it was more of the consistant rhetoric of throwing a large number (it took millions and gazillions of years) that irked many students. It almost sounded that no matter what question you asked, they would find an enviroment and a large number to give an answer. Even though we know that some mutations can occur rather quickly.

Rather like every timwe we show a link, the creationist wants a link inbetween those; and every time we show a change, they want to see it on a higher order of magnitude.

Mutations happen every generation. A morpological change which would require several mutation working in concert is likely to take a while to appear. Moreso in an unchanging envyronment (which will tend to select for the forms already selected for).

[Victor]

Originally Posted by JerryL

Rather like every timwe we show a link, the creationist wants a link inbetween those; and every time we show a change, they want to see it on a higher order of magnitude.[/color]

Mutations happen every generation. A morpological change which would require several mutation working in concert is likely to take a while to appear. Moreso in an unchanging envyronment (which will tend to select for the forms already selected for).

What I speak of is a typical classroom environment. I understand that change takes time and it needs certain conditions to do so as well. But if professors would just change the tone a bit, it would get students more interested. I don't know, just trying to find a solution to ignorance of evolution and professor rhetoric at the same time.

[Snowbear]

Show me how the wolf changed into a poodle then eventually into a lion and I'll try to swallow the story.

FWIW - I've doubted the evolutionists story since I studied it in college - while I was an atheist! Surpisingly to those of you who claim only creationists dispute it, there were many of us who were anti-religious who questioned the dogmas of the sciences that were continually crammed down our throats.

It's funny how whenever someone points out the gaps and inconsistencies in the fossil record, the anti-creations scream "RELIGIOUS ZEALOT" or some such put-downs

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Snowbear

Show me how the wolf changed into a poodle then eventually into a lion and I'll try to swallow the story.

The wolf didn't change into a poodle or a lion, nor does evolution propose that; rather all three came from a common carnivore ancestor.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Snowbear

Show me how the wolf changed into a poodle then eventually into a lion and I'll try to swallow the story.

Why wouldn't you swallow that story and swallow the story of Christ walking on water?

[Snowbear]

That Christ could do anything takes very little faith. I don't have enough faith in me to not question that He didn't have a hand in creation

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Snowbear

That Christ could do anything takes very little faith. I don't have enough faith in me to not question that He didn't have a hand in creation

If he had a hand in evolution, turning a wolf into a poodle would be a slam dunk. Walking on water on the other hand is quiet impressive.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Snowbear

That Christ could do anything takes very little faith. I don't have enough faith in me to not question that He didn't have a hand in creation

You have little faith in Christ?

(Sorry )

[Snowbear]

Originally Posted by Willamena

You have little faith in Christ?

Actually, I think so... less than the proverbial mustard seed
What little I do have is pretty solid, though