Evolution and Creationism both have equal value and scientific evidence to support them.

[Autodidact]

I see, then someone needs to tell your leader that it isn't a valid word because I quote Dawkins. "Darwinism leads to a fascist state". So he knows what it is.

I'm sorry, I don't have a leader. Again, you're deeply, deeply confused about science. Have you ever taken a science class in your life?

Let's say there is such a thing as Darwinism, whatever that may be. This thread is not about that. It's about evolution, so let's discuss the Theory of Evolution (ToE.)

Could you give a cite for the purported quote? Thanks.

 

[Draka]

Wait. Since when do rational people who adhere to science have a "leader" and who said it was Dawkins? He's not my leader. Never has been. In fact, I have never read anything by him nor paid any attention to him at all. One does not need to "follow" Dawkins to accept evolution. One only needs an intelligent functioning mind for that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The features of creatures, such as heighth are irrelevant when it comes to common descent, the question is can creatures turn into another kind of creature? Don't we see all the different kinds of creatures in the world, birds, humans, snakes, giraffes, elephants, fish, etc...? The limit is on the kind of creature it is, snakes have snakes, birds reproduce birds, etc... It's not how tall or short a bird is that makes common descent workable, it's can one kind of creature make or form into another kind of creature. We haven't seen that so that isn't science, that is imagination.

Ah... so you don't really know of any limits at all. The boatloads of evidence for evolution aside, do you normally conclude that anything you haven't seen is impossible?

 

[tumbleweed41]

I see, then someone needs to tell your leader that it isn't a valid word because I quote Dawkins. "Darwinism leads to a fascist state". So he knows what it is.

Thank you for this example of Quote Mining, a common Creationist technique where a bit of conversation, or a piece of a speech, is pulled out in a weak attempt to justify Creationism. But you went even further, by actually mutilating the quote altogether.

Interviewer: "In “the Ancestor’s Tale” you mention the Welfare State as a challenge to Darwinism. How can one justify this challenge”

Dawkins: "No self respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am an passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state."

Social Darwinism is a far cry from biological evolution.

(Yet another example of the dishonesty of Creationists)

 

[Willamena]

Thank you for this example of Quote Mining, a common Creationist technique where a bit of conversation, or a piece of a speech, is pulled out in a weak attempt to justify Creationism. But you went even further, by actually mutilating the quote altogether.

Interviewer: "In “the Ancestor’s Tale” you mention the Welfare State as a challenge to Darwinism. How can one justify this challenge”

Dawkins: "No self respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am an passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state."

Social Darwinism is a far cry from biological evolution.

(Yet another example of the dishonesty of Creationists)

Um, the corrected quote serves just as well to demonstrate that the term is used.

No dishonesty in pointing out that a term is used.

 

[Man of Faith]

Ah... so you don't really know of any limits at all. The boatloads of evidence for evolution aside, do you normally conclude that anything you haven't seen is impossible?

DNA sets the limits. If it wasn't in the created kind's DNA then it can't become that to which evolutionists say it can.

 

[Man of Faith]

Wait. Since when do rational people who adhere to science have a "leader" and who said it was Dawkins? He's not my leader. Never has been. In fact, I have never read anything by him nor paid any attention to him at all. One does not need to "follow" Dawkins to accept evolution. One only needs an intelligent functioning mind for that.

If you have never read anything by Dawkins then you are way behind me, a creationist. :sorry1:

 

[Draka]

If you have never read anything by Dawkins then you are way behind me, a creationist. :sorry1:

What the hell is that suppose to mean? The man is not the end all be all of evolution information. Frankly, the only people that really seem all that concerned with the man are creationists. Seriously, if it wasn't for creationists I don't think you'd really hear Dawkins name all that much.

AND did you ever want to address the facts I presented you with at all? Or do you just feel like all other creationists in that if you ignore the facts for long enough then they aren't really facts and you can go on believing whatever you want no matter how deluded it may be?

 

[Man of Faith]

What the hell is that suppose to mean? The man is not the end all be all of evolution information. Frankly, the only people that really seem all that concerned with the man are creationists. Seriously, if it wasn't for creationists I don't think you'd really hear Dawkins name all that much.

AND did you ever want to address the facts I presented you with at all? Or do you just feel like all other creationists in that if you ignore the facts for long enough then they aren't really facts and you can go on believing whatever you want no matter how deluded it may be?

I haven't seen any fact that you have posted yet.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

DNA sets the limits. If it wasn't in the created kind's DNA then it can't become that to which evolutionists say it can.

And what are those limits? You said that there are observable limits; what are these limits, and how have they been observed? Please be specific.

 

[Draka]

I haven't seen any fact that you have posted yet.

Oh, so you really don't know what the scientific method is at all then. AND, it appears, you are completely unwilling to learn. I'd say that that is willfull ignorance through and through then. How nice for you.

 

[Man of Faith]

Oh, so you really don't know what the scientific method is at all then. AND, it appears, you are completely unwilling to learn. I'd say that that is willfull ignorance through and through then. How nice for you.

Well you said that creationists don't use the scientific method, that isn't a fact. Now when you said the words scientific method, that wasn't stating a fact, that was just using valid words.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Um, the corrected quote serves just as well to demonstrate that the term is used.

No dishonesty in pointing out that a term is used.

The dishonesty is in the so-called "quote" Man Of Faith used. Implying Dawkins was speaking of Darwinism (biological evolution) rather than a Darwinian State (Social Darwinism)

It should also be noted that in the United States, Darwinism is often used by Creationists as a pejorative term, but in the United Kingdom, home to Dawkins, the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a short hand for evolutionary theory

Don't call it Darwinism

 

[Man of Faith]

And what are those limits? You said that there are observable limits; what are these limits, and how have they been observed? Please be specific.

The limits are clearly within the original created kinds which is explained under the science of Baraminology. The observable limits are the same kind of creature. Like I have pointed out multiple times, birds have birds, they are the same kind of creature. Let's say that Darwin was right and I think he was that some of the same species of birds have different beak shapes and sizes due to weather patterens. Well so what? Can you get from that to every creature has a common ancestor? I can't.

 

[tumbleweed41]

DNA sets the limits. If it wasn't in the created kind's DNA then it can't become that to which evolutionists say it can.

Silly Creationist. DNA provides empirical evidence that supports the ToE and speciation.

 

[Draka]

Well you said that creationists don't use the scientific method, that isn't a fact. Now when you said the words scientific method, that wasn't stating a fact, that was just using valid words.

That's bull. Creationists don't use the scientific method because you start with your conclusion. That is not scientific at all. Not to mention you can't test for god or creationism. You can't do any experiment with the premise of god because god is unprovable. Therefore, what you are left with is bastardization of already existing data in the hopes of discrediting actual scientists. However, that still doesn't prove what you want it to. You cannot prove creationism by trying to disprove evolution no matter how hard you try to do so with your bastardization techniques. Just because you twist some data around and say "look! that doesn't make sense!" does NOT bring one to the automatic SCIENTIFIC conclusion that "goddidit" and it never will.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Sorry, Baraminology is not science. The very processes used in Baraminology are entirely contrary to the scientific method.

Well you said that creationists don't use the scientific method, that isn't a fact.

Thus showing that Creationist do not use the scientific method.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The limits are clearly within the original created kinds which is explained under the science of Baraminology. The observable limits are the same kind of creature.

How is this observed?

Like I have pointed out multiple times, birds have birds, they are the same kind of creature. Let's say that Darwin was right and I think he was that some of the same species of birds have different beak shapes and sizes due to weather patterens. Well so what? Can you get from that to every creature has a common ancestor? I can't.

You're shifting the goalposts. This isn't about me establishing a common ancestor; it's about you establishing that there are hard limits to the change of species.

Now, I think your "observable limits" are false, since change that transcends those limits has been observed, however, let's just set this aside for a moment. Frankly, I don't see how the sorts of observations you describe would establish the sorts of limits you suggest, even if we assume the premises of your argument.

As an analogy, say some anthropologist has been observing me for my whole life. He or she would have noted that I've never once been to Europe. I've never even been within a few thousand kilometers of Europe. Now... does this imply that the anthropologist can validly conclude that I'm incapable of getting on a plane and flying to Europe?

It seems to me that your argument employs this sort of reasoning.

 

[Autodidact]

DNA sets the limits. If it wasn't in the created kind's DNA then it can't become that to which evolutionists say it can.

So if I understand you, what you're saying is that DNA does not mutate? Is that right?

What is a kind again?

 

[Autodidact]

Well you said that creationists don't use the scientific method, that isn't a fact.

Yes, it is. Would you like me to explain how and why?