How to put someone in their place

REIMktg said:
It seems Line wants to see differentiation within the teaching of evolution between what he called macro vs micro, the former being much more speculative and unsubstantiated than the latter.
Click to expand...
Oh Boy.

What Line and it seems you too have yet to grasp is the simple concept of the scale of time.

If you both agree that the human race's height can change over a microscopic period like 50 years (microevolution) but somehow don't see that monkeys can evolve into men over longer periods of time, then you both lack imagination bigtime.

Just to humor you, take a change like height and assign it a rate. Like say, 2 millimeters per 50 years. (Yea Im making that shit up.) If our last direct monkey ancestor was 2 million years ago, then that means we all three agree that we had the potential to be 13 Thousand FEET TALL today.

That monkey fell way short of growing that height, but if the environment had been coaxing it to do so, then your acceptance of 2 millimeters of growth per 50 years means that monkey could definitely be 13 thousand feet tall today.

Now, assign all of our other varied genetic traits growth rates too, such as intelligence, hair length, uprightness, Jawbone size, and whatever else you can measure on a human like you did with its' height. Whatever rate of change you can assign to them on the Micro scale, just do the math and see the potential for growth over 2 million years.

This is a simple issue of math, not faith. Those monkeys 2 million years ago could have easily evolved to be 2 Mile tall, ultra-advanced GODS in comparison to what we wound up as.

Why didn't we? Natural selection... Simply put, it doesn't GROW your race, it constrains it.

If you can grasp this concept and still not understand macroevolution, then there is no hope for you at all. That would be like understanding how water is wet but not why you got wet when you jump in a lake.
 


lukep said:
Oh Boy.
What Line and it seems you too have yet to grasp is the simple concept of the scale of time.

If you both agree that the human race's height can change over a microscopic period like 50 years (microevolution) but somehow don't see that monkeys can evolve into men over longer periods of time, then you both lack imagination bigtime.
Click to expand...

I believe that Line's idea of micro evolution is evolved change within within a species (if that is the right word) over any amount of time. His definition of Macro-Evolution would be would be when species, or whatever the precise word, change into another species.

lukep said:
Just to humor you, take a change like height and assign it a rate. Like say, 2 millimeters per 50 years. (Yea Im making that shit up.) If our last direct monkey ancestor was 2 million years ago, then that means we all three agree that we had the potential to be 13 Thousand FEET TALL today.

That monkey fell way short of growing that height, but if the environment had been coaxing it to do so, then your acceptance of 2 millimeters of growth per 50 years means that monkey could definitely be 13 thousand feet tall today.

Now, assign all of our other varied genetic traits growth rates too, such as intelligence, hair length, uprightness, Jawbone size, and whatever else you can measure on a human like you did with its' height. Whatever rate of change you can assign to them on the Micro scale, just do the math and see the potential for growth over 2 million years.

This is a simple issue of math, not faith. Those monkeys 2 million years ago could have easily evolved to be 2 Mile tall, ultra-advanced GODS in comparison to what we wound up as.

Why didn't we? Natural selection... Simply put, it doesn't GROW your race, it constrains it.

If you can grasp this concept and still not understand macroevolution, then there is no hope for you at all. That would be like understanding how water is wet but not why you got wet when you jump in a lake.
Click to expand...

It would seem your entire example is change within a species which Line would define as MicroEvolution.

I have not studied this stuff for 20 years but do we now have examples of species to species change? I am not saying it cannot happen, for me, I do not see any problem between science, religion, evolution, and intelligent design. At the same time, it would be interesting to note examples of documented species to species jumps, what most would call, the missing link.
 
REIMktg said:
I believe that Line's idea of micro evolution is evolved change within within a species (if that is the right word) over any amount of time. His definition of Macro-Evolution would be would be when species, or whatever the precise word, change into another species.



It would seem your entire example is change within a species which Line would define as MicroEvolution.

I have not studied this stuff for 20 years but do we now have examples of species to species change? I am not saying it cannot happen, for me, I do not see any problem between science, religion, evolution, and intelligent design. At the same time, it would be interesting to note examples of documented species to species jumps, what most would call, the missing link.
Click to expand...

*facepalm so hard my face stings*
 
-God- said:
*facepalm so hard my face stings*
Click to expand...

So much easier than a valid response, a simple link - anything. Just a facepalm as a response to the clarification of Line's view. Unless you are saying LukeP's response included Lines version of MacroEvolutionary change, as clarified in my last post, in the followng quoted paragraph about varied characteristics.

lukep said:
Now, assign all of our other varied genetic traits growth rates too, such as intelligence, hair length, uprightness, Jawbone size, and whatever else you can measure on a human like you did with its' height. Whatever rate of change you can assign to them on the Micro scale, just do the math and see the potential for growth over 2 million years.
Click to expand...


Be careful not to facepalm because you see in an argument what you want to see, because the argument confirms your worldview so therefore, how could it not be obvious, and yet, it is not. Seems to be a lot of that going on around here in many threads with the same warning.
 
REIMktg said:
So Line wanted Evolution to be referred to as a theory and Creation to be presented also?

Then Holliday responds that "Evolutionary Theory" will be taught as Evolution and Creation not taught?

I understand Creation not being taught, but I do not understand why Evolution is not taught as Evolutionary Theory".

This is a legit question in understanding the nuance of Holliday's letter - I am not trolling for a debate on any of the underlying issues.
Click to expand...

Do you understand why the theory of gravity is an integral aspect of teaching physics? Evolution applies to biology in the same way. It's meaningless to go out of the way and say "the theory of evolution" every time just like it is to say an apple falls to the ground due to "the theory of gravity".

Also, creationism has no evidence making it useless to teach in a science class.
 
SUP3RNOVA said:
Do you understand why the theory of gravity is an integral aspect of teaching physics? Evolution applies to biology in the same way. It's meaningless to go out of the way and say "the theory of evolution" every time just like it is to say an apple falls to the ground due to "the theory of gravity".
Click to expand...

When I went to HS we had a creation/evolution debate and the instructor covered facts verses faith as an acknowledgement of the issue within society. We were taught the progress of Monkey to Man, shown pictures of the development and led to believe it was all perfectly laid out in the fossil record. Yet, at the time, there was little evidence and in fact many of the so-called Monkey transitional models were later discredited. Now there may be more facts now - but when I was in school 20 years ago - we were not taught anything except that evolution, including Macro-evolution was pure fact - no theory to it and yet at the time - it was far from proven fact. Maybe now it is different, but then, it was not as it was taught. Is it different today?

By the way, gravity does not need to be referred to as "The Theory of Gravity" every time you mention the phrase as if under some sort of Politically Correct speech monitoring, but the textbooks should acknowledge that it is a theory based on what is known at this time. Just as when Einstein changed/clarified/whatever Newton's explanation of gravity - it would only be reasonable. Student's should always be taught what is fact vs. theory - why not?


SUP3RNOVA said:
Also, creationism has no evidence making it useless to teach in a science class.
Click to expand...

In my words, that you quoted, I wrote "I understand why Creation is not taught". Then I asked, quite sincerely in a later post, is there evidence for what Line is referring to as "Macro-Evolution"? Personally, I do not know, I have not looked at this crap for 20 years. So I will ask again, is there evidence of this, I would really like to know.
 
IDK I think being a monkey would be pretty cool. Is there such thing as devolution? I'd be down for that.
tumblr_krr030Tb0d1qz4u07.jpg
 
brokeaffiliate said:
Explaining macroevolution:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent
Click to expand...

Thanks. I was hoping for something that was a little shorter and concise, but just the same I appreciate it.

From what I have read thus far I am trying to see where they connect s skull, femur, or whatever into a larger connection between MacroEvolution and how these could not be examples of LukeP's MicroEvolution.

I appreciate the link.

Also, I love the smart ass remarks from those that feel they are smarter than everyone else. Keep thinking that, your closed minds, relying on what you have been taught, could be just as wrong as those that believed in the science of their day.

I am open to the arguments because I want to know the truth and even if true still do not threaten my worldview, they are not even contrary to Christianity. But for many of you, you simply know what you know because a Professor told you to think that way, not because you know it to be true, if you cannot see the error in that then you are as lost in a not too dissimilar way as the OWS are in their simplistic youthful ignorance.
 
SUP3RNOVA said:
Do you understand why the theory of gravity is an integral aspect of teaching physics? Evolution applies to biology in the same way. It's meaningless to go out of the way and say "the theory of evolution" every time just like it is to say an apple falls to the ground due to "the theory of gravity".

Also, creationism has no evidence making it useless to teach in a science class.
Click to expand...

I love this thread. I read somewhere that according to quantum physics, gravity is only a matter of probability.

I agree that creationism is not part of conventional science. For years, though, I've wondered why none of the debaters has ever asked why intelligent design and evolution couldn't both be true. Yes, that might call for ETs or suchlike, which at first glance would seem to be an unnecessary complication, according to Occam's Razor. But we don't have any evidence that ETs don't exist, do we? ;) (We have circumstantial evidence to say both that they do and also that they don't. Unfortunately, as far as I know, circumstantial evidence isn't acceptable as scientific proof.)
 
REIMktg said:
It would seem your entire example is change within a species which Line would define as MicroEvolution.
Click to expand...
You're sooooooooooo close but you just can't seem to see what's right under your own nose. There is no micro & macroevolution! They are just propaganda!

REIMktg said:
I am not saying it cannot happen, for me, I do not see any problem between science, religion, evolution, and intelligent design.
Click to expand...
You can't see a problem between ID and Evolution? Really?

Let's see... One says we basically started as electrically-charged chemicals in the primordial goo and grew up over 2 billion years with slight, tiny changes caused by our normal, everyday environmental conditions.

The other says a giant space fairy created us in his own image 6000 years ago.

Yeah, you're right. Obviously compatible theories. :anon.sml:

REIMktg said:
Be careful not to facepalm because you see in an argument what you want to see, because the argument confirms your worldview so therefore, how could it not be obvious, and yet, it is not.
Click to expand...
Alright. You've been a trooper thusfar and I am refraining from posting a facepalm. I too believe that there is always something out there I'm not aware of... I just believe that it's always something that there are no facts disproving of yet.

REIMktg said:
When I went to HS we had a creation/evolution debate and the instructor covered facts verses faith as an acknowledgement of the issue within society. We were taught the progress of Monkey to Man, shown pictures of the development and led to believe it was all perfectly laid out in the fossil record. Yet, at the time, there was little evidence and in fact many of the so-called Monkey transitional models were later discredited. Now there may be more facts now - but when I was in school 20 years ago - we were not taught anything except that evolution, including Macro-evolution was pure fact - no theory to it and yet at the time - it was far from proven fact. Maybe now it is different, but then, it was not as it was taught. Is it different today?
Click to expand...
So you had a bad teacher. Deal with it.

Clearly your teacher &/or textbook (I seriously doubt this was a public US school though if textbook!) were overly gung-ho on the theory of Evolution back then and OVERSTEPPED THEIR PROPER BOUNDS.

However surely you must admit there is nothing whatsoever that teacher could have done to change the facts about evolution. He doesn't have that power, Darwin didn't even have that power... Your teacher only had the power to influence your view about it... Which he totally fucked up and did so but the wrong way.


REIMktg said:
By the way, gravity does not need to be referred to as "The Theory of Gravity" every time you mention the phrase as if under some sort of Politically Correct speech monitoring, but the textbooks should acknowledge that it is a theory based on what is known at this time.
Click to expand...
This is EXACTLY how evolution should be taught, not the way your teacher apparently did so.


REIMktg said:
From what I have read thus far I am trying to see where they connect s skull, femur, or whatever into a larger connection between MacroEvolution and how these could not be examples of LukeP's MicroEvolution.
Click to expand...
You really need to drop the myth of the seperation between micro and macro here. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE... It's all scale of time.

It appears to me that either the bible or some other source of authority in your life have told you that there is a difference between monkeys and men that growth cannot explain. It literally sounds like you see ample evidence but your brain will not allow you to piece them together because that Mandate in your head it standing between them.

If you would only allow yourself to set aside the notion, just for a moment, that a man CAN'T be a monkey who has been advanced on all fronts, then all the evidence for evolution lines up perfectly into place. It all just fits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom