www.ditl.org

Nickswitz wrote:What 'testable predictions' have been coupled with evolution? And what of these have been tested...

The form of every missing link ever discovered for starters. (Archaeopteryx, Lucy, etc)

I'm wondering what any atheists believe about how things got here, besides evolution...

Everything from the scientifically proven story of the universe's history to the view that the natural world has never changed, and everything in between.

eagle_GT wrote:Part of the problem with the discussion of evolution is semantics. I've attended some very theologically conservative churches and heard arguments about evolution several times. The people that I have heard discuss it have used the terms Macro and Micro Evolution, where Micro Evolution is the gradual change of a species over time and Macro Evolution is the change from one species to another (i.e. men evolved from monkeys). They have readily agreed that Micro Evolution is proven, but contend that there is no proof to support Macro Evolution. So what seems to happen around here is that evolution supporters are talking about Micro, while evolution opponents are talking about Macro, but neither side really realizes that they are not talking about evolution the same way.

The two are synonymous - you can't separate "micro" and "macro" evolution any more than you can separate rubbing a few grains of dust off a rock with your fingers from the existence of the Sahara desert - one is merely the other repeated countless times.

eagle_GT wrote:Part of the problem with the discussion of evolution is semantics.

Agreed.

eagle_GT wrote:(i.e. men evolved from monkeys)

There's an example of semantics: "men evolved from monkeys". I'd say, "men are monkeys."

Or, more specifically, Great Apes.

Captain Seafort wrote:The form of every missing link ever discovered for starters. (Archaeopteryx, Lucy, etc)

Wait, so your saying that god couldn't have made a species that was similar to 2 different species? I don't see how that's proof of much...

And I would say that micro evolution is 'true' except that it doesn't begin to transform one species into a different species...

Nickswitz wrote:Wait, so your saying that god couldn't have made a species that was similar to 2 different species? I don't see how that's proof of much...

Where is the evidence for God's existence then? Such as traits suddenly jumping between different evolutionary branches?

And I would say that micro evolution is 'true' except that it doesn't begin to transform one species into a different species...

Yes it does. Just as your thumb rubbing against a rock for millions of years would produce a desert the size of the Sahara.

Nickswitz wrote:To Rochey; What I was stating was what I believed as the theory of evolution, not what was being talked about... So I misunderstood, and thus was incorrect in my statements...

Alright then. My advice would be to look up some works on the theory of evolution itself written by peer-reviewed scientists.

Nickswitz wrote:And as to the 'what do atheists believe' question, I know there isn't a set of any theories or anything... But I was wondering what in general if they don't believe that a being made it all come to appear... then what are basic thoughts on how the world came to be, and life came to form, etc... I'm just curious...

Again, it's completely up to the individual. It's like saying "how do theists believe the world was created". You'll get thousands of different answers, all depending on the person, ranging from the Big Bang theory to Matrix-style "we don't really exist" to "we can never know so it's pointless to ask".

Nickswitz wrote: Also, something everyone has been saying, you all do know that if God is real creation no longer would be theological... It would become scientific...

Thus why is god not a scientific theory? never mind, thought for another time maybe...

God is not a scientific theory because the very existance of a god is illogical.

Nickswitz wrote:What 'testable predictions' have been coupled with evolution? And what of these have been tested...

As I pointed out earlier: bacteria and virii changing over time, usualy to develop immunities to cures. We can see this happening in laboratory experiments, thus it has been tested.

Did you know there's actualy a strain of bacteria that's evolved to eat nylon?

Nickswitz wrote:I know it doesn't have anything to do with life, but the reason I stated that is because I know atheists that believe that everything was just here... and others that think it all came from larger stars, etc... I'm wondering what any atheists believe about how things got here, besides evolution...

I think I see what you're trying to do. You were trying to ask what the different atheists here thought, yes?

Personaly, I honestly haven't a clue. I believe abiogenesis is the cause of life itself, and evolution caused life to become what we see now. How did the universe begin? Probably with the Big Bang, but it's not a subject I know much about. What caused the Big Bang? No idea, and we'll probably never know. Personaly I like to believe that we are just the latest in a long chain of universes, stretching back countless aeons. The old universe died as it came slamming back together in the Big Crunch. With all that energy being compressed into one tiny area, it "exploded", thus giving us "our" Big Bang. That's probably not what happened, but it's my own theory on it.

eagle_GT wrote:Part of the problem with the discussion of evolution is semantics. I've attended some very theologically conservative churches and heard arguments about evolution several times. The people that I have heard discuss it have used the terms Macro and Micro Evolution, where Micro Evolution is the gradual change of a species over time and Macro Evolution is the change from one species to another (i.e. men evolved from monkeys). They have readily agreed that Micro Evolution is proven, but contend that there is no proof to support Macro Evolution. So what seems to happen around here is that evolution supporters are talking about Micro, while evolution opponents are talking about Macro, but neither side really realizes that they are not talking about evolution the same way.

The problem is that Creationists don't realise that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the same frickin' thing, with the difference merely being one of time.

Nickswitz wrote:And I would say that micro evolution is 'true' except that it doesn't begin to transform one species into a different species...

How could it not? If you take something and keep making small changes to it over a long enough time period, the end result will be pretty different from the beginning. For example, take a look at the "evolution" of automobiles. Through the years cars have changed, bit by bit, from model year to model year. For the most part these have been small changes, inclusions of new features and new ideas. We've had a few mutations and radical jumps in car designs, but for the most part next year's car looks and performs a great deal like last year's. Yet if you compared a model T to the ltest luxery car, the differences would be astonding. And that's nothing compared to the time frame biological evolution happens over.

Goddamn new posts.

Nickswitz wrote:Wait, so your saying that god couldn't have made a species that was similar to 2 different species? I don't see how that's proof of much...

If God was responsible, you'd expect to see things progressing unnaturaly. Such as giraffes suddenly having long necks, instead of progressing very slowly from horse-like creatures to the long necked things we have now.

Also, if God did create all life, why was he so damn unimaginative? Every creature on the same planet follows one of just a handful of different body plans. Where are the six limbed horses? Why no dragons? Why aren't there any acid-spraying lions?

Nickswitz wrote:And I would say that micro evolution is 'true' except that it doesn't begin to transform one species into a different species...

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the same thing. The only difference is one of time.

Put simply, let's say you take an animal. Over thousands of years, lots of little changes are going to happen. Its claws may grow longer. The muscles in its jaws may grow larger. Its fur may change colour. Its ears may become longer. Its eyes may move closer together. Etc, etc, etc. Lots of little changes that, taken on their own, don't do much.
But when you take all those tiny changes together, what are you left with? A completely different animal than the one you originaly had.

The only difference is time. Once you have a lot of micro-evolution, you have macro-evolution. They're the same thing.

Seafort... What do you mean by traits jumping between evolutionary branches... You mean like arms on a whale or something like that?

WTF was up with your analogy... I really don't get it...



Rochey... Yes, that's kinda what I was getting at with the what do atheist's believe, lol.

And about the un-imaginativeness, maybe he didn't want them...

And what about the duck billed platypus, that's pretty random... A mammal that lays eggs, and has a bill... It's just weird...

Excuse me as I run my mouth here a bit, feel free to ignore me.

I have to wonder, what makes certain (not all) religious people think that intelligent design has any place in a science classroom? Science and religion are two seperate things, they are not the opposite sides of the same coin, they are totally different currencies.

I AM NOT saying that a person can't have both science and religion in their life, it is up to the individual to determine how much of each they want to embrace.

But if the class is suppose to be about science, it needs to stay about science. Teaching a religious viewpoint in a science class makes as much sense as teaching long division in English class. The one has nothing to do with the other.

Yes, I realize that certain points of science disagree with certain points of religion. But then again, certain points of science disagree with other points of science, as certain points of religion disagree with other points of religion. Human error and lack of a greater understanding the likely cause in all three cases.

If you don't want to believe in evolution, that is your choice to make. If you do believe, it is also your choice. But lets keep things where they belong. Evolution is a science matter, it belongs in science classes. Intelligent design is a religious matter, it belongs in either the church or a religion class. Stop trying to shove religion into science, it's a poor fit.

Nickswitz wrote:Seafort... What do you mean by traits jumping between evolutionary branches... You mean like arms on a whale or something like that?

He means that instead of a steady and gradual progression, we should see traits suddenly appearing on animals with no precedent. Like giraffes suddenly going from being horse-like animals to the long-necked creatures we see now.

Nickswitz wrote:Rochey... Yes, that's kinda what I was getting at with the what do atheist's believe, lol.

Well, that'd probably be best as a thread of its own. You'll probably get a different answer from each atheist.

Nickswitz wrote:And about the un-imaginativeness, maybe he didn't want them...

Then God's boring.

Nickswitz wrote:And what about the duck billed platypus, that's pretty random... A mammal that lays eggs, and has a bill... It's just weird...

It's an odd one, but far fom unique. Echidnas are somewhat similar, in that they are mammals yet lay eggs. They're collectively known as monotremes, and there's been quite a few fossils found of them. IIRC, David Attenborough's got a species named after him.

Nickswitz wrote:Seafort... What do you mean by traits jumping between evolutionary branches... You mean like arms on a whale or something like that?

WTF was up with your analogy... I really don't get it...



Rochey... Yes, that's kinda what I was getting at with the what do atheist's believe, lol.

And about the un-imaginativeness, maybe he didn't want them...

And what about the duck billed platypus, that's pretty random... A mammal that lays eggs, and has a bill... It's just weird...

"weirdness" is not a scientific criterion. As long as we can fit the duck billed platypus into a clear evolutionary lineage and describe how these "weird" traits are adaptive (help it survive in its ecological niche) this animal is perfectly logical and consistent with scientific principles.

As to His 'unimaginativeness,' we can speculate all we want about what He wants, but until He rides down from Cloud Nine on his magic carpet to tell us it's purely speculative. Thus, the argument is a dead end: there is simply no way to tell who is right and anyone can say, "well, it's because He said so..."

Sionnach Glic wrote:He means that instead of a steady and gradual progression, we should see traits suddenly appearing on animals with no precedent. Like giraffes suddenly going from being horse-like animals to the long-necked creatures we see now.

This is why I say I believe that 'Micro-evolution' has a high chance of being correct...

Sionnach Glic wrote:It's an odd one, but far fom unique. Echidnas are somewhat similar, in that they are mammals yet lay eggs. They're collectively known as monotremes, and there's been quite a few fossils found of them. IIRC, David Attenborough's got a species named after him.

haha, If there are only a few of them... I would call them very unique... just sayin...


As to CPH, yes, all we have is speculation... That's what makes these threads so interesting... lol

Nickswitz wrote:This is why I say I believe that 'Micro-evolution' has a high chance of being correct...

Then you also believe that evolution has a high chance of being correct. They're the same thing.

Nickswitz wrote:haha, If there are only a few of them... I would call them very unique... just sayin...

They're rare now because they were out-performed by other types of mammals. They survive now because they've found a niche in which they can live. As I pointed out, we've found quite a few fossils of older species of monotremes.

Nickswitz wrote:

Sionnach Glic wrote:He means that instead of a steady and gradual progression, we should see traits suddenly appearing on animals with no precedent. Like giraffes suddenly going from being horse-like animals to the long-necked creatures we see now.

This is why I say I believe that 'Micro-evolution' has a high chance of being correct...

Very well: assuming "micro-" evolution is correct, by what means would these incremental changes not add up over time to form completely different animals (i.e., macro-evolution)? Remember, we're talking about very long time scales here...

Captain Picard's Hair wrote:

Nickswitz wrote:

Sionnach Glic wrote:He means that instead of a steady and gradual progression, we should see traits suddenly appearing on animals with no precedent. Like giraffes suddenly going from being horse-like animals to the long-necked creatures we see now.

This is why I say I believe that 'Micro-evolution' has a high chance of being correct...

Very well: assuming "micro-" evolution is correct, by what means would these incremental changes not add up over time to form completely different animals (i.e., macro-evolution)? Remember, we're talking about very long time scales here...

Yes, eventually I guess that it could make it so that 'new' species would be formed... eventually... but if that was so, then what would differentiate them? One species from another?