"Kansas repeals science guidelines questioning evolution" — OZONE Asylum, home of the Mad Scientists

Philosophy and other Silliness

"Kansas repeals science guidelines questioning evolution"

This page's ID: 28946

Edit Post

Who can edit a post?	The poster and administrators may edit a post. The poster can only edit it for a short while after the initial post.

Your User Name:
Your Password:
Login Options:	Remember Me On This Computer

Your Text: Insert Slimies » Insert UBB Code » Close Last Tag \| All Tags UBB Help	[quote]WebShaman -- Exasperated sighs are not necessary. Neither are words in caps. You're not speaking to a six year old, you're debating with an adult.[/quote] Then you misunderstood me here - it is an exasperated sigh because we have had this sort of debate with those who believe as you do (or, I should say, present their beliefs as you do) [i]ad infinitum[/i] before. The same old, tired topics. Everytime, they have been soundly defeated. As such, you have already been defeated, you alone are just not aware of it yet. [quote]To make sure that we're all on the same page here, I'm not arguing micro-evolution. Yes, you can breed something to look completely different. If you put a pile of giraffes in a land with tall trees, you'll either find no giraffes in X years or giraffes with significantly longer necks. Yes you may ind cows that get so fat that they stand in water because their legs can't support them. No, you won't see their legs disappear and gills grow.[/quote] You make alot of rather off-in-the-boonies comparisons here, none of which you can back up. You yourself have no idea what can happen over millions of years (as you have not lived that long). You make conclusions that you cannot back up. You seem to think that evolution only occurs instantaneously, or even within your lifetime. Or within a few thousand years. The reason that we often use species that have a really short lifespan, is so that we can use them to speed up the process - they have generations much faster than larger species do. Thus, one can shrink the amount of time that they need to be observed to witness evolutionary changes. [quote]While looking through the five common misconceptions, I found a few interesting things. The first is their list of "Observed Instances of Specification". They're plants and fruit flies, perhaps the easiest things to toy with. Alright, so they get a rather mutated offspring. That checks out. But, the fruit flies they bred didn't turn into ants. You could breed them to the point where they have no wings and look like ants, but they're still fruit flies. They won't seek out different food, or work with a pack mentality.[/quote] You also need to keep in mind, that the fruit fly is distantly related to the ant (and I mean distant - they had a common ancestor way, way back in the generations tree). This is what is referred to, not a fruit fly turning into an ant (or vice versa here), but that this common ancestor had the potiential to become both and did. I personally have no idea what potiential lies within a fruit fly, in the sense of evolutionary potiential. What it would become if subjected to the same evolutionary processes as the common ancestor is beyond me. Perhaps it would die. In any event, we are talking about rather substantial amounts of generations here. That equates to time. Still, that is beyond the point here. Again, you are setting up ridiculous situations here. It shows that you have very little understanding of the subject matter. This is why I suggested that you study the material well and learn it, for some of us have. [quote]Their other arguments seemed to try and sidestep the issue or target people basing their entire argument on one point. For instance, the one on transitional fossils. You'll note that I didn't say there weren't any, I just said there were a few key ones that they haven't found yet.[/quote] Nothing has been sidestepped (if you think so, state your evidence, please). As for targeting one point - well, if people state one point, it will be targeted. But there are also examples of addressing people with multiple points. Perhaps you need to read more? [quote]And here I'm marked for not understanding Evolution because I quote thermodynamics. Let me call you people out who think ID folks think the world is flat.[/quote] Yes, you got nailed for attempting to use the Thermodynamic gig, that has been debunked. That really does show that you know little of Evolution, in fact, it really shows that you are a believer. As such, you will not be able to offer any evidence for your belief (otherwise, it would not be a belief, would it?). I am not aware of anyone on these boards who seriously think that all ID folks believe that the world is flat, or that all believe that the world does not turn. However, some seem to. And for the record, ID is not Science, it is belief. Evolution is science, it is not belief. [url=http://faq.ozoneasylum.com/397/]WebShaman[/url] \| [i]The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities. - Sophocles[/i] [small](Edited by [url=http://www.ozoneasylum.com/user/925]WebShaman[/url] on 02-19-2007 11:54)[/small] Loading...
Options:	Enable Slimies Enable Linkwords

« Backwards — Onwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu