Farewell Poopsmith

[madviking]

I don't see why that follows....

If you have a species that evolves in small, small steps, over time, those small, small steps will accumulate to something which is categorically different than what you started with.

Spoiler :

For example, consider the text in this sentence. It starts out small, but gradually increases in size until it's something that's pretty big.

You can't say what you began with is the same as what you ended with.

Hence, if you believe microevolution, belief in macroevolution follows.

Edit: I don't even think 'microevolution' is even a proper scientific term. I think it's just a way for creationists to appear somewhat with the times in terms of their believes; an apparent middle ground. But seeing as I have never encountered neither micro- nor macroevolution outside of creationism debates I'm doubtful the word has any currency in the scientific community.

 

[GhostWriter16]

If you have a species that evolves in small, small steps, over time, those small, small steps will accumulate to something which is categorically different than what you started with.

Spoiler :

For example, consider the text in this sentence. It starts out small, but gradually increases in size until it's something that's pretty big.

You can't say what you began with is the same as what you ended with.

Hence, if you believe microevolution, belief in macroevolution follows.

I'm not going to get into another evolution debate, but my opinion is that the buck stops at the species level. Two dogs can make all the dogs. But they'll never make a non-dog.

 

[madviking]

Two dogs can make all the dogs. But they'll never make a non-dog.

That's a misunderstanding of the mechanics of evolution.

 

[Antilogic]

If you have a species that evolves in small, small steps, over time, those small, small steps will accumulate to something which is categorically different than what you started with.

Spoiler :

For example, consider the text in this sentence. It starts out small, but gradually increases in size until it's something that's pretty big.

You can't say what you began with is the same as what you ended with.

Hence, if you believe microevolution, belief in macroevolution follows.

Edit: I don't even think 'microevolution' is even a proper scientific term. I think it's just a way for creationists to appear somewhat with the times in terms of their believes; an apparent middle ground. But seeing as I have never encountered neither micro- nor macroevolution outside of creationism debates I'm doubtful the word has any currency in the scientific community.

Microevolution is not a term that I am familiar with from scientific literature--it's basically an invented middle ground that allows people to deny the conclusions of evolution over long time periods while avoiding the observed facts from biochemical studies.

I'm not going to get into another evolution debate, but my opinion is that the buck stops at the species level. Two dogs can make all the dogs. But they'll never make a non-dog.

You do realize that the line between speciation is simply a matter of producing reproductively viable offspring, right? As few as 6 mutations, according to Kenneth Miller, may be able to cause speciation.

When people accept micro- and not macro-evolution (using these terms despite my reservations about them), what they are really suggesting is they don't agree with the time scale involved. So how old is the Earth, GW?

 

[GhostWriter16]

IMO? Somewhere between six and twenty thousand years. If pressed, I'd say about 10.

 

[Antilogic]

IMO? Somewhere between six and twenty thousand years. If pressed, I'd say about 10.

Well, that explains that.

Science still disagrees with you, though.

 

[BasketCase]

So how old is the Earth, GW?

Ask Slartibartfast. He works for the people who built it.

 

[useless]

So homosexuality isn't natural... yet it occurs in many species? In nature?

 

[Dachs]

Man, this thread was way more interesting when it was about the legality of Roman dictatorships.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

sex is designed for two married people to come together

Contrary to what you see in movies, it's rather uncommon for people to come together.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't know that the immorality can be determined without assuming an intelligent designer. Other than some sort of glib "Sex with women is so much better" response

(Note: that's not my answer)

Ok, then we'll reintroduce the intelligent designer. Why is "unnatural" activity immoral, and how do we distinguish the "unnatural" from the merely non-natural?

If the book is worth reading, yes

I'm quite serious. What, at the risk of sounding ridiculous, makes god so special?

 

[LegionSteve]

Man, this thread was way more interesting when it was about the legality of Roman dictatorships.

Yes. I just came here expecting to see more Santorum jokes, and instead I saw this

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Yes. I just came here expecting to see more Santorum jokes, and instead I saw this

8 pages into a thread about Santorum and you didn't see this coming ???

 

[peter grimes]

Considering I don't believe in macroevolution, I don't see how ANY of those questions are aplicable.

Hah! Nice try, but I'm not going to let you off that easy

How do you account for the legions of human societies that don't pair-bond? Do you chalk that up to simple achristianity? Or do you find those cases to be the proof of the pudding? I'm sure you're aware that monogamous pair-bonding in humans is the exception, not the rule. This has been confirmed through multiple lines of inquiry: Anthropology, genetics, sociology, comparative sociology, and so on and so forth.

....and as far as the age of the earth goes, do you not understand how we are able to bracket the dates of creation of cave paintings? We have human-produced artifacts (redundant, I know) from more than 20kya - and we even have bones, clothing, poops, grafitti...

You think that every archaeologist is in a conspiracy to keep the young age of the earth a secret from the sheeple?

Are the nuclear researchers who discovered the underlying physics of radioactivity in on this? That would explain why they use radio-carbon dating for these recent timescales (5kya - 50kya).

And the geologists - man are they a bunch of liars! Every last one of them (except those rare few who break out of the pack and pen opinion pieces for the Discovery Institute!) is cooperating with the cabal of Archeaologists and Radiologists.

Oh, but the Biologists recently got on the band wagon with all their 'jeaneticks' which confirms the lies and subterfuges of the Grand Cabal.

Or, the simpler explanation, earth really is as old as the scientists claim.

But I'd really like an answer to the Sex stuff I quoted myself asking

 

[Antilogic]

Man, this thread was way more interesting when it was about the legality of Roman dictatorships.

I thought another derailed thread where Andrew Jackson's name came up would have been an interesting place to continue the discussion.

Yes. I just came here expecting to see more Santorum jokes, and instead I saw this

Welcome to the Tavern, where the threads are made up and the content doesn't matter!

 

[_random_]

Okay, so which candidate do I have to vote for to get Homestarrunner back?

Democracy lacks the necessary mechanisms to accomplish that.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, if you believe that "God" deemed homosexual sex to be a sin, then you'll have to explain why he not only inspired St Paul to write divine commands to page, but also the other writers posing as St Paul. Otherwise, the Bible clearly isn't absolute and infallible divine will.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'm quite serious. What, at the risk of sounding ridiculous, makes god so special?

That is well beyond ridiculous....

 

[Traitorfish]

Do you not have an answer?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Its a non-question.