Can you demonstrate your understanding of evolution?

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by AliceHouse, Aug 26, 2013.

  1. FeedMeMore

    FeedMeMore Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,137
    How about no/ How about the same reason she doesn't want to go deep into it is the same reason I don't. Basically you are looking to find something in my understanding that may be wrong and then try and negate my opinion based on the one thing. I've already shown more about my idea than anyone else in the thread. When Alice is ready to come out of her hole than maybe we can have a conversation
    test
  2. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,618
    hahaha cop out

    ALICE WINS
    test
  3. FeedMeMore

    FeedMeMore Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,137
    whatever you want to believe in your head. Hasn't won any competition I'm in I'mnot required to answer a question on command and if you bothered read the thread I've shown a basic idea what evolution but refuse to go deeper with people like you and her who refuse to answer the question themselves
    test
  4. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,618
    its a cop out by definition you cant deny that. Look up the definition if you want, but i already posted it


    so your answer is that you will never demonstrate your understanding of it for as long as this forum exists all because alice asked the question.

    hahahaha man...

    you know we're right. What i believe is irrelevant. The fact is you wont do it. Which is what alice was demonstrating by this thread

    so this thread is 100% win
    test
  5. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    you're trying to twist the circumstances to serve your point, but that doesn't match up with the actual state of things with the scientific consensus regarding evolution. the vast majority of the scientists who specialize in the fields affected by evolution accept the theory. only a handful of them don't, all of whom are religious and believe in some form of creationism.

    common sense dictates that it's a well established theory and that the religious objection to it is more theological than scientific. so it makes more sense to lend credibility to the scientific establishment than it does to lend credibility to their desperate detractors, in this case. even if you don't understand evolution. basic common sense should be enough to show you which side is more likely to be right.
    test
  6. FeedMeMore

    FeedMeMore Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,137
    Commons sense dictates its a well established theory that is correct but it doesn't mean that it's a correct though And it doesn't dictate that everything said in the theory is correct. Some Christians believe in micro evolution and not macro evolution/ Some believe in some macro evolution but not the evolution of man. Evolution is a very diverse theory and there are allot of conclusions made based on that theory that could or couldn't be correct ( THe origin of man)


    It's not commone sense that says which is right it's whatever you view as an authority in your life will decide for you what is right. We look at the consensus of the scientific community differently.
    test
  7. FeedMeMore

    FeedMeMore Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,137
    No my answer is I've shown a basic idea and definition of evolution but I'm not going deeper because I don't feel too. And feel the reason why you are looking for those who deny evolution to show there idea of evolution is too nitpick there idea and search and try and find fault in there understanding to negate there opinion. Don't feel like going through that so I say if she wants to throw out the challenge She needs to meet that challenge first

    If it's a cop out than her refusing to answer is a cop out aswell But for some reason you think it's ok for her not to answer her question but everyone else who doesn't answer is a cop out

    Are you Alice under a different name as that bias doesn't make sense
    test
  8. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,618

    just as you have done... its only fair. That was the point of this thread, thanks for proving Alice right

    i even offered for you to do it for me, i cant nitpick i dont know much about it.. but nope
    test
  9. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    @FeedMeMore, one last time.

    People who do not accept evolution do not understand evolution.

    The challenge is to show that this is wrong by someone who rejects evolution to demonstrate that they still understand what it is.

    1 - I am obviously exempt from this challenge because I accept evolution.

    2 - It's nowhere near as big and scary as you make it sound, and can be summed up in some pretty simple terms.

    3 - You haven't demonstrated any understanding. If anything, you've demonstrated a misunderstanding. (There is no such thing as macro and micro-evolution.)

    THE ENTIRE IDEA is that someone can both understand and reject evolution. In so far as this post has demonstrated, that is simply not the case, and the original premise still stands. Those who reject evolution, do not understand it.
    test
  10. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,469
    We're talking evolution. It is one prevailing theory, and not an umbrella of two sub-theories called microevolution and macroevolution. You look at microevolution and it's like a sample of what evolution does on a small scale. Macroevolution is the larger scale. You get the overall picture of evolution.
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2013
    test
  11. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,469
    And MOST Christians accept the whole of evolution! Be it, they might add God into the picture, that's not the point though.
    test
  12. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    the fact that it's a well established theory means that it is much more likely to be correct than it is to be incorrect, because that is what the evidence indicates. that's literally what makes it well established. so sure, there are disagreements within the theory, each of which might claim its own interpretation of the evidence. those disagreements do not include whether macro-evolution happens or the strange idea that the theory wouldn't apply to the origins of man, despite being the explanation for all biological diversity. those are positions of religious critics who have their own reasons for believing what they do. there's virtually no scientific disagreement on those questions.

    more importantly, they aren't diverse aspects of the theory. they logically follow from the theory being true. if evolution is true, micro-evolution will arise as immediate adaptions, while macro-evolution will arise as an accumulation of those adaptions over time. it's the same process, different time scale. applying it to human development as well is just a matter of being intellectually consistent.
    the reason i don't really buy that is that pretty much everyone accepts the scientific consensus on the vast majority of topics. if scientists conclude that a moon of jupiter has a high quantity of some element, you're not really going to disagree with them, are you? you'd probably just accept that they know more about it than you and go on with your day. that's what most normal people do. so they're only suddenly 'not an authority' when it comes to a conclusion that disrupts some preconceived notion of the world that you happen to hold. that's just not a rational reason to brush off the authority of an entire field of people who know more about a topic than you do.
    test
  13. FeedMeMore

    FeedMeMore Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,137
    I do not accept that challenge. I change the challenge and say show you understand evolution first

    There's no macro or micro evolution? You're an idiot


    Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.[3] Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.[4][1]
    test
  14. FeedMeMore

    FeedMeMore Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,137
    But there's difference as many people accept the idea of microevolution. It's been visually seen and can't really be denied. Many more people have trouble with accepting the idea of Macroevolution theories.
    test
  15. FeedMeMore

    FeedMeMore Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,137
    There was a time when the general consensus was that we came from monkeys that was proven false and it turned to we both have the same ancestor. The general consensus is not always the correct one. If you just accept what the general consensus tells you that's on you I do not
    test
  16. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,618
    In the time of chimpanzees i was a monkey
    test
  17. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    you're thinking of the fact that we didn't evolve from modern apes/monkeys. it was never the scientific consensus that we did so, it was (and still is) more of a popular misconception among the public.

    that aside, yes, the consensus can be wrong. nobody has suggested that it can't. but that doesn't make it rational to reject the consensus for completely arbitrary and non-scientific reasons.

    and after 150 years of research, chances are that if they did get it wrong, it's in the details and not in the general picture. once you do understand what evidence there is for it, it quickly becomes clear that there's very little chance that the general picture of macro-evolution is not true.
    test
  18. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Why do non believers get to claim the entire concept of evolution.
    Evolution by deffinition and in and of itself is true. Things evolve. things adapt.

    There is no arguement here.

    The question and stance should be and more accurately put is and like feedmore suggested the actual point of contention.

    which is with macro evolution.
    A point within the theory of evolution.

    Evolution itself can be shown as always having been a part of the plan of God
    through the flood story.
    test
  19. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    non-believers don't have a monopoly on evolution... because there are religious people who accept the theory as is. trying to separate macro-evolution from micro-evolution as if they're two different theories is wrong for reasons that have been explained to you countless times.
    test
  20. FeedMeMore

    FeedMeMore Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,137
    The fact of the matter is there is contention between macro and micro evolution. Macro and micro evolution are two different theories within the overall evolution and some people don't believe in both.
    Some people don't believe in the evolution of man. I was asked to show basic understanding of evolution and I believe I've shown more understanding of evolution than most in this group
    test

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)