Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Strawman. Evolutionists do not believe "... a nonintelligent process would think."

That would require magic. Belief in such a thing is Creationist thinking.

Strawman. Evolutionists do not believe that a non-intelligent process that thinks "would develop living organisms and develop everything that is a necessity for for living things to come into existence."

That would require magic. Belief in such a thing is Creationist thinking.

Non-Sequitur.

Evolutionists don't really hate that they "can't prove a natural process could have produced all the life and order we do see in nature."

Creationists hate that they can't produce ANY logically valid verifiable evidence for this "Creator" they posit--let alone "proof." "[Creationists] can't explain this ... it's inexplicable!"

Naw. We just don't accept your "Texas Sharpshooting" as any kind of valid argument for the "precision in nature" you keep peddling.

If you don't hate, why are you here???

The meaning (or more likely, the validity) of the premise of your question is unclear; hence I'm not clear about the question that is being asked.

What are you worried about loki it was just a simple question.

 

[Youwerecreated]

To follow up on the comment in connection with the creationist cosmological argument, I also see appeals to the creaqtionist teleological argument. The fundie looks around his reality and sees order. To him, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since the fundie cannot accept that immense time spans and nature can account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a being who actively created the entire thing.

The first error the fundie makes is fairly simple: If nature exhibits design and requires a designer, then doesn't it also follow that the Designer exhibits design as well? Since this corollary must follow given the parameters of the classic teleological argument, the next question must be: "Who designed the Designer?" To not ask this pertinent question is to abandon the argument's premise in the first place, and the model crumbles.

Hollie, this is your best cut and paste attempt at sounding smart yet!! However, the answer to your bolded question above is a resounding "NO!!" Let's construct your argument and include all the unspoken assumptions you are making above.

If nature is designed, it requires a designer.
Humans are in nature.
Humans have a designer.
Humans design things.
All designers are designed.

This is a fallacious argument my dear. Once again you have assumed the false premise that the Designer of the universe is subject to the laws of nature. Our religion teaches He is not and exists outside the natural world in the spiritual realm.

Usually the fundie will reply that God(s), being the Designer, falls outside of the laws he himself creates,

Yes!!!

No!! The ability to create laws does not necessarily require one to be outside of the intended environment the law is to pertain to and this is where your argument goes fallacious. There is no requirement for a lawmaker to be in or outside the environment he is creating laws for. A US Senator can create laws for the US, in which he resides. A principle can create laws for the third grade classroom, which do not pertain to him.
Not sure what this question is all about because it doesn't really make sense. Are you assuming God created the laws of physics? Then when was the last time you saw God? Based on your next example, it would infer that you are saying men created the laws of physics. I would argue that the laws of physics as described by humans are just that... descriptions. They attempt to describe ultimate reality but they are not ultimate reality, only attempted descriptions.

For example, imagine a law created by men. The true spirit of that law, i.e., theft is to be punished, covers those who create the law as well. They may well violate their own laws, but they also reap the same consequences as anyone else who breaks the law. Of course, it may be argued, since human justice is imperfect there are plenty of examples of people violating the law and getting away with it -- but this is an imperfection given our imperfect nature.

Again, your assumption is that the creators of said laws are contained within the environment they created the laws for. This is not the case with the universe. And defintely not the case for created devices of which we are not contained in. For example, I am not subject to the laws of a circuit board. Nor am I subject to the laws of an internal gas combustion engine. I do not require an otto cycle for my motive force. Your argument could state that me, the circuit board, and the engine are all subject to the laws of physics, but the validity of your augment would rest on the claim that I created the laws of physics.

Such caveats do not apply to the laws of physics. One must obey the laws of physics-- there is no choice in the matter.
Imagine now a law of nature or physics -- let's use gravity as the example. Gravity simply is, and we can both see and test its properties in a myriad of ways.

Your point here? Humans are subject to gravity. Humans did not create gravity.

She needs to ask herself who created the evolver or how the evolver evolved.

 

[ima]

False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.

I suppose your not so subtle threat means your angry gods are plotting? And you know that how?

How do you know that "no one created the creator"? You just make that up?

That is where faith comes in,i have no reason to doubt what the word of God say's.

Just like you would need faith to believe everything is the result of natural processes.

No, faith by definition is the belief in something unprovable, whereas science is in the business of finding proof for their theories of natural processes.
But I know, you need to convince yourself that everyone's thinking is built on faith because otherwise you'd feel foolish for being the only one believing in something for which there is zero proof.

Btw, if god had something to say to mankind, don't you think it would speak up? What you're referring to are words written by unknown men who said god told someone. You don't see that as a load of crap?

 

[Hollie]

To follow up on the comment in connection with the creationist cosmological argument, I also see appeals to the creaqtionist teleological argument. The fundie looks around his reality and sees order. To him, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since the fundie cannot accept that immense time spans and nature can account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a being who actively created the entire thing.

The first error the fundie makes is fairly simple: If nature exhibits design and requires a designer, then doesn't it also follow that the Designer exhibits design as well? Since this corollary must follow given the parameters of the classic teleological argument, the next question must be: "Who designed the Designer?" To not ask this pertinent question is to abandon the argument's premise in the first place, and the model crumbles.

Hollie, this is your best cut and paste attempt at sounding smart yet!! However, the answer to your bolded question above is a resounding "NO!!" Let's construct your argument and include all the unspoken assumptions you are making above.

If nature is designed, it requires a designer.
Humans are in nature.
Humans have a designer.
Humans design things.
All designers are designed.

This is a fallacious argument my dear. Once again you have assumed the false premise that the Designer of the universe is subject to the laws of nature. Our religion teaches He is not and exists outside the natural world in the spiritual realm.

Yes!!!

No!! The ability to create laws does not necessarily require one to be outside of the intended environment the law is to pertain to and this is where your argument goes fallacious. There is no requirement for a lawmaker to be in or outside the environment he is creating laws for. A US Senator can create laws for the US, in which he resides. A principle can create laws for the third grade classroom, which do not pertain to him.
Not sure what this question is all about because it doesn't really make sense. Are you assuming God created the laws of physics? Then when was the last time you saw God? Based on your next example, it would infer that you are saying men created the laws of physics. I would argue that the laws of physics as described by humans are just that... descriptions. They attempt to describe ultimate reality but they are not ultimate reality, only attempted descriptions.

Again, your assumption is that the creators of said laws are contained within the environment they created the laws for. This is not the case with the universe. And defintely not the case for created devices of which we are not contained in. For example, I am not subject to the laws of a circuit board. Nor am I subject to the laws of an internal gas combustion engine. I do not require an otto cycle for my motive force. Your argument could state that me, the circuit board, and the engine are all subject to the laws of physics, but the validity of your augment would rest on the claim that I created the laws of physics.

Such caveats do not apply to the laws of physics. One must obey the laws of physics-- there is no choice in the matter.
Imagine now a law of nature or physics -- let's use gravity as the example. Gravity simply is, and we can both see and test its properties in a myriad of ways.

Your point here? Humans are subject to gravity. Humans did not create gravity.

She needs to ask herself who created the evolver or how the evolver evolved.

What a typically nonsensical comment.

In spite of the claims to supernaturalism, gods and magical events insisted upon by fundies, all completely without evidence and justification, we have every reason to reject such irrationality. There is no evidence of a personal, designer gods and no evidence of the necessary hierarchy of designers of designer gods. There is no reason to believe that we are created in the image if any God(s). In spite of the requirement for fundies to attach human emotions to their god(s), the universe does not have emotions, desires, feelings, thoughts, longings, or intentions. The universe is neither jealous nor angry, not forgiving or merciful. The universe does not demand sacrifice, prayer, worship or slaughter of animals.

All of the feelings, emotions and other human attributes heaped upon gods by superstitious fundies is not advancing of humanity.

At the end if the day, an uninterested, uninvolved and uncaring entity: a God or God(s) is synonymous with “nothing”. So why give “nothingness” human attributes?

 

[UltimateReality]

Hollie, this is your best cut and paste attempt at sounding smart yet!! However, the answer to your bolded question above is a resounding "NO!!" Let's construct your argument and include all the unspoken assumptions you are making above.

If nature is designed, it requires a designer.
Humans are in nature.
Humans have a designer.
Humans design things.
All designers are designed.

This is a fallacious argument my dear. Once again you have assumed the false premise that the Designer of the universe is subject to the laws of nature. Our religion teaches He is not and exists outside the natural world in the spiritual realm.

Oddly, the above is precisely the ebb and flow of your argument.

You don't seem to be able to understand your own argument for gods is one large circular reference.

Usually the fundie will reply that God(s), being the Designer, falls outside of the laws he himself creates,

Yes!!!

I think it’s obvious that the entirety of your argument is based upon an irrational precept. You arbitrarily exempt your gods from any rational critique.

Wrong!!! It may not be scientifically provable, but it is VERY rational and logical from a religious standpoint.

 

[UltimateReality]

If you insist that ID is science, and you place an intelligent designer at the foundation of you science, then you are most certainly pretending that your belief in God is a scientific principle--for fuck's sake ... it's the identifying principle of ID "science."

This is where your confusion with ID arises. My belief that the Designer is the Judeo Christian God is a religious belief. ID makes no metaphysical claims about the identity of the designer. It just claims the necessity for a designer is evident and arguable from a scientific standpoint. The designer could be an alien life form for all we know under ID, although this would go back to the question of how the aliens arose. Again, ID says we can infer a designer based on empirical evidence. It won't make the claim about any of the attributes or identity of that designer.

 

[UltimateReality]

Once again you have assumed the false premise that the Designer of the universe is subject to the laws of nature. Our religion teaches He is not and exists outside the natural world in the spiritual realm.

Your invisible being is in another dimension not subject to the laws of this universe?

My question is: why is anyone wasting their time with an imbecile of this magnitude? If believing such utter nonsense makes you able to go on in life, good for you, you've found your "opium" so that you don't have to think anymore.
Hollie, move on, there's nothing to debate here. UR is convinced of her invisible superbeing in another dimension for which any size of horseshit pile can explain anything, just adjust the amount.

Uma, please respond to the philosophical arguments I presented a few post above if you've got is so figured out and you are on such a higher intellectual plain than everyone else.

 

[UltimateReality]

Once again you have assumed the false premise that the Designer of the universe is subject to the laws of nature. Our religion teaches He is not and exists outside the natural world in the spiritual realm.

Your invisible being is in another dimension not subject to the laws of this universe?

My question is: why is anyone wasting their time with an imbecile of this magnitude? If believing such utter nonsense makes you able to go on in life, good for you, you've found your "opium" so that you don't have to think anymore.
Hollie, move on, there's nothing to debate here. UR is convinced of her invisible superbeing in another dimension for which any size of horseshit pile can explain anything, just adjust the amount.

I can appreciate your thoughts.

It's typical for fundies to insist with 100% certainty (and with 0% facts), as to their particular partisan version of gods being true and inerrant to the exclusion of competing religions/ gods. This is done while making special pleadings for an exemption from any requirement to bring forth even the most basic of proofs for their beliefs. What matters of course and what is rejected by the fundie within his demands for allowances to special pleading is the standards by which belief should be applied. The fundie will demand an exemption from any rational standard of support for, and evidence for his claims because absent the requirement that others must accept supernaturalism as his argument, the claims to gods are simply background noise.

If you objectively observe the comparisons between reason and rationality vs. fear and superstition, you will see that fundies will consistently reject the natural explanations in favor of the supernatural assertions (they are hardly explanations), and they will always apply special pleadings when doing so. It's done consistently by the fundies in this thread. Despite clear evidence of various religions building themselves upon fraudulent terms and predefined suppositions, the fundies will to continue to insist upon such circular reasoning as:

"My gods are true and inerrant"

and how do we know this?

"This is what I was told the bible says"

and how do we know the bible is true?

"Because I believe it is true."

and why do you believe the bible is true?

"Because I was told the bible is true"

Despite clear examples of such chicanery with people who are promoting such fraud who are doing it and culling the gullible, fundies exempt their particular beliefs from charges of fraud. They will, of course, reject such fraudulent claims from those who offer the same circular arguments for competing religious belief.

Fundies do this because they have a deep seated desire to "believe" and will not apply the strictures of reason, rationality and true knowledge to their claims. So every piece of evidence that comes along that truly dismantles the belief system, they must reject and escape into the special pleading loophole. In discussions like this I've had with fundies, there is a consistent pattern of self inflicted ignorance typically bolstered by such comments as "I don't care what evidence you got, I ain't believin' in it".

Strawman!! We do not insist with 100% certainty. Belief in God is a religious belief you moron. No one is making it out to be more than that. You are the one going around calling a theory a fact and pretending 100% certainty on something so totally laughable as natural selection!!

What do you fear? Why are you so scared to confirm or deny things about your personal life?

Daws probably wants to know why you continue to ignore me on these points, especially when I have agreed to admit I'm wrong if that is the case and not ever mention it again.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, this is your best cut and paste attempt at sounding smart yet!! However, the answer to your bolded question above is a resounding "NO!!" Let's construct your argument and include all the unspoken assumptions you are making above.

If nature is designed, it requires a designer.
Humans are in nature.
Humans have a designer.
Humans design things.
All designers are designed.

This is a fallacious argument my dear. Once again you have assumed the false premise that the Designer of the universe is subject to the laws of nature. Our religion teaches He is not and exists outside the natural world in the spiritual realm.

Oddly, the above is precisely the ebb and flow of your argument.

You don't seem to be able to understand your own argument for gods is one large circular reference.

Usually the fundie will reply that God(s), being the Designer, falls outside of the laws he himself creates,

Yes!!!

I think it’s obvious that the entirety of your argument is based upon an irrational precept. You arbitrarily exempt your gods from any rational critique.

Wrong!!! It may not be scientifically provable, but it is VERY rational and logical from a religious standpoint.

Nonsense. There is nothing rational or logical about asserting supernatural entities. By your standards (such as they are), we could presume that plunging large needles into dolls bearing the likeness of humans is also rational and logical. Santaria is just as rational and logical as christianity.

 

[UltimateReality]

Oddly, the above is precisely the ebb and flow of your argument.

You don't seem to be able to understand your own argument for gods is one large circular reference.



Yes!!!

I think it’s obvious that the entirety of your argument is based upon an irrational precept. You arbitrarily exempt your gods from any rational critique.

Wrong!!! It may not be scientifically provable, but it is VERY rational and logical from a religious standpoint.

Nonsense. There is nothing rational or logical about asserting supernatural entities. By your standards (such as they are), we could presume that plunging large needles into dolls bearing the likeness of humans is also rational and logical. Santaria is just as rational and logical as christianity.

What do you fear? Why are you so scared to confirm or deny things about your personal life?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie, this is your best cut and paste attempt at sounding smart yet!! However, the answer to your bolded question above is a resounding "NO!!" Let's construct your argument and include all the unspoken assumptions you are making above.

If nature is designed, it requires a designer.
Humans are in nature.
Humans have a designer.
Humans design things.
All designers are designed.

This is a fallacious argument my dear. Once again you have assumed the false premise that the Designer of the universe is subject to the laws of nature. Our religion teaches He is not and exists outside the natural world in the spiritual realm.

Yes!!!

No!! The ability to create laws does not necessarily require one to be outside of the intended environment the law is to pertain to and this is where your argument goes fallacious. There is no requirement for a lawmaker to be in or outside the environment he is creating laws for. A US Senator can create laws for the US, in which he resides. A principle can create laws for the third grade classroom, which do not pertain to him.
Not sure what this question is all about because it doesn't really make sense. Are you assuming God created the laws of physics? Then when was the last time you saw God? Based on your next example, it would infer that you are saying men created the laws of physics. I would argue that the laws of physics as described by humans are just that... descriptions. They attempt to describe ultimate reality but they are not ultimate reality, only attempted descriptions.

Again, your assumption is that the creators of said laws are contained within the environment they created the laws for. This is not the case with the universe. And defintely not the case for created devices of which we are not contained in. For example, I am not subject to the laws of a circuit board. Nor am I subject to the laws of an internal gas combustion engine. I do not require an otto cycle for my motive force. Your argument could state that me, the circuit board, and the engine are all subject to the laws of physics, but the validity of your augment would rest on the claim that I created the laws of physics. Your point here? Humans are subject to gravity. Humans did not create gravity.

She needs to ask herself who created the evolver or how the evolver evolved.

What a typically nonsensical comment.

In spite of the claims to supernaturalism, gods and magical events insisted upon by fundies, all completely without evidence and justification, we have every reason to reject such irrationality. There is no evidence of a personal, designer gods and no evidence of the necessary hierarchy of designers of designer gods. There is no reason to believe that we are created in the image if any God(s). In spite of the requirement for fundies to attach human emotions to their god(s), the universe does not have emotions, desires, feelings, thoughts, longings, or intentions. The universe is neither jealous nor angry, not forgiving or merciful. The universe does not demand sacrifice, prayer, worship or slaughter of animals.

All of the feelings, emotions and other human attributes heaped upon gods by superstitious fundies is not advancing of humanity.

At the end if the day, an uninterested, uninvolved and uncaring entity: a God or God(s) is synonymous with “nothing”. So why give “nothingness” human attributes?

You believe a natural process of evolution caused the diversity of living organisms. Clearly the natural process had to evolve to go from complex organisms to more complex organisms.

How does this unintelligent process think to produce all the necessities for life to exist ? How can this process produce a planet that would sustain these living organisms ?

Takes faith to believe natural processes produced all we can see with purpose in mind.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oddly, the above is precisely the ebb and flow of your argument.

You don't seem to be able to understand your own argument for gods is one large circular reference.



Yes!!!

I think it’s obvious that the entirety of your argument is based upon an irrational precept. You arbitrarily exempt your gods from any rational critique.

Wrong!!! It may not be scientifically provable, but it is VERY rational and logical from a religious standpoint.

Nonsense. There is nothing rational or logical about asserting supernatural entities. By your standards (such as they are), we could presume that plunging large needles into dolls bearing the likeness of humans is also rational and logical. Santaria is just as rational and logical as christianity.

The truly important question in this debate because both sides agree that life had a beginning, What was the cause a designer or unintelligent process ?

Intelligence is the only method to produce order. Chaos only produces chaos it cannot produce order.

You can give me any example of chaos or randomness that produced order and we will discuss it.

 

[Hollie]

The truly important question in this debate because both sides agree that life had a beginning, What was the cause a designer or unintelligent process ?

Intelligence is the only method to produce order. Chaos only produces chaos it cannot produce order.

You can give me any example of chaos or randomness that produced order and we will discuss it.

Typically, you beg the question in order to lead the discussion toward your gods.

There is no supportable reason to believe that intelligence. Your specious claims are not even a challenge for a middle schooler. Your necessary task here is not to make appeals to supernaturalism but to provide a good reason for actually considering the validity of your claims. Until you can do so, you might as well be taking literature courses rather than "Physics, Chemistry, Biology at Advanced Level and University." Because you are not defending a serious idea here with science, you are instead defending dogma with science fiction.

Intelligence is not the only method to produce order and in fact we know your claim to be false. It is just so typical of fundie zealots to make bellicose claims while knowing nothing of the facts. Dismiss the hard evidence all you wish but elements do readily combine to create more complex elements. Perhaps you have not studied biology in favor of religious teachings (which appears to be evident by your specious claims) but you should understand that in the natural world, the lighter (simpler) elements readily combine. See the link below for additional data. Candidly, I’m not about to expend a great deal of energy attempting to teach you biology 101.

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

Similarly, we have no reason to believe that chaos cannot produce order. Despite your fundie claims, life does exist on this earth. Something is rather clearly wrong with your data.

Did I say data? What data? You actually have provided us with none, and instead simply made bald unsupported assertions with no basis in fact, just religious dogma.

Go figure.


Otherwise, we now need to hold you to the same standard that you hold others to. You need to tell us how gods came out of nothingness or chaos, or were themselves designed by super-super magical designers.

I have no reason to exempt your gods from the requirements you assign to nature. You claim your magical gods magically sprang forth from nothingness. Tell us how that happened.

 

[Hollie]

She needs to ask herself who created the evolver or how the evolver evolved.

What a typically nonsensical comment.

In spite of the claims to supernaturalism, gods and magical events insisted upon by fundies, all completely without evidence and justification, we have every reason to reject such irrationality. There is no evidence of a personal, designer gods and no evidence of the necessary hierarchy of designers of designer gods. There is no reason to believe that we are created in the image if any God(s). In spite of the requirement for fundies to attach human emotions to their god(s), the universe does not have emotions, desires, feelings, thoughts, longings, or intentions. The universe is neither jealous nor angry, not forgiving or merciful. The universe does not demand sacrifice, prayer, worship or slaughter of animals.

All of the feelings, emotions and other human attributes heaped upon gods by superstitious fundies is not advancing of humanity.

At the end if the day, an uninterested, uninvolved and uncaring entity: a God or God(s) is synonymous with “nothing”. So why give “nothingness” human attributes?

You believe a natural process of evolution caused the diversity of living organisms. Clearly the natural process had to evolve to go from complex organisms to more complex organisms.

How does this unintelligent process think to produce all the necessities for life to exist ? How can this process produce a planet that would sustain these living organisms ?

Takes faith to believe natural processes produced all we can see with purpose in mind.

Why do you assign an intelligent process to nature? There is no requirement for that.

 

[daws101]

Please point out the lie.

"Actually, your fundie parents twisted the Christian religion when they failed to accept you and they will have to answer to God for that. The Bible teaches there is no condemnation in Christ."- UR
you have no proof hollie is gay lie#1
" " that hollie's parents were fundies
" " of god
" that the bible is accurate..

I'll borrow this from your camp.... prove I have no proof.

that right you have no proof so you make shit up aka lying .

 

[daws101]

I'm going from memory here, Daws, but I thought it was you who ripped the creationists a new one with a detailed response to the creationist "Giraffe Neck" conspiracy.

your memory is correct, but as always the facts never stop them from babbling.

Just like your answer for origins of life,your answer is Abiogenesis no matter what the experts on your side say . They call that Daws blind faith.

does anybody hear an asshole replying to a poster they said they would never again respond to ?

 

[daws101]

Good. Now we know you are thoroughly dissociated from reality. It's like magic! "Dna could contain jibberish or complex instructions to build a complex organism". It doesn't matter which, because with "the magic code of DNA" (being "chemically independent from the informational code it carries"), you could replace the bases in DNA with any random reactive chemical, and nothing about "informational code" it carries would change. Good. Just great.

WOW! You're retarded.

I never said any of that!!! You can't replace the coded information and have it mean the same thing!! Just like you can't alter 0's and 1's in a computer program and get the same outcome. Why is this so hard for you to figure out? Your the special needs buffoon that insists on building caricatures and then accusing everyone else of doing it.

I won't waste my time with you anymore. Seriously, it reminds me of trying to argue with a drunk when I was a cop. Pointless!!!!!

What I really find so hard to believe is they can actually believe an undirected and a nonintelligent process would think to develop a place where life could thrive. Then it would develop living organisms and develop everything that is a necessity for for living things to come into existence.

What they really hate is they can't prove a natural process could have produced all the life and order we do see in nature while denying this precision in nature.

lollolo!

"What I really find so hard to believe is they can actually believe an undirected and a nonintelligent process would think to develop a place where life could thrive."ywc..
lolollolol another ywc nonsense classic..... if something is by definition "non intelligent" then it can not think... on the other hand an undirected and a non intelligent process giving the right conditions caused by another undirected and a non intelligent process would produce all the the life we see.
your willful ignorance of cause and effect is no proof that a god is needed..

 

[daws101]

No he is not a hack,he is bringing to you reality.

ahahahahaha... this coming from the man who believes that Mayans had pet dinosaurs...

I have never suggested this how ever the Asians did.

bullshit! you have blathered many time that humas lived with dinosaurs ..
BTW why do you keep answering my posts when you said you would not? it must be love!

 

[daws101]

The genetic code barrier.

you mean the one there is no proof for?
btw didn't you say something like: "this is my last post to you... mental midget" -YWC
do you always fail to keep your word?

Really no proof. Why do kinds only reproduce their own kind ? Why have so many groups of organisms gone extinct ?

asked and answerd ! "people will say we're in love!"

 

[daws101]

Microevolution vs Macroevolution
Is There A Difference Between Microevolution & Macroevolution?
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
.See More About:evolution & sciencemicroevolution vs macroevolution
There is one particular aspect of evolution that needs to be given specific attention: the somewhat artificial distinction between what is called “microevolution” and “macroevolution”, two terms often used by creationists in their attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory.

Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population — changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species. Examples of such microevolutionary changes would include a change in a species’ coloring or size.

Macroevolution, in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.

You can frequently hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution — one common way to put it is to say that dogs may change to become bigger or smaller, but they never become cats. Therefore, microevolution may occur within the dog species, but macroevolution never will.

There are a few problems with these terms, especially in the manner that creationists use them. The first is quite simply that when scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they don’t use them in the same way as creationists. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution Variabilität und Variation. However, they remain in relatively limited use today. You can find them in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply don’t pay attention to them.

Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.

When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons — this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.

In other words, creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which has specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader and incorrect manner. This is a serious but unsurprising error — creationists misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis.

A second problem with the creationist use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution is the fact that the definition of what constitutes a species is not consistently defined. This can complicate the boundaries which creationists claim exist between microevolution and macroevolution. After all, if one is going to claim that microevolution can never become macroevolution, it would be necessary to specify where the boundary is which supposedly cannot be crossed.

Conclusion:
Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanisms of operation and change in all genes are the same. If you find a creationist arguing that microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, simply ask them what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter — and listen to the silence.

Microevolution vs Macroevolution: Is There A Difference Between Microevolution & Macroevolution?



Creationists like to erroneously claim that it is impossible for the
accumulation of microevolutionary changes to produce macroevolutionary
changes. A "genetic barrier" is oftern cited to account for this, although
it is never identified. The hypothesis states, "there is a 'genetic
barrier' that prevents one 'kind' from evolving into another 'kind.'" I have
yet to see any attempt to justify this hypothesis using actual genetics or
science. Furthermore, there clearly is not a justification because modern
genetics has disproved this hypothesis (see below). However, it is another
creationist buzzword that has no actual scientific value.

The hypothesis of a "genetic barrier" was not originated by creationists. It
arose almost a hundred years ago by biologists/evolutionists to describe the
difference between macroevolution, evolution apparent between species, and
microevolution, evolution apparent within a species. Creationists like to
claim that the mechanisms from macroevolution are fundamentally different
from the mechanisms for microevolution; this is their genetic barrier. They
then assert that there is no evidence for macroevolution while
microevolution is well supported. They never show why any evidence
supporting macro is wrong; they just say it is. A long quote (please forgive
me) from Futuyma helps explains the issue:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One of the most important tenets of the theory forged during the
Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s was that 'macroevolutionary'
differences among organisms--those that distinguish higher taxa--arise from
the accumulation of the same kinds of genetic differences that are found
within species. Opponents of this point of view believed that
'macroevolution' is qualitatively different from 'microevolution' within a
species, and is based on a totally different kind of genetic and
developmental repatterning. The iconoclastic geneticist Richard Goldschmidt
(1940), who held this opinion, believed that the evolution of species marks
the break between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution'--that there is a
'bridgeless gap' between species that cannot be understood in terms of the
genetic variation within species. Genetic studies of species differences
have decisively disproved Goldschmidt's claim. Differences between species
in morphology, behavior, and the process that underlie reproductive
isolation all have the same genetic properties as variation within species:
they occupy consistent chromosomal positions, they may be polygenic or based
on few genes, they may display additive, dominant, or epistatic effects, and
they can in some instances be traced to specifiable differences in proteins
or DNA nucleotide differences. The degree of reproductive isolation between
populations, whether prezygotic or postzygotic, varies from little or none
to complete. Thus, reproductive isolation, like the divergence of any other
character, evolves in most cases by the gradual substitution of alleles in
populations.
(Evolutionary Biology, third edition. 477-478)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Barrierists believe, like Goldschmidt did, that macroevolution and
microevolution are fundamentally different; however, unlike Goldschmidt,
they use the absence of a macro-only mechanism as proof of a creator and
proof against evolution. The reason for the absence of a macro-only
mechanism is that the same mechanisms apply to both micro- and
macroevolution. This is not an "easy out" explanation, as they'd have
laymen believe. It is backed up by genetic and biological observations and
experiments. Goldschmidt was able to state his claim in 1940 because the
science of molecular genetics did not exist then. It wasn't until the 1950s
that Watson and Crick solved the structure of DNA and showed how genetic
information was passed in cell division via template strands. The genetic
code was later solved, explaining how DNA encoded proteins. Modern
sequencing strategies allow us to map molecular genetic mutations to actual
genes, demonstrating the variability of populations and the power of
evolution. These sequencing strategies also allow us to map the differences
between two organisms' genomes. The genetic distinctions for taxa can be
detected by comparing organisms from different taxa. The data generated from
such investigations show that distinctions between taxa follow the same
rules as distinctions within a taxon.

Genetic Barriers Don't Exist [Archive] - BaptistBoard.com

What is it that prevents different groups from being cross bred ? Why is it that so many groups of organisms go extinct since they can't adjust genetically ? You can't see the limitations this is a very ignorant fundie argument from your side.

nothing to see because there is no barrier..

People Will Say We're In Love Lyrics


LAUREY

Why do they think up stories that link my name with yours?

CURLY

Why do the neighbors chatter all day, behind their doors?

LAUREY

I know a way to prove what they say is quite untrue.
Here is the gist, a practical list of "don'ts" for you.
Don't throw bouquets at me
Don't please my folks too much
Don't laugh at my jokes too much
People will say we're in love!
Don't sigh and gaze at me
Your sighs are so like mine
Your eyes mustn't glow like mine
People will say we're in love!
Don't start collecting things
Give me my rose and my glove.
Sweetheart they're suspecting things
People will say we're in love.

CURLY

Some people claim that you are to blame as much as I.
Why do y' take the trouble to bake my favorite pie?
Grantin' your wish, I carved our initials on that tree.
Jist keep a slice of all the advice you give so free.
Don't praise my charm too much
Don't look so vain with me
Don't stand in the rain with me
People will say we're in love!
Don't take my arm too much
Don't keep your hand in mine
Your hand feels so grand in mine
People will say we're in love!
Don't dance all night with me
Till the stars fade from above.
They'll see it's alright with me
People will say we're in love.