Prejudice
"Are you prejudiced?" asks StapMyVitals. Have you been a victim of prejudice? Are you a columnist for a popular daily newspaper? Don't bang on about how you never judge people on first impressions - no-one will believe you.
( , Thu 1 Apr 2010, 12:53)
"Are you prejudiced?" asks StapMyVitals. Have you been a victim of prejudice? Are you a columnist for a popular daily newspaper? Don't bang on about how you never judge people on first impressions - no-one will believe you.
( , Thu 1 Apr 2010, 12:53)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
while I share much the same view as you
just saying "look at your thumbs" isn't proof of anything other than that you have thumbs.
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 11:58, 4 replies)
just saying "look at your thumbs" isn't proof of anything other than that you have thumbs.
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 11:58, 4 replies)
I think he's asking you
to consider why you have thumbs like that.
My favourites amongst the silliest arguments are
"How come we can't see evolution happening around us? Nothing's changing."
of course not, it goes by generations. However, the reason we get bacteria resistant to antibiotics is because it truly is evidence of survival of the strongest.
and also, the irreducibly complexity of things, usually the eye is given as an example. The eye exists in all different forms of development in various creatures.
etc etc..
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:05, closed)
to consider why you have thumbs like that.
My favourites amongst the silliest arguments are
"How come we can't see evolution happening around us? Nothing's changing."
of course not, it goes by generations. However, the reason we get bacteria resistant to antibiotics is because it truly is evidence of survival of the strongest.
and also, the irreducibly complexity of things, usually the eye is given as an example. The eye exists in all different forms of development in various creatures.
etc etc..
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:05, closed)
Irreducible complexity always was a retarded argument anyway.
It assumes a single use for a certain feature. It also assumes that evolution is an additive process and fails to allow for evolutionary subtraction.
however, careful with the "survival of the strongest/fittest". That's a basic misunderstanding of evolutionary processes and a massive simplification.
I find engaging them in debate about the conflict between the likely function of eukaryotic introns versus the central dogma with respect to evolutionary processes usually distracts them for long enough to give them a sharp tap on the head and throw them in a canal, though.
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:12, closed)
It assumes a single use for a certain feature. It also assumes that evolution is an additive process and fails to allow for evolutionary subtraction.
however, careful with the "survival of the strongest/fittest". That's a basic misunderstanding of evolutionary processes and a massive simplification.
I find engaging them in debate about the conflict between the likely function of eukaryotic introns versus the central dogma with respect to evolutionary processes usually distracts them for long enough to give them a sharp tap on the head and throw them in a canal, though.
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:12, closed)
misuse of "survival of the fittest"
agreed, but I think with bacteria becoming resistant, I think it's probably the best way to explain it.
In the same way with elephants, it's "survival of those whose tusks aren't worth the bother to ivory hunters"
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:22, closed)
agreed, but I think with bacteria becoming resistant, I think it's probably the best way to explain it.
In the same way with elephants, it's "survival of those whose tusks aren't worth the bother to ivory hunters"
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:22, closed)
kind of.
"fittest" doesn't mean what most people think it does, though. "best suited to purpose" would be better, but technically the whole concept isn't really correct.
But I agree it's probably a necessary evil to use it sometimes.
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:27, closed)
"fittest" doesn't mean what most people think it does, though. "best suited to purpose" would be better, but technically the whole concept isn't really correct.
But I agree it's probably a necessary evil to use it sometimes.
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:27, closed)
Also, if the definition of a 'day' is 'the time it takes for the earth to turn completely once'
then it certainly was a different time from 24 hours, back when the earth was new.
But I'm not disagreeing with you really - you're right.
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:05, closed)
then it certainly was a different time from 24 hours, back when the earth was new.
But I'm not disagreeing with you really - you're right.
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:05, closed)
Or a creationist could take the view that in the bible it says that a day is like a thousand years in the eyes of God
So it could have taken 6000 years for him to create the earth
Just playing devils advocate
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:08, closed)
So it could have taken 6000 years for him to create the earth
Just playing devils advocate
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:08, closed)
Does the bible say that?
or is it an interpretation?
Perhaps to try to make the bible fit in with observed phenomena.
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:14, closed)
or is it an interpretation?
Perhaps to try to make the bible fit in with observed phenomena.
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:14, closed)
Agreed.
The argument, 'look at your thumbs' could even give strength to their argument.
How would you respond to the argument that thumbs are the perfect example of ID, in that none of the other animals who we are 'related to' have them, and none of them have yet evolved to have them.
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:07, closed)
The argument, 'look at your thumbs' could even give strength to their argument.
How would you respond to the argument that thumbs are the perfect example of ID, in that none of the other animals who we are 'related to' have them, and none of them have yet evolved to have them.
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:07, closed)
I would respond by pointing out that all the animals we share a common ancestor with
do have them, as it goes.
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:13, closed)
do have them, as it goes.
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:13, closed)
Don't forget chlamydia!
Now, which dirty sod screwed a koala for them to get that?
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:52, closed)
Now, which dirty sod screwed a koala for them to get that?
( , Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:52, closed)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread