• In total there are 3 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 758 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 3:50 am

Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose

Unread post

There are bandwagoners here, but you'll need to look in the mirror to find them. Why are you talking about gradualism only? The question is where the balance lies between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. I never mentioned gradualism. You're bringing up non-issues.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... ctuated_01
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose

Unread post

Interbane wrote:There are bandwagoners here, but you'll need to look in the mirror to find them. Why are you talking about gradualism only? The question is where the balance lies between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. I never mentioned gradualism. You're bringing up non-issues.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... ctuated_01

I didn't broach gradualism. not once.

Try to keep up.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose

Unread post

It was directed at Flann.

Flann wrote:The problem is Interbane that it's Gould,Stanley and many other paleontologists who were the "deniers" of gradualism whether you like it or not.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose

Unread post

Interbane wrote:There are bandwagoners here, but you'll need to look in the mirror to find them. Why are you talking about gradualism only? The question is where the balance lies between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. I never mentioned gradualism. You're bringing up non-issues.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... ctuated_01
This appears to be similar to the finches on different islands where you get variations in beak sizes and speciation.
And in the end what have you got? Slightly different finches and mollusks which have changed into mollusks.
Great!

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/th ... 74741.html
Last edited by Flann 5 on Wed May 25, 2016 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose

Unread post

Flann wrote:This appears to be similar to the finches on different islands where you get variations in beak sizes and speciation.
And in the end what have you got? Slightly different finches and mollusks which have changed into mollusks.
Great!
You were wrong about gradualism being an issue. Now your issue is that small changes do not add up to the large changes required by macro evolution. This subtle shift from one non-issue to another is endless. It's denialism.

Macro evolution is shown to be true through a number of crucial experiments. It's been tested and supported independently of the mechanisms found in micro evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


And, as long as Coyne is being referenced:

“Many who reject darwinism on religious grounds . . . argue that such small changes [as seen in selective breeding] cannot explain the evolution of new groups of plants and animals. This argument defies common sense. When, after a Christmas visit, we watch grandma leave on the train to Miami, we assume that the rest of her journey will be an extrapolation of that first quarter-mile. A creationist unwilling to extrapolate from micro- to macroevolution is as irrational as an observer who assumes that, after grandma’s train disappears around the bend, it is seized by divine forces and instantly transported to Florida.”
– Coyne, Jerry A. 2001 (Aug 19). Nature 412:587.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose

Unread post

Yeah but the train grandma's riding on and the route it takes is intelligently designed.

Doh!
Last edited by ant on Wed May 25, 2016 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
DB Roy
Beyond Awesome
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
9
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 602 times

Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose

Unread post

Interbane wrote:It was directed at Flann.

Flann wrote:The problem is Interbane that it's Gould,Stanley and many other paleontologists who were the "deniers" of gradualism whether you like it or not.
I told you guys--they are the SAME PERSON!! One answers for the other because it forgets which member ID it's using. It can't get consensus or agreement any other way than to create different IDs that sound so much alike everybody here confuses them and it confuses itself. Just because it gave the forum money doesn't make it worth wasting time arguing with it.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose

Unread post

Uh, yeah.., I think you're finally on to something, Roybot.

:coco:
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose

Unread post

Flann 5 and Ant are extremely dissimilar personalities. One likes to disagree agreeably while the other is a flamethrower. I'd never confuse the two.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose

Unread post

Interbane wrote:You were wrong about gradualism being an issue. Now your issue is that small changes do not add up to the large changes required by macro evolution. This subtle shift from one non-issue to another is endless. It's denialism.
That is the key issue Interbane,whether you can extrapolate from micro-to macro-evolution and whether the evidence supports it.
Interbane wrote: Macro evolution is shown to be true through a number of crucial experiments. It's been tested and supported independently of the mechanisms found in micro evolution.
What experiments might these be? On the contrary, experiments with bacteria,fruit flies, crops and plants show distinct limits to evolutionary change. Bugs stay bugs,fruit flies stay fruit flies and the law of recurrent variation of mutations kicks in with plants and crops.
Douglas Theobald at Talk Origins makes Universal common descent foundational to his case. Now even if this was clearly disproved, such is the elasticity of the theory it would easily accommodate multiple lines of separate descent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXrYhINutuI

http://www.discovery.org/a/24041
Interbane wrote:And, as long as Coyne is being referenced:

“Many who reject darwinism on religious grounds . . . argue that such small changes [as seen in selective breeding] cannot explain the evolution of new groups of plants and animals. This argument defies common sense. When, after a Christmas visit, we watch grandma leave on the train to Miami, we assume that the rest of her journey will be an extrapolation of that first quarter-mile. A creationist unwilling to extrapolate from micro- to macroevolution is as irrational as an observer who assumes that, after grandma’s train disappears around the bend, it is seized by divine forces and instantly transported to Florida.”
– Coyne, Jerry A. 2001 (Aug 19). Nature 412:587.
It's not at all surprising that various life forms should have similarities if they have the same creator or designer.

Unquestionably many living things are related, quite obviously. Whether a whale is related to a hippopotamus is an entirely different proposition.

There is sharp discontinuity between the higher order animals in the fossil record.

Universal common descent and relatedness is assumed by the theory as axiomatic rather than proven.

Supposed convergent evolution if true does not suggest an unguided purposeless process but clear direction and goals in it.
It couldn't be that they have the same designer of course.

Here's a creationist response to Theobald's 29 "evidences" for macro-evolution.
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.php
Last edited by Flann 5 on Thu May 26, 2016 7:04 am, edited 3 times in total.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”