Christian medical students want anti-evolution lectures

Aftenposten (Norway News) ^ | 19 Nov 2003 | Jonathan Tisdall

[VadeRetro]

This debate is about teaching the weaknesses in theory of evolution in medical school but all our Orthodox Darwinist friends can do is ramble endlessly about Creationism.

Oooh!! I get it! "Communism Creationism is a red herring."

[Last Visible Dog]

But you have no eyewitness of meteors forming macro-craters; only micro-crateration has been observed.

Nice bit of tap-dancing but the size of meteor craters does not make one macro and one micro in same context as micro and macro evolution. Nice try.

Fact is we can observe meteor craters on other planets of similar size.

[Tac12]

About the word THEORY: please do NOT use ``it is only a theory''
more information:

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1531.htm

[Last Visible Dog]

Whose mind am I purporting to read? Care to give an accounting of what you consider to be the typical creationist approach to debate?

How else do you know somebody else's debating tactic? I don't speculate on other people's positions so I am not going to try and give an account of what another person will or will not say. The only reason you pretend to know "the typical creationist approach to debate" is you were lobbing a preemptive strike to try and discredit the other side before the other side has said anything.

I am not a creationist - I just don't like the faultily logic of one person explaining to us what another person really thinks. You are better off defending YOUR position rather then pretending you know what other people think.

[Last Visible Dog]

Wrong again! You either believed what you wrote or you didn't.

Now you are rambling. You claim to know what creationists will say - what gives you this magical power?

[Doctor Stochastic]

...the size of meteor craters does not make one macro and one micro in same context as micro and macro evolution...

Why?

[Last Visible Dog]

The "irony knows no bounds" award for the day.

So you actually believe attacking creationism somehow supports the theory of evolution? You people are amazing.

[Last Visible Dog]

Oooh!! I get it! "Creationism is a red herring."

Exactly! Creationism has nothing to do with accepting the fact there are weaknesses in the theory of evolution. Put another way: one can find weaknesses in one theory without having to provide an alternative theory. Just as finding weaknesses in one theory does provide supporting evidence to an opposing theory.

[metacognative]

No evidence?

[Modernman]

How else do you know somebody else's debating tactic?

Based on my observations of debates on this matter as well as other peoples' descriptions of such debates. With this evidence, I'm comfortable saying that creationists who debate evolutionists in a public setting typically rely on a certain approach. Are there exceptions? Sure. Typically, though, the debating tactics described on this thread are the ones creationists use. No mind-reading required.

[Last Visible Dog]

The origins of life are outside the scope of the theory of evolution. Science is working on the origins of life, but I'm ignorant of the exact details.

Sounds good. So why do evolutionists attack creationists since creationism addresses origin of life and evolution does not and can not?

[Last Visible Dog]

Why?

Micro and macro evolution are two different processes. Micro being evolution within a species and macro being one species becoming another. Micro evolution is scientifically observable and macro evolution is pure theory.

The size of a meteor does not make it micro or macro in the same context as evolution (the only factor is the size of the meteor not the processes involved in a meteor hitting the Earth).

You may claim Micro and Macro evolution differ only in size but that would be hard to support.

[metacognative]

How about tree shrews to primates?

[atlaw]

you -- "Attacking creationism does not in any way support the theory of evolution."

me -- "The 'irony knows no bounds' award for the day."

you -- "So you actually believe attacking creationism somehow supports the theory of evolution? You people are amazing."

PRESS RELEASE -- Two members of the Irony Awards Committee were hospitalized today for "near-cranial-explosion" syndrome when the irony in the committee room reached critical mass. The remaining members of the committee are under quarantine at "Paddy's Pub," reportedly receiving emergency alcohol treatments.

[Doctor Stochastic]

"Micro" and "macro" evolution differ only in the number of changes in the genome.

Of course, we have observed speciation, but we have never observed a large meteor crater being formed.

[Abe Froman]

I read the article and I fail to see any coorelation between this and spontaneous generation. A virus was re-engineered with a seperate genetic code, not created from "scratch" (and not by random processes to boot.) I don't mean to reduce their accomplishment but to suggest that this means random atomic and molecular material may somehow combine and spring to life is an impossible leap. The article admits that the scientists merely implanted an existing virus with a new code. They did not literally create a living cell from scratch, which is what the theory of evolution postulates.

[whattajoke]

I am not a creationist

You have said this time and time again, and I used to believe you. In light of your more recent posts over the last month or so, I must admit I'm finding it harder and harder to believe. But then again, as we've also been told, we are just dopey rubes that can't possibly come to grips with your intellect.

However, to your point that evolution is evolution and creationism simply addresses the moment of creation... if that were all that there is to creationism, then I would support your contention 100%. Unfortunately, creationism as well as it's new form under the guise of ID, does not stop at, "God created the world." If it did, there wouldn't be much to these crevo threads at all, especially since many here believe "God created the world," yet still accept evolutionary facts.

[Abe Froman]

"Okay. In that case, I assume you claim we are intellectually powerless to figure out what caused this:"

Absolutely not. We could test to see whether we could reproduce the effect either in full or in miniature. Then we would know the answer.

[whattajoke]

Of course, we have observed speciation

Just for the edification of the lurkers and creationists, here's a good example of that.