There's a Ph.D. physicist here who regularly preaches against evolution (and for creationism). :p
Printable View
There's a Ph.D. physicist here who regularly preaches against evolution (and for creationism). :p
Oh, I have a fun game. Ask him if he'll agree to give you a penny this week, and each subsequent week here-after give you twice what he gave you the week before. If he declines because he realizes he'll eventually be giving you millions of dollars, state that this is untrue, small incremental changes over time never amount to major changes. Its only a theory that he'll be giving you millions of dollars, and we can't be certain unless we observe it with our own eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
There are a lot of things like that. You don't actually need science or facts to convince people of things, just sciencey or facty sounding words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
That follows logical rules from which it's easy to extrapolate. The heavy random factor in evolution is what throws a lot of the more educated people I've met who question it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
For the record, that's a horrible analogy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
1) I'm terrible with analogiesQuote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
2) Its just meant to deal with micro vs macroevolution that people like this sometimes bring up, not all of evolution.
The point is that your analogy is not representative of microscale or macroscale evolution. Doubling something (a 100% increase) is hardly a 'small' change; evolution happens on the base-pair level, which even for the smallest of genomes is a very small percentage change indeed. It is somewhat more analogous (if we had to use a monetary analogy) to compound interest on a bank account - say, a 1% increase every year. If you asked your same intelligent person if they'd take out a loan with 1% interest for a fairly nominal sum, they might readily agree because the overall payment will be relatively small... and thus miss your point about evolution after all.
Even that analogy is flawed, though, since evolution is largely about accumulation and selection rather than compounding. Let's just stick to actual arguments rather than analogies, shall we?
I would have used this, and realized the same thing about doubling, but Loki isn't Philip J Fry.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Okay.Quote:
Even that analogy is flawed, though, since evolution is largely about accumulation and selection rather than compounding. Let's just stick to actual arguments rather than analogies, shall we?
I didn't mean to suggest that you were. Only that perspective matters, which you acknowledged.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
It's still my impression that a large number of bills/laws being introduced are based on a particular type of Fundamental Christianity at their root. Whether it's pressure from Southern Baptist Coalition, Family Research Council, Catholic bishops, etc. They may have different views on the role of government vs church, but their agendas still revolve around sex/sexuality, family planning/birth control/abortion, and marriage as defined by their religious beliefs.
Some fundamentalists take their Give-a-Fish or Teach-to-Fish deep into politics and legislating -- education, healthcare, welfare, safety nets -- and take it to extremes. Too deep and too extreme for my personal preference. Example: defunding Meals On Wheels for elderly or shut-ins, on the belief that churches or charities can do it better, provide for everyone who needs the service, and it shouldn't be part of tax dollar budgets.
Thanks for the link, wiggin. :up:
No. Perception is hard to dispute, since it is subjective and fairly personal. I said I wasn't in a position to argue about how you perceived things.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT