It is pretty much identical to Windows 7's gaming performance, with some minor exceptions (which will likely be fixed with driver updates or game patches over time). Don't just take my word for it either, check out the conclusion to this article from TomsHardware:
The thought that perhaps I should have mentioned that I was the author occurred to me right after I submitted the post:/ If it were a monetized blog (if directing people there was likely to bring me direct income, like from ads) then I can certainly understand why folks would prefer I had mentioned it, and in hindsight I should have regardless. However, it is not my personal blog - it is a blog for the company I work for, and many people contribute to it. I just happened to have written that specific entry:)
Anyways, I hope the info there is helpful to someone along the line!
It has a few benefits, for certain types of work - like multi-monitor setups. It is also definitely better when used with a touch-screen. For most others, your are right - not a lot there to compel someone. Check out this blog post for a little more on the subject:
But see, I don't consider that funny. Misinformation needs to be corrected - not just laughed at. Rate the answer down if it is wrong, not just up and funny:/
While I love B5, I like the tact that Firefly took in space: no noise, but thematic music. It would come on loudly, and different from the music when viewing events inside the ship, so you almost don't notice the lack of sound effects. It was a nice touch, though it was goofed up in the later Serenity movie when they had full sound effects in space scenes:/
For this sort of behavior on the part of others claiming to be Christians. I don't want to be persecuted for speaking my mind and what I believe, and so I do not believe anyone should be arrested or harmed for speaking out or posting things online. There is a fine line to walk when things become violent (death threats) or obscene (pornographic), but in so far as possible we need to be open and free in dialog if we want to have civil and prosperous societies.
This is one of the few things that is still great about the US (where I live), though it is slipping day by day even here. But arresting someone for what they post? Or worse, in Islamic areas, killing people for what *others* post? I don't see how that sort of behavior can lead to anything good.
Thank you for your kind and thoughtful response! I very much appreciate polite exchanges of thoughts on issues, as you seem to:)
I think what I was trying to point out with the fact that we can't observe full-blown evolution in the lab within a human life (or even many) is that because of the timescale required we can never be absolutely certain of evolution - just as we cannot travel back in time to observe the big bang, or a more recent creation event by God. Thus none of us as humans can ever be 100% certain in the scientific sense of any of these things... and yet some people argue so hard that evolution is for-sure, with no alternative but insanity.
Now you are right that there are a lot of evidences we can look at to give us ideas as to what happened in the past, and to back up theories we may come up with. The problem here is that the way we look at those things - fossils, ratios of radioactive isotopes, sedimentary layers, etc - all depend on the world view with which we approach them. For the evolutionist, they all look like great proofs of the belief in an ancient universe... but for someone like myself, they look like great evidence for a world-wide, cataclysmic flood. We can't observe either theory directly, because they require scales beyond our human ability (time for evolution, and planetary-level destruction for something like observing a Biblical flood) which we therefore cannot recreate.
Likewise, the ideas behind radiometric dating hinge on decay rates being constant (which it looks like may not be the case, though so far observations are only showing minute deviation) and that we can properly estimate the ratios of isotopes in the original environments - which, again, cannot be directly observed.
Because of these things, it seems to me that it is very possible to be a productive, thinking individual in society - no matter whether one believes in evolution or not. That is the issue I took with Bill Nye's video: he paints with a very broad, and I believe inaccurate, brush. I like his style of teaching, and loved his show as a kid, but I think that if he really cares about the future of education and the sciences in America then there are other things he could do that would be much more productive than trying to squash competing origin theories:)
Breeding *out* traits - like the diversification of the wolf and dog - is not evolution. It is changes within a broad species or lifeform grouping, and it does not introduce any new genes, traits, etc. The same is true of the fly experiments. Evolution - in the Darwinian sense - would require new information / genes / etc to be introduced into a population without grafting on from an external source... and without manual, human intervention. That has not been empirically verified.
"We were made this way for very good reasons..."? Wow, I love to see the Slashdot community getting behind Intelligent Design!
Seriously, though, I love to see it when our limited scientific abilities back up what I believe. God instructed the use of circumcision, and it turns out not only to be a way to obey Him but also to be beneficial. Perhaps He designed humans in this way just so that we would have something like this, as a way we can show obedience to him without any negative side effects (and, in fact, beneficial ones!).
I think we could come closest with something along these lines: 'each created kind is a unique combination of non-unique traits'. It was described this way in an article I read -
"Perhaps each created kind is a unique combination of non-unique traits. Look at people, for instance. Each of us has certain traits that we may admire (or abhor): brown hair, tall stature, or even a magnificent nose like mine. Whatever the trait, someone else has exactly the same trait, but nobody has the same combination of traits that you do or I do. Each of us is a unique combination of non-unique traits. In a sense, that’s why it’s hard to classify people. If you break them up according to hair type, you’ll come out with groups that won’t fit with the eye type, and so on. Furthermore, we recognize each person as distinct.
We see a similar pattern among other living things. Each created kind is a unique combination of traits that are individually shared with members of other groups. The platypus, for example, was at first considered a hoax by evolutionists, since its “weird” set of traits made it difficult even to guess what it was evolving from or into. Creationists point out that each of its traits (including complex ones like its electric location mechanism, leathery egg, and milk glands) is complete, fully functional, and well-integrated into a distinctive and marvelous kind of life."
"Note also that even some parts of the Bible may be shown to be true, or even predictive, it does not follow that others parts similarly are. For example, one can accept the literal correctness of every single word in the Bible insofar as it describes events, while rejecting any claims God makes about himself in the Bible (e.g omniscience or omnipotence)."
This is almost correct, and would be except for one point: Jesus' death and resurrection. If Jesus rose from the grave, then that in and of itself would be evidence in favor of the claims God makes about Himself. If that one point is not true, all of Christianity falls apart... but likewise, if true then it would revolutionize our understanding of the world (and I would contend that it has). Consider these points:
- If Jesus had not risen, then why would the authorities who crucified Him not simply display His body as proof when it was claimed that He had come back from the dead?
- If His close followers had not seen Him after His resurrection, why would they have gone on to do what they did? Of the eleven disciples left after the crucifixion, ten of them were killed in horrible ways later on for their beliefs. None of them got rich off it, or gained political power (some of that came much, much later). Why would that many people who all *knew* whether the beliefs they were spreading were true or false be willing to go on to die for it... unless it were true?
There are many other resources on this topic I would happily share, some written by folks where were atheist and out to prove the Bible wrong, if you are interested.
"Given the overwhelming amount of evidence against this position, why?"
We all look at the world through our perspective, which is affected - or 'colored' - by the presuppositions we begin with. Because of that, the modern evolutionist sees all of this 'evidence' from a standpoint that presupposes the universe having existed for immense lengths of time. When things can be interpreted one way or another, they default to the interpretations that lend themselves to their already-established world view. No matter how logical an argument you build up, if the foundation you build upon (the presuppositions of your world view) are wrong then the conclusions you come to can be wrong as well.
I find that so many things which are claimed as evidence for evolution / ancient age of the world / etc can be explained in other ways with equally logical reasoning. For example, the layers of sediment that are claimed to indicate various epochs of world history could have been laid down much faster by massive flooding and the resulting deposits. Carbon dating, and indeed many forms of radiometric dating, are dependent upon our estimates of what the environment must have been like (ratios of carbon-12 to carbon-14 for example) - and if you start with different estimates you end up with drastically shorter ages, well in line with a young earth.
In the end, it comes down to the fact that none of us living today were there when any of this took place. I believe one person was (God), and the information He passed along in the books now collected as the Bible give an exact answer to most of the questions of origin. I believe in the validity of the Bible for a whole host of reasons, which are too numerous to describe here (but I can link you to books on the subject if you are interested) - and because I believe the Bible has held up in many areas which can be reasoned and compared to other historical documents then I don't have any reason to distrust it on the origin of life.
I'm sure plenty of people didn't watch it, but the very title of the YouTube video is "Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children". He also said,
"To the grown-ups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world that is completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe - that's fine. But don't make your kids do it, because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems."
By doing this, he is implying that a creationist cannot 'build stuff', 'solve problems', or vote in a way that is responsible. This is quite insulting to me personally, and I think is counter-productive to any discussion of this subject. This is akin to an 'Ad hominem' attack in logic.
I'm not an expert in biology, and never claimed to be:) However, a quick Google search of the terms you used pulls up several results that look well researched and which, via a cursory reading, appear to be written by folks who are experts. I have found such results on both sides of this argument, which tells me that this is not as firmly established of a conclusion as you might think. For example, check out this article (one of the better ones by the look of it, given the number of citations and general quality of writing):
In the end, none of us were there when either God created the world, or life evolved, or a combination of the two. As such we cannot absolutely say what happened one way or the other. The upshot of that is that it also doesn't matter to the vast majority of modern disciplines: someone can be a perfectly good engineer, doctor, etc without needing to believe one way or the other on this topic! Now someone who didn't believe in gravity - that person I might not want building an airplane... or someone who didn't understand the size of viruses, allergens, etc building an air filter for use in medical applications. Bill Nye implying that because we need smart and well educated kids to continue our society we should teach evolution is a non-sequitur.
The various fly and bacteria studies are not what I consider true indicators of the level of evolution needed to develop advanced lifeforms from single-cell organisms. I know of those tests, and do not in the least deny their direct findings... but taking that and then saying that from these results we can be sure that a single cell lifeform can evolve into a complex, multi-organ creature is what I call into question. That is what we cannot directly test and observe, while we can measure plate tectonics directly and observe the results of their interactions.
"For what it's worth, I don't think you deserve the troll mod that you've been smacked with. I'm of the opinion that only abusive or flamebait comments should be modded down, and I don't think yours is either of those."
Thank you! I very much appreciate your saying that:)
Giving honor to God by capitalizing pronouns when referring to Him is a logical outflow of my belief that He is the 'original person', so to speak. The source and author of all other personhood. It would be similar to referring to a head of state with special terminology or respect, but on a much grander scale. How is any of that inconsistent?
Also, the friend of whom I spoke is still my friend (or at least I hope he is). I don't understand why folks can't discuss these sorts of topics without falling to the level of breaking relationships. Strike that, I actually can understand it - I just find it very sad: many negative emotions are brought up when confronted with truth that 'breaks' someones world-view, and those emotions change the way you react to a person involved in that process... I just wish people could get over that so that we can have more open discussions about these things. The same applies to politics, etc.
All of the human lexicon is made up of terms we (humans) have invented. What I am saying is that taking a group of flies and making two groups that no longer interbreed is not in any way evidence that single-cell organisms could eventually end up in something as complex as a fish, much less a human being. Separating these ideas of small changes within a type of organism from the idea that one organism can evolve into something totally different, bearing no resemblance to what it came from, is a legitimate distinction. You can all it whatever you like, but being pigeon-holed into using one specific term that you approve of while not allowing other concepts is a much worse form of dishonesty.
Further, I have read lengthy excerpts at least, if not always whole books, from biologists on both sides. I will freely admit that much of the detail and nuance (on both sides) is lost on me, as I don't have a deep education in the life sciences, but I follow along as best I can.
The term used in the Bible, in English at least, is "kind" rather than species. I'm not sure of the original Hebrew word, or what subtleties it conveys, but I suspect that the difficulties in discussing this stem from our imperfect classification system. We can make one group of flies, over generations, incapable of complete interbreeding... but do these 'new' groups of flies have any real distinction? Does one have an extra set of legs, or has one lost the ability to fly? (not that I would necessarily think either of those to be sufficient for a new 'kind', just trying to put out some examples).
Also, as I pointed out, I do think it is entirely possible that God used evolution in the creation process - I won't die for the young earth viewpoint:) What I would die for is the idea of intelligent design: that God orchestrated creation, whether in six days or in six billion years. I still happen to favor the young earth stand, but I am open to discuss and debate such things!
It led to an interesting discussion. I posted the following comment:
"I like Bill Nye's approach to a lot of scientific teaching, loved most of his TV show growing up, but he does not in any way put forward an argument for evolution or against creationism in this video. He simply waves his hand and says - without offering a logical, this 'leads-to-that' argument - that by not believing in evolution your world view is inconsistent. I'm afraid that doesn't pass muster for me, though I would be interested in hearing a more in-depth discussion on the subject from him.
Personally, I don't believe in *macro* evolution (one species evolving into another) - and yet my world view is 100% functional and, I believe, logical. The great thing in the end, though, is that if evolution is true my worldview remains intact: evolution itself is not integral to it one way or the other:) I believe God created the universe and everything in it, and while I believe He did it within the literal amount of time described in the Bible it would also be entirely believable that He did so over eons and used evolution in the process - it would not change the fact that He did it!"
My friend replied saying that just because I disagreed with the video didn't mean I should disparage it. I almost couldn't believe what he was saying: I felt like I had been very respectful in my comment, and I was responding to a video that I felt was disparaging my position (not the other way around). Thus I replied with this:
"I in no way meant disrespect! I tried to use very civil words in my comment above, and if I came across impolite in any way then I apologize.
However, I do find it somewhat funny that your reaction would be to accuse me of disparaging something I disagree with when that is exactly what the original video you linked to was itself. Bill Nye, who again I respect greatly for his skill at combining education and entertainment, put forward the following:
1) The idea that the denial of evolution is unique to the US - which I very much doubt, as both Christians and some other religions (Islam, in particular) tend to hold views that contradict with macro evolution.
2) That not believing in evolution - which we cannot measure and observe in a lab - is comparable to not believing in plate tectonics (which we can observe and measure).
3) That we need good scientists and engineers, and therefore should not teach our children creationism. This in effect implies that someone cannot hold a creationist viewpoint and also contribute in those fields, which is preposterous (I personally know several scientists and engineers who hold beliefs similar to my own, and who are still very effective in their work - and I have read the works of many others who are much higher up in their respective fields).
These things all disparage creationist viewpoints, without any actual argument from logic about why evolution is right. That was all I was trying to point out previously, and I tried to do so in every bit as nice and calm of a way as Bill Nye portrayed in his video."
Slashdot Mirror
It is pretty much identical to Windows 7's gaming performance, with some minor exceptions (which will likely be fixed with driver updates or game patches over time). Don't just take my word for it either, check out the conclusion to this article from TomsHardware:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-8-gaming-performance,3331-13.html
The thought that perhaps I should have mentioned that I was the author occurred to me right after I submitted the post :/ If it were a monetized blog (if directing people there was likely to bring me direct income, like from ads) then I can certainly understand why folks would prefer I had mentioned it, and in hindsight I should have regardless. However, it is not my personal blog - it is a blog for the company I work for, and many people contribute to it. I just happened to have written that specific entry :)
Anyways, I hope the info there is helpful to someone along the line!
It has a few benefits, for certain types of work - like multi-monitor setups. It is also definitely better when used with a touch-screen. For most others, your are right - not a lot there to compel someone. Check out this blog post for a little more on the subject:
http://www.pugetsystems.com/blog/2012/10/12/is-windows-8-right-for-you/
But see, I don't consider that funny. Misinformation needs to be corrected - not just laughed at. Rate the answer down if it is wrong, not just up and funny :/
How the hell did the parent post get modded funny?
Or, often times, not really manufacturing it at all? I would hardly call an airbag that fails to deploy a valid copy.
While I love B5, I like the tact that Firefly took in space: no noise, but thematic music. It would come on loudly, and different from the music when viewing events inside the ship, so you almost don't notice the lack of sound effects. It was a nice touch, though it was goofed up in the later Serenity movie when they had full sound effects in space scenes :/
For this sort of behavior on the part of others claiming to be Christians. I don't want to be persecuted for speaking my mind and what I believe, and so I do not believe anyone should be arrested or harmed for speaking out or posting things online. There is a fine line to walk when things become violent (death threats) or obscene (pornographic), but in so far as possible we need to be open and free in dialog if we want to have civil and prosperous societies.
This is one of the few things that is still great about the US (where I live), though it is slipping day by day even here. But arresting someone for what they post? Or worse, in Islamic areas, killing people for what *others* post? I don't see how that sort of behavior can lead to anything good.
This brings a new meaning to the old Royal Guardsmen song 'Bears':
[third verse]
While swimming in your pool try not loose your cool
And be drown-ded... by a Water-Bear!
Citation: http://lyrics.wikia.com/The_Royal_Guardsmen:Bears
Thank you for your kind and thoughtful response! I very much appreciate polite exchanges of thoughts on issues, as you seem to :)
I think what I was trying to point out with the fact that we can't observe full-blown evolution in the lab within a human life (or even many) is that because of the timescale required we can never be absolutely certain of evolution - just as we cannot travel back in time to observe the big bang, or a more recent creation event by God. Thus none of us as humans can ever be 100% certain in the scientific sense of any of these things... and yet some people argue so hard that evolution is for-sure, with no alternative but insanity.
Now you are right that there are a lot of evidences we can look at to give us ideas as to what happened in the past, and to back up theories we may come up with. The problem here is that the way we look at those things - fossils, ratios of radioactive isotopes, sedimentary layers, etc - all depend on the world view with which we approach them. For the evolutionist, they all look like great proofs of the belief in an ancient universe... but for someone like myself, they look like great evidence for a world-wide, cataclysmic flood. We can't observe either theory directly, because they require scales beyond our human ability (time for evolution, and planetary-level destruction for something like observing a Biblical flood) which we therefore cannot recreate.
Likewise, the ideas behind radiometric dating hinge on decay rates being constant (which it looks like may not be the case, though so far observations are only showing minute deviation) and that we can properly estimate the ratios of isotopes in the original environments - which, again, cannot be directly observed.
Because of these things, it seems to me that it is very possible to be a productive, thinking individual in society - no matter whether one believes in evolution or not. That is the issue I took with Bill Nye's video: he paints with a very broad, and I believe inaccurate, brush. I like his style of teaching, and loved his show as a kid, but I think that if he really cares about the future of education and the sciences in America then there are other things he could do that would be much more productive than trying to squash competing origin theories :)
Breeding *out* traits - like the diversification of the wolf and dog - is not evolution. It is changes within a broad species or lifeform grouping, and it does not introduce any new genes, traits, etc. The same is true of the fly experiments. Evolution - in the Darwinian sense - would require new information / genes / etc to be introduced into a population without grafting on from an external source... and without manual, human intervention. That has not been empirically verified.
"We were made this way for very good reasons..."? Wow, I love to see the Slashdot community getting behind Intelligent Design!
Seriously, though, I love to see it when our limited scientific abilities back up what I believe. God instructed the use of circumcision, and it turns out not only to be a way to obey Him but also to be beneficial. Perhaps He designed humans in this way just so that we would have something like this, as a way we can show obedience to him without any negative side effects (and, in fact, beneficial ones!).
I think we could come closest with something along these lines: 'each created kind is a unique combination of non-unique traits'. It was described this way in an article I read -
"Perhaps each created kind is a unique combination of non-unique traits. Look at people, for instance. Each of us has certain traits that we may admire (or abhor): brown hair, tall stature, or even a magnificent nose like mine. Whatever the trait, someone else has exactly the same trait, but nobody has the same combination of traits that you do or I do. Each of us is a unique combination of non-unique traits. In a sense, that’s why it’s hard to classify people. If you break them up according to hair type, you’ll come out with groups that won’t fit with the eye type, and so on. Furthermore, we recognize each person as distinct.
We see a similar pattern among other living things. Each created kind is a unique combination of traits that are individually shared with members of other groups. The platypus, for example, was at first considered a hoax by evolutionists, since its “weird” set of traits made it difficult even to guess what it was evolving from or into. Creationists point out that each of its traits (including complex ones like its electric location mechanism, leathery egg, and milk glands) is complete, fully functional, and well-integrated into a distinctive and marvelous kind of life."
This was taken from a discussion on the topic here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/species-kind
"Note also that even some parts of the Bible may be shown to be true, or even predictive, it does not follow that others parts similarly are. For example, one can accept the literal correctness of every single word in the Bible insofar as it describes events, while rejecting any claims God makes about himself in the Bible (e.g omniscience or omnipotence)."
This is almost correct, and would be except for one point: Jesus' death and resurrection. If Jesus rose from the grave, then that in and of itself would be evidence in favor of the claims God makes about Himself. If that one point is not true, all of Christianity falls apart... but likewise, if true then it would revolutionize our understanding of the world (and I would contend that it has). Consider these points:
- If Jesus had not risen, then why would the authorities who crucified Him not simply display His body as proof when it was claimed that He had come back from the dead?
- If His close followers had not seen Him after His resurrection, why would they have gone on to do what they did? Of the eleven disciples left after the crucifixion, ten of them were killed in horrible ways later on for their beliefs. None of them got rich off it, or gained political power (some of that came much, much later). Why would that many people who all *knew* whether the beliefs they were spreading were true or false be willing to go on to die for it... unless it were true?
There are many other resources on this topic I would happily share, some written by folks where were atheist and out to prove the Bible wrong, if you are interested.
"Given the overwhelming amount of evidence against this position, why?"
We all look at the world through our perspective, which is affected - or 'colored' - by the presuppositions we begin with. Because of that, the modern evolutionist sees all of this 'evidence' from a standpoint that presupposes the universe having existed for immense lengths of time. When things can be interpreted one way or another, they default to the interpretations that lend themselves to their already-established world view. No matter how logical an argument you build up, if the foundation you build upon (the presuppositions of your world view) are wrong then the conclusions you come to can be wrong as well.
I find that so many things which are claimed as evidence for evolution / ancient age of the world / etc can be explained in other ways with equally logical reasoning. For example, the layers of sediment that are claimed to indicate various epochs of world history could have been laid down much faster by massive flooding and the resulting deposits. Carbon dating, and indeed many forms of radiometric dating, are dependent upon our estimates of what the environment must have been like (ratios of carbon-12 to carbon-14 for example) - and if you start with different estimates you end up with drastically shorter ages, well in line with a young earth.
In the end, it comes down to the fact that none of us living today were there when any of this took place. I believe one person was (God), and the information He passed along in the books now collected as the Bible give an exact answer to most of the questions of origin. I believe in the validity of the Bible for a whole host of reasons, which are too numerous to describe here (but I can link you to books on the subject if you are interested) - and because I believe the Bible has held up in many areas which can be reasoned and compared to other historical documents then I don't have any reason to distrust it on the origin of life.
I'm sure plenty of people didn't watch it, but the very title of the YouTube video is "Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children". He also said,
"To the grown-ups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world that is completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe - that's fine. But don't make your kids do it, because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems."
By doing this, he is implying that a creationist cannot 'build stuff', 'solve problems', or vote in a way that is responsible. This is quite insulting to me personally, and I think is counter-productive to any discussion of this subject. This is akin to an 'Ad hominem' attack in logic.
I'm not an expert in biology, and never claimed to be :) However, a quick Google search of the terms you used pulls up several results that look well researched and which, via a cursory reading, appear to be written by folks who are experts. I have found such results on both sides of this argument, which tells me that this is not as firmly established of a conclusion as you might think. For example, check out this article (one of the better ones by the look of it, given the number of citations and general quality of writing):
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/do_shared_ervs_support_common_046751.html
In the end, none of us were there when either God created the world, or life evolved, or a combination of the two. As such we cannot absolutely say what happened one way or the other. The upshot of that is that it also doesn't matter to the vast majority of modern disciplines: someone can be a perfectly good engineer, doctor, etc without needing to believe one way or the other on this topic! Now someone who didn't believe in gravity - that person I might not want building an airplane... or someone who didn't understand the size of viruses, allergens, etc building an air filter for use in medical applications. Bill Nye implying that because we need smart and well educated kids to continue our society we should teach evolution is a non-sequitur.
The various fly and bacteria studies are not what I consider true indicators of the level of evolution needed to develop advanced lifeforms from single-cell organisms. I know of those tests, and do not in the least deny their direct findings... but taking that and then saying that from these results we can be sure that a single cell lifeform can evolve into a complex, multi-organ creature is what I call into question. That is what we cannot directly test and observe, while we can measure plate tectonics directly and observe the results of their interactions.
"For what it's worth, I don't think you deserve the troll mod that you've been smacked with. I'm of the opinion that only abusive or flamebait comments should be modded down, and I don't think yours is either of those."
Thank you! I very much appreciate your saying that :)
Giving honor to God by capitalizing pronouns when referring to Him is a logical outflow of my belief that He is the 'original person', so to speak. The source and author of all other personhood. It would be similar to referring to a head of state with special terminology or respect, but on a much grander scale. How is any of that inconsistent?
Also, the friend of whom I spoke is still my friend (or at least I hope he is). I don't understand why folks can't discuss these sorts of topics without falling to the level of breaking relationships. Strike that, I actually can understand it - I just find it very sad: many negative emotions are brought up when confronted with truth that 'breaks' someones world-view, and those emotions change the way you react to a person involved in that process... I just wish people could get over that so that we can have more open discussions about these things. The same applies to politics, etc.
All of the human lexicon is made up of terms we (humans) have invented. What I am saying is that taking a group of flies and making two groups that no longer interbreed is not in any way evidence that single-cell organisms could eventually end up in something as complex as a fish, much less a human being. Separating these ideas of small changes within a type of organism from the idea that one organism can evolve into something totally different, bearing no resemblance to what it came from, is a legitimate distinction. You can all it whatever you like, but being pigeon-holed into using one specific term that you approve of while not allowing other concepts is a much worse form of dishonesty.
Further, I have read lengthy excerpts at least, if not always whole books, from biologists on both sides. I will freely admit that much of the detail and nuance (on both sides) is lost on me, as I don't have a deep education in the life sciences, but I follow along as best I can.
The term used in the Bible, in English at least, is "kind" rather than species. I'm not sure of the original Hebrew word, or what subtleties it conveys, but I suspect that the difficulties in discussing this stem from our imperfect classification system. We can make one group of flies, over generations, incapable of complete interbreeding... but do these 'new' groups of flies have any real distinction? Does one have an extra set of legs, or has one lost the ability to fly? (not that I would necessarily think either of those to be sufficient for a new 'kind', just trying to put out some examples).
Also, as I pointed out, I do think it is entirely possible that God used evolution in the creation process - I won't die for the young earth viewpoint :) What I would die for is the idea of intelligent design: that God orchestrated creation, whether in six days or in six billion years. I still happen to favor the young earth stand, but I am open to discuss and debate such things!
It is really unfortunate that people can't discuss these sorts of things and stay friends.
No, I just don't believe that speciation is evidence for true macro evolution:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/species-kind
It led to an interesting discussion. I posted the following comment:
"I like Bill Nye's approach to a lot of scientific teaching, loved most of his TV show growing up, but he does not in any way put forward an argument for evolution or against creationism in this video. He simply waves his hand and says - without offering a logical, this 'leads-to-that' argument - that by not believing in evolution your world view is inconsistent. I'm afraid that doesn't pass muster for me, though I would be interested in hearing a more in-depth discussion on the subject from him.
Personally, I don't believe in *macro* evolution (one species evolving into another) - and yet my world view is 100% functional and, I believe, logical. The great thing in the end, though, is that if evolution is true my worldview remains intact: evolution itself is not integral to it one way or the other :) I believe God created the universe and everything in it, and while I believe He did it within the literal amount of time described in the Bible it would also be entirely believable that He did so over eons and used evolution in the process - it would not change the fact that He did it!"
My friend replied saying that just because I disagreed with the video didn't mean I should disparage it. I almost couldn't believe what he was saying: I felt like I had been very respectful in my comment, and I was responding to a video that I felt was disparaging my position (not the other way around). Thus I replied with this:
"I in no way meant disrespect! I tried to use very civil words in my comment above, and if I came across impolite in any way then I apologize.
However, I do find it somewhat funny that your reaction would be to accuse me of disparaging something I disagree with when that is exactly what the original video you linked to was itself. Bill Nye, who again I respect greatly for his skill at combining education and entertainment, put forward the following:
1) The idea that the denial of evolution is unique to the US - which I very much doubt, as both Christians and some other religions (Islam, in particular) tend to hold views that contradict with macro evolution.
2) That not believing in evolution - which we cannot measure and observe in a lab - is comparable to not believing in plate tectonics (which we can observe and measure).
3) That we need good scientists and engineers, and therefore should not teach our children creationism. This in effect implies that someone cannot hold a creationist viewpoint and also contribute in those fields, which is preposterous (I personally know several scientists and engineers who hold beliefs similar to my own, and who are still very effective in their work - and I have read the works of many others who are much higher up in their respective fields).
These things all disparage creationist viewpoints, without any actual argument from logic about why evolution is right. That was all I was trying to point out previously, and I tried to do so in every bit as nice and calm of a way as Bill Nye portrayed in his video."
I have not yet heard back from him again.