Not Darwin's Law, it's God's Law.

[M.D. Rawlings]

As a conservative who has a love for science, it is a continual source of embarrassment the way that my fellow conservatives act with regards to evolution. We all know that the true idiots are on the left, and this one thing that we fight about drags us down.

My fellow conservatives, why is it so hard to accept that Evolution is how God created living things? What makes anyone think that evolution is an affront to God?

Charles Darwin discovered how God works woth respect to the living world. If you took the time to really look at the miracle of evolution, you would find God's hand there.

The evidence of evolution is there, there is no evidence for Creationism as it is currently defined. In my mind, evolution is how God created all living things. Evolution IS creation.

You don't really address this in your OP, but one of things that I think many people misunderstand about Science, specifically scientific theories, is that theories are not facts nor are they truth or beliefs. I don't believe in God, or follow any religion, but I also don't believe in the Theory Evolution through Natural Selection or the other theories of evolution. These theories are an attempt at explaining and describing evolution and are a framework in which to make predictions. Nothing more. At the very most scientific theories should only be accepted as the best current explanation of the currently available evidence - whether one is a Christian, an atheist, a conservative, a liberal, or anything in between. Theories are not to be believed.

The other thing which is commonly misunderstood is that evolution IS a fact, and this you do address in your OP. The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is an attempt at explaining the fact of evolution. Not to insult you with this bit of pedantry, I just want to make that clear for the thread.

In direct response to your OP, I have a couple of questions:

1. How do explain Original Sin is there was no literal Adam and Eve?

2. If Global Climate Change is a theory that climatologists, biologists, and oceanographers use as a tool to explain the evidence, do you accept that being a conservative who loves Science? If not, why is it different from other scientific theories?

Evolution is a fact? LOL! How do you know that something never observed to have happened is a fact? We're here; therefore, evolution! Viola!

No. Coloradomtnman, what you're claiming to be a fact is the metaphysics of absolute naturalism or ontological naturalism. That's your religion. So now you're claiming that science has verified that either God does not exist or that God had absolutely no hand in the organization/development of the cosmological/biological order of things?

Got ?

You see, evolutionary theists. There's a certain degree of paradox/absurdity regarding the supposed fact of evolution.

LOL! Evolution actually has been observed.

I guess they didn't teach you that at the Harun Yahya madrassha.

As usual, you simply are ignorant regarding the science position.

Evolutionary transmutational branchings of one kind of order of species into an entirely different kind of order of species has never been observed, dingbat. If that were the case, evolutionary biologists would not be talking about hypothetico-deductive theorems of prediction and there would be no debate between creationists/ID scientists and evolutionists. For if a transmutation of one kind of order of species into an entirely different kind of order of species were to ever be observed, evolutionary theory would be falsified . . . for something else would have to be causing such a sensationally abrupt event, something that could not even be replicated. And therein lies yet another paradox for evolutionary theory. But that just blows your mind, doesn't it, lunchbox?

 

[PredFan]

Evolution isn't supposed to make predictions. It is the best explanation of how things got to be the way they are.

You do not think that evolution is an acceptable explanation of how God created living things?

Why is a biological history of speciation entailing a series of creative events and extinctions over time any less viable?

Who says it is?

Creationists, like myself, believe it's true. I think transitional macroevolutionary theory is bogus. That's all.

Hmm, this is new to me, but it sounds not a bit like creationism. At least not the creationism most of us are familiar with.

I don't know what you mean. Creationism holds that God in a series of creative events directly caused all of the various kinds of creatures that exist or have ever existed on the planet Earth to be; that is, the history of biology is not a series of branching transmutations arising from a common ancestry over time.

As I have written elsewhere:

The evolutionist assumes that the paleontological record necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation. Given the complexity of life and the fact that the paleontological record overwhelming reflects, not a gradual appearance of an ever-increasingly more abundant and varied collection of species, but a series of abrupt appearances and extinctions of fully formed biological systems, it's not unreasonable to argue that we are looking at a series of distinct, creative events orchestrated by an intelligent being over time.

. . . The arrows that evolutionists scratch on charts between illustrations of species that are alleged to be directly related are not found in the paleontological record. They're the gratuitous additions of a theoretical model. The arrows are not artifacts of observable empirical phenomena.

. . . At various points along the way, evolutionary theory entails a common ancestry of branching transmutations. [The evolutionist] imagines a biological history consisting of an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, mostly driven by the mechanism of natural selection, and believes that this scenario provides the best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth. I see a biological history consisting of a series of direct, creative events and episodic extinctions, and believe that this scenario provides the best explanation for the abundance and vast variety of life, and expect that all forms of terrestrial life would necessarily share certain genetic and morphological characteristics, including the inherent ability to affect adaptive variations within.​

In a nutshell: That is what creationism is, and that is the essential difference between creationism and evolutionary theory.

Simple.

You are discounting adaptation, and environmental pressures entirely?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Why is a biological history of speciation entailing a series of creative events and extinctions over time any less viable?

Who says it is?

Creationists, like myself, believe it's true. I think transitional macroevolutionary theory is bogus. That's all.

Hmm, this is new to me, but it sounds not a bit like creationism. At least not the creationism most of us are familiar with.

I don't know what you mean. Creationism holds that God in a series of creative events directly caused all of the various kinds of creatures that exist or have ever existed on the planet Earth to be; that is, the history of biology is not a series of branching transmutations arising from a common ancestry over time.

As I have written elsewhere:

The evolutionist assumes that the paleontological record necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation. Given the complexity of life and the fact that the paleontological record overwhelming reflects, not a gradual appearance of an ever-increasingly more abundant and varied collection of species, but a series of abrupt appearances and extinctions of fully formed biological systems, it's not unreasonable to argue that we are looking at a series of distinct, creative events orchestrated by an intelligent being over time.

. . . The arrows that evolutionists scratch on charts between illustrations of species that are alleged to be directly related are not found in the paleontological record. They're the gratuitous additions of a theoretical model. The arrows are not artifacts of observable empirical phenomena.

. . . At various points along the way, evolutionary theory entails a common ancestry of branching transmutations. [The evolutionist] imagines a biological history consisting of an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, mostly driven by the mechanism of natural selection, and believes that this scenario provides the best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth. I see a biological history consisting of a series of direct, creative events and episodic extinctions, and believe that this scenario provides the best explanation for the abundance and vast variety of life, and expect that all forms of terrestrial life would necessarily share certain genetic and morphological characteristics, including the inherent ability to affect adaptive variations within.​

In a nutshell: That is what creationism is, and that is the essential difference between creationism and evolutionary theory.

Simple.

There's no imagining of biological history.

It's just remarkable that people like you still exist, but then again, you folks do spill out of Pakistani Madrassahs.

Lunchbox!

 

[PredFan]

Who says it is?

Creationists, like myself, believe it's true. I think transitional macroevolutionary theory is bogus. That's all.

Hmm, this is new to me, but it sounds not a bit like creationism. At least not the creationism most of us are familiar with.

I don't know what you mean. Creationism holds that God in a series of creative events directly caused all of the various kinds of creatures that exist or have ever existed on the planet Earth to be; that is, the history of biology is not a series of branching transmutations arising from a common ancestry over time.

As I have written elsewhere:

The evolutionist assumes that the paleontological record necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation. Given the complexity of life and the fact that the paleontological record overwhelming reflects, not a gradual appearance of an ever-increasingly more abundant and varied collection of species, but a series of abrupt appearances and extinctions of fully formed biological systems, it's not unreasonable to argue that we are looking at a series of distinct, creative events orchestrated by an intelligent being over time.

. . . The arrows that evolutionists scratch on charts between illustrations of species that are alleged to be directly related are not found in the paleontological record. They're the gratuitous additions of a theoretical model. The arrows are not artifacts of observable empirical phenomena.

. . . At various points along the way, evolutionary theory entails a common ancestry of branching transmutations. [The evolutionist] imagines a biological history consisting of an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, mostly driven by the mechanism of natural selection, and believes that this scenario provides the best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth. I see a biological history consisting of a series of direct, creative events and episodic extinctions, and believe that this scenario provides the best explanation for the abundance and vast variety of life, and expect that all forms of terrestrial life would necessarily share certain genetic and morphological characteristics, including the inherent ability to affect adaptive variations within.​

In a nutshell: That is what creationism is, and that is the essential difference between creationism and evolutionary theory.

Simple.

There's no imagining of biological history.

It's just remarkable that people like you still exist, but then again, you folks do spill out of Pakistani Madrassahs.

Lunchbox!

I remember many years ago Stephen Jay Gould talking about how he wished most of the people promoting evolution would shut up because they are making things worse. Arguing for evolution when they really have no clue what they are talking about. I think he was talking about Hollie.

No where that I'm aware if does Evolution claim that one species can evolve into another completely different species, but hey, she's an illiterate moron so what can one expect?

 

[Hollie]

As a conservative who has a love for science, it is a continual source of embarrassment the way that my fellow conservatives act with regards to evolution. We all know that the true idiots are on the left, and this one thing that we fight about drags us down.

My fellow conservatives, why is it so hard to accept that Evolution is how God created living things? What makes anyone think that evolution is an affront to God?

Charles Darwin discovered how God works woth respect to the living world. If you took the time to really look at the miracle of evolution, you would find God's hand there.

The evidence of evolution is there, there is no evidence for Creationism as it is currently defined. In my mind, evolution is how God created all living things. Evolution IS creation.

You don't really address this in your OP, but one of things that I think many people misunderstand about Science, specifically scientific theories, is that theories are not facts nor are they truth or beliefs. I don't believe in God, or follow any religion, but I also don't believe in the Theory Evolution through Natural Selection or the other theories of evolution. These theories are an attempt at explaining and describing evolution and are a framework in which to make predictions. Nothing more. At the very most scientific theories should only be accepted as the best current explanation of the currently available evidence - whether one is a Christian, an atheist, a conservative, a liberal, or anything in between. Theories are not to be believed.

The other thing which is commonly misunderstood is that evolution IS a fact, and this you do address in your OP. The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is an attempt at explaining the fact of evolution. Not to insult you with this bit of pedantry, I just want to make that clear for the thread.

In direct response to your OP, I have a couple of questions:

1. How do explain Original Sin is there was no literal Adam and Eve?

2. If Global Climate Change is a theory that climatologists, biologists, and oceanographers use as a tool to explain the evidence, do you accept that being a conservative who loves Science? If not, why is it different from other scientific theories?

Evolution is a fact? LOL! How do you know that something never observed to have happened is a fact? We're here; therefore, evolution! Viola!

No. Coloradomtnman, what you're claiming to be a fact is the metaphysics of absolute naturalism or ontological naturalism. That's your religion. So now you're claiming that science has verified that either God does not exist or that God had absolutely no hand in the organization/development of the cosmological/biological order of things?

Got ?

You see, evolutionary theists. There's a certain degree of paradox/absurdity regarding the supposed fact of evolution.

LOL! Evolution actually has been observed.

I guess they didn't teach you that at the Harun Yahya madrassha.

As usual, you simply are ignorant regarding the science position.

Evolutionary transmutational branchings of one kind of order of species into an entirely different kind of order of species has never been observed, dingbat. If that were the case, evolutionary biologists would not be talking about hypothetico-deductive theorems of prediction and there would be no debate between creationists/ID scientists and evolutionists. For if a transmutation of one kind of order of species into an entirely different kind of order of species were to ever be observed, evolutionary theory would be falsified . . . for something else would have to be causing such a sensationally abrupt event, something that could not even be replicated. And therein lies yet another paradox for evolutionary theory. But that just blows your mind, doesn't it, lunchbox?

Speciation has been observed.

And no, there is no debate between ID'iot creationists, (ie. fundamentalist Christians), and the relevant science community.

 

[Hollie]

Who says it is?

Creationists, like myself, believe it's true. I think transitional macroevolutionary theory is bogus. That's all.

Hmm, this is new to me, but it sounds not a bit like creationism. At least not the creationism most of us are familiar with.

I don't know what you mean. Creationism holds that God in a series of creative events directly caused all of the various kinds of creatures that exist or have ever existed on the planet Earth to be; that is, the history of biology is not a series of branching transmutations arising from a common ancestry over time.

As I have written elsewhere:

The evolutionist assumes that the paleontological record necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation. Given the complexity of life and the fact that the paleontological record overwhelming reflects, not a gradual appearance of an ever-increasingly more abundant and varied collection of species, but a series of abrupt appearances and extinctions of fully formed biological systems, it's not unreasonable to argue that we are looking at a series of distinct, creative events orchestrated by an intelligent being over time.

. . . The arrows that evolutionists scratch on charts between illustrations of species that are alleged to be directly related are not found in the paleontological record. They're the gratuitous additions of a theoretical model. The arrows are not artifacts of observable empirical phenomena.

. . . At various points along the way, evolutionary theory entails a common ancestry of branching transmutations. [The evolutionist] imagines a biological history consisting of an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, mostly driven by the mechanism of natural selection, and believes that this scenario provides the best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth. I see a biological history consisting of a series of direct, creative events and episodic extinctions, and believe that this scenario provides the best explanation for the abundance and vast variety of life, and expect that all forms of terrestrial life would necessarily share certain genetic and morphological characteristics, including the inherent ability to affect adaptive variations within.​

In a nutshell: That is what creationism is, and that is the essential difference between creationism and evolutionary theory.

Simple.

There's no imagining of biological history.

It's just remarkable that people like you still exist, but then again, you folks do spill out of Pakistani Madrassahs.

Lunchbox!

Having no position that you can defend, you're left with nothing but pointlessness.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Why is a biological history of speciation entailing a series of creative events and extinctions over time any less viable?

Who says it is?

Creationists, like myself, believe it's true. I think transitional macroevolutionary theory is bogus. That's all.

Hmm, this is new to me, but it sounds not a bit like creationism. At least not the creationism most of us are familiar with.

I don't know what you mean. Creationism holds that God in a series of creative events directly caused all of the various kinds of creatures that exist or have ever existed on the planet Earth to be; that is, the history of biology is not a series of branching transmutations arising from a common ancestry over time.

As I have written elsewhere:

The evolutionist assumes that the paleontological record necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation. Given the complexity of life and the fact that the paleontological record overwhelming reflects, not a gradual appearance of an ever-increasingly more abundant and varied collection of species, but a series of abrupt appearances and extinctions of fully formed biological systems, it's not unreasonable to argue that we are looking at a series of distinct, creative events orchestrated by an intelligent being over time.

. . . The arrows that evolutionists scratch on charts between illustrations of species that are alleged to be directly related are not found in the paleontological record. They're the gratuitous additions of a theoretical model. The arrows are not artifacts of observable empirical phenomena.

. . . At various points along the way, evolutionary theory entails a common ancestry of branching transmutations. [The evolutionist] imagines a biological history consisting of an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, mostly driven by the mechanism of natural selection, and believes that this scenario provides the best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth. I see a biological history consisting of a series of direct, creative events and episodic extinctions, and believe that this scenario provides the best explanation for the abundance and vast variety of life, and expect that all forms of terrestrial life would necessarily share certain genetic and morphological characteristics, including the inherent ability to affect adaptive variations within.​

In a nutshell: That is what creationism is, and that is the essential difference between creationism and evolutionary theory.

Simple.

You are discounting speciation and environmental pressures entirely?

No.

Are you arguing that innumerable instances of adaptive speciation necessarily equals the transmutational speciation of a common ancestry over time? Well, yes, of course, that's what you believe occurred. For that's all Darwinism is in the final analysis: a never observed phenomenon predicated on the scientifically unfalsifiable, metaphysical presupposition of absolute naturalism or ontological naturalism.

 

[Hollie]

Creationists, like myself, believe it's true. I think transitional macroevolutionary theory is bogus. That's all.

Hmm, this is new to me, but it sounds not a bit like creationism. At least not the creationism most of us are familiar with.

I don't know what you mean. Creationism holds that God in a series of creative events directly caused all of the various kinds of creatures that exist or have ever existed on the planet Earth to be; that is, the history of biology is not a series of branching transmutations arising from a common ancestry over time.

As I have written elsewhere:

The evolutionist assumes that the paleontological record necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation. Given the complexity of life and the fact that the paleontological record overwhelming reflects, not a gradual appearance of an ever-increasingly more abundant and varied collection of species, but a series of abrupt appearances and extinctions of fully formed biological systems, it's not unreasonable to argue that we are looking at a series of distinct, creative events orchestrated by an intelligent being over time.

. . . The arrows that evolutionists scratch on charts between illustrations of species that are alleged to be directly related are not found in the paleontological record. They're the gratuitous additions of a theoretical model. The arrows are not artifacts of observable empirical phenomena.

. . . At various points along the way, evolutionary theory entails a common ancestry of branching transmutations. [The evolutionist] imagines a biological history consisting of an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, mostly driven by the mechanism of natural selection, and believes that this scenario provides the best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth. I see a biological history consisting of a series of direct, creative events and episodic extinctions, and believe that this scenario provides the best explanation for the abundance and vast variety of life, and expect that all forms of terrestrial life would necessarily share certain genetic and morphological characteristics, including the inherent ability to affect adaptive variations within.​

In a nutshell: That is what creationism is, and that is the essential difference between creationism and evolutionary theory.

Simple.

There's no imagining of biological history.

It's just remarkable that people like you still exist, but then again, you folks do spill out of Pakistani Madrassahs.

Lunchbox!

I remember many years ago Stephen Jay Gould talking about how he wished most of the people promoting evolution would shut up because they are making things worse. Arguing for evolution when they really have no clue what they are talking about. I think he was talking about Hollie.

No where that I'm aware if does Evolution claim that one species can evolve into another completely different species, but hey, she's an illiterate moron so what can one expect?

You're aware of very little. That's why you're unable to contribute to the thread you opened.

I guess that makes you the pointless spammer.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Creationists, like myself, believe it's true. I think transitional macroevolutionary theory is bogus. That's all.

Hmm, this is new to me, but it sounds not a bit like creationism. At least not the creationism most of us are familiar with.

I don't know what you mean. Creationism holds that God in a series of creative events directly caused all of the various kinds of creatures that exist or have ever existed on the planet Earth to be; that is, the history of biology is not a series of branching transmutations arising from a common ancestry over time.

As I have written elsewhere:

The evolutionist assumes that the paleontological record necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation. Given the complexity of life and the fact that the paleontological record overwhelming reflects, not a gradual appearance of an ever-increasingly more abundant and varied collection of species, but a series of abrupt appearances and extinctions of fully formed biological systems, it's not unreasonable to argue that we are looking at a series of distinct, creative events orchestrated by an intelligent being over time.

. . . The arrows that evolutionists scratch on charts between illustrations of species that are alleged to be directly related are not found in the paleontological record. They're the gratuitous additions of a theoretical model. The arrows are not artifacts of observable empirical phenomena.

. . . At various points along the way, evolutionary theory entails a common ancestry of branching transmutations. [The evolutionist] imagines a biological history consisting of an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, mostly driven by the mechanism of natural selection, and believes that this scenario provides the best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth. I see a biological history consisting of a series of direct, creative events and episodic extinctions, and believe that this scenario provides the best explanation for the abundance and vast variety of life, and expect that all forms of terrestrial life would necessarily share certain genetic and morphological characteristics, including the inherent ability to affect adaptive variations within.​

In a nutshell: That is what creationism is, and that is the essential difference between creationism and evolutionary theory.

Simple.

There's no imagining of biological history.

It's just remarkable that people like you still exist, but then again, you folks do spill out of Pakistani Madrassahs.

Lunchbox!

Having no position that you can defend, you're left with nothing but pointlessness.

Lunchbox!

 

[Hollie]

Hmm, this is new to me, but it sounds not a bit like creationism. At least not the creationism most of us are familiar with.

I don't know what you mean. Creationism holds that God in a series of creative events directly caused all of the various kinds of creatures that exist or have ever existed on the planet Earth to be; that is, the history of biology is not a series of branching transmutations arising from a common ancestry over time.

As I have written elsewhere:

The evolutionist assumes that the paleontological record necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation. Given the complexity of life and the fact that the paleontological record overwhelming reflects, not a gradual appearance of an ever-increasingly more abundant and varied collection of species, but a series of abrupt appearances and extinctions of fully formed biological systems, it's not unreasonable to argue that we are looking at a series of distinct, creative events orchestrated by an intelligent being over time.

. . . The arrows that evolutionists scratch on charts between illustrations of species that are alleged to be directly related are not found in the paleontological record. They're the gratuitous additions of a theoretical model. The arrows are not artifacts of observable empirical phenomena.

. . . At various points along the way, evolutionary theory entails a common ancestry of branching transmutations. [The evolutionist] imagines a biological history consisting of an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, mostly driven by the mechanism of natural selection, and believes that this scenario provides the best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth. I see a biological history consisting of a series of direct, creative events and episodic extinctions, and believe that this scenario provides the best explanation for the abundance and vast variety of life, and expect that all forms of terrestrial life would necessarily share certain genetic and morphological characteristics, including the inherent ability to affect adaptive variations within.​

In a nutshell: That is what creationism is, and that is the essential difference between creationism and evolutionary theory.

Simple.

There's no imagining of biological history.

It's just remarkable that people like you still exist, but then again, you folks do spill out of Pakistani Madrassahs.

Lunchbox!

Having no position that you can defend, you're left with nothing but pointlessness.

Lunchbox!

The continuing failure of your argument. Oh my, the dangers of religious extremism.

 

[PredFan]

As a conservative who has a love for science, it is a continual source of embarrassment the way that my fellow conservatives act with regards to evolution. We all know that the true idiots are on the left, and this one thing that we fight about drags us down.

My fellow conservatives, why is it so hard to accept that Evolution is how God created living things? What makes anyone think that evolution is an affront to God?

Charles Darwin discovered how God works woth respect to the living world. If you took the time to really look at the miracle of evolution, you would find God's hand there.

The evidence of evolution is there, there is no evidence for Creationism as it is currently defined. In my mind, evolution is how God created all living things. Evolution IS creation.

You don't really address this in your OP, but one of things that I think many people misunderstand about Science, specifically scientific theories, is that theories are not facts nor are they truth or beliefs. I don't believe in God, or follow any religion, but I also don't believe in the Theory Evolution through Natural Selection or the other theories of evolution. These theories are an attempt at explaining and describing evolution and are a framework in which to make predictions. Nothing more. At the very most scientific theories should only be accepted as the best current explanation of the currently available evidence - whether one is a Christian, an atheist, a conservative, a liberal, or anything in between. Theories are not to be believed.

The other thing which is commonly misunderstood is that evolution IS a fact, and this you do address in your OP. The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is an attempt at explaining the fact of evolution. Not to insult you with this bit of pedantry, I just want to make that clear for the thread.

In direct response to your OP, I have a couple of questions:

1. How do explain Original Sin is there was no literal Adam and Eve?

2. If Global Climate Change is a theory that climatologists, biologists, and oceanographers use as a tool to explain the evidence, do you accept that being a conservative who loves Science? If not, why is it different from other scientific theories?

Aw what the hell, this thread got totally trashed by idiots who can't read and now it's yet another pissing match between creation and evolution. Only one of hundreds already here.

Might as well answer your questions then:

1. I don't care about original sin, I don't try to explain it.

2. I am a lover not onlyof science, but of many other things as well. My two favorite subjects are Science and history. It is the history that I love that tells me that Global Warming is bunk.

If all you know and all you care about is science, you might fall for that. People, laymen, have fallen for junk science throughout history. They are falling for it now and probably will again in the future. For example, your claim that scientists use the Global Warming/Climate change/climate dusruption theory to explain the evidence, shows that you have fallen not for the science but for the rhetoric. The AGW scam us based on computer model predictions and says what will happen, not what is happening. Global Warming isn't happening.

 

[PredFan]

Who says it is?

Creationists, like myself, believe it's true. I think transitional macroevolutionary theory is bogus. That's all.

Hmm, this is new to me, but it sounds not a bit like creationism. At least not the creationism most of us are familiar with.

I don't know what you mean. Creationism holds that God in a series of creative events directly caused all of the various kinds of creatures that exist or have ever existed on the planet Earth to be; that is, the history of biology is not a series of branching transmutations arising from a common ancestry over time.

As I have written elsewhere:

The evolutionist assumes that the paleontological record necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation. Given the complexity of life and the fact that the paleontological record overwhelming reflects, not a gradual appearance of an ever-increasingly more abundant and varied collection of species, but a series of abrupt appearances and extinctions of fully formed biological systems, it's not unreasonable to argue that we are looking at a series of distinct, creative events orchestrated by an intelligent being over time.

. . . The arrows that evolutionists scratch on charts between illustrations of species that are alleged to be directly related are not found in the paleontological record. They're the gratuitous additions of a theoretical model. The arrows are not artifacts of observable empirical phenomena.

. . . At various points along the way, evolutionary theory entails a common ancestry of branching transmutations. [The evolutionist] imagines a biological history consisting of an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, mostly driven by the mechanism of natural selection, and believes that this scenario provides the best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth. I see a biological history consisting of a series of direct, creative events and episodic extinctions, and believe that this scenario provides the best explanation for the abundance and vast variety of life, and expect that all forms of terrestrial life would necessarily share certain genetic and morphological characteristics, including the inherent ability to affect adaptive variations within.​

In a nutshell: That is what creationism is, and that is the essential difference between creationism and evolutionary theory.

Simple.

You are discounting speciation and environmental pressures entirely?

No.

Are you arguing that innumerable instances of adaptive speciation necessarily equals the transmutational speciation of a common ancestry over time? Well, yes, of course, that's what you believe occurred. For that's all Darwinism is in the final analysis: a never observed phenomenon predicated on the scientifically unfalsifiable, metaphysical presupposition of absolute naturalism or ontological naturalism.

What I'm saying is that though I can, and do, totally accept that extinctions and other like events have perhaps the greatest effect on evolution, I can't rule out "survival of the fittest" adaptation over time. I wasn't sure if from what I read, that you were discounting that.

 

[PredFan]

Hmm, this is new to me, but it sounds not a bit like creationism. At least not the creationism most of us are familiar with.

I don't know what you mean. Creationism holds that God in a series of creative events directly caused all of the various kinds of creatures that exist or have ever existed on the planet Earth to be; that is, the history of biology is not a series of branching transmutations arising from a common ancestry over time.

As I have written elsewhere:

The evolutionist assumes that the paleontological record necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation. Given the complexity of life and the fact that the paleontological record overwhelming reflects, not a gradual appearance of an ever-increasingly more abundant and varied collection of species, but a series of abrupt appearances and extinctions of fully formed biological systems, it's not unreasonable to argue that we are looking at a series of distinct, creative events orchestrated by an intelligent being over time.

. . . The arrows that evolutionists scratch on charts between illustrations of species that are alleged to be directly related are not found in the paleontological record. They're the gratuitous additions of a theoretical model. The arrows are not artifacts of observable empirical phenomena.

. . . At various points along the way, evolutionary theory entails a common ancestry of branching transmutations. [The evolutionist] imagines a biological history consisting of an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, mostly driven by the mechanism of natural selection, and believes that this scenario provides the best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth. I see a biological history consisting of a series of direct, creative events and episodic extinctions, and believe that this scenario provides the best explanation for the abundance and vast variety of life, and expect that all forms of terrestrial life would necessarily share certain genetic and morphological characteristics, including the inherent ability to affect adaptive variations within.​

In a nutshell: That is what creationism is, and that is the essential difference between creationism and evolutionary theory.

Simple.

There's no imagining of biological history.

It's just remarkable that people like you still exist, but then again, you folks do spill out of Pakistani Madrassahs.

Lunchbox!

I remember many years ago Stephen Jay Gould talking about how he wished most of the people promoting evolution would shut up because they are making things worse. Arguing for evolution when they really have no clue what they are talking about. I think he was talking about Hollie.

No where that I'm aware if does Evolution claim that one species can evolve into another completely different species, but hey, she's an illiterate moron so what can one expect?

You're aware of very little. That's why you're unable to contribute to the thread you opened.

I guess that makes you the pointless spammer.

No illiterate idiots like you took the thread off in a direction other than what was intended in the OP. If you weren't such an ignorant idiot, you'd have known that.

 

[Hollie]

I don't know what you mean. Creationism holds that God in a series of creative events directly caused all of the various kinds of creatures that exist or have ever existed on the planet Earth to be; that is, the history of biology is not a series of branching transmutations arising from a common ancestry over time.

As I have written elsewhere:

The evolutionist assumes that the paleontological record necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation. Given the complexity of life and the fact that the paleontological record overwhelming reflects, not a gradual appearance of an ever-increasingly more abundant and varied collection of species, but a series of abrupt appearances and extinctions of fully formed biological systems, it's not unreasonable to argue that we are looking at a series of distinct, creative events orchestrated by an intelligent being over time.

. . . The arrows that evolutionists scratch on charts between illustrations of species that are alleged to be directly related are not found in the paleontological record. They're the gratuitous additions of a theoretical model. The arrows are not artifacts of observable empirical phenomena.

. . . At various points along the way, evolutionary theory entails a common ancestry of branching transmutations. [The evolutionist] imagines a biological history consisting of an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, mostly driven by the mechanism of natural selection, and believes that this scenario provides the best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth. I see a biological history consisting of a series of direct, creative events and episodic extinctions, and believe that this scenario provides the best explanation for the abundance and vast variety of life, and expect that all forms of terrestrial life would necessarily share certain genetic and morphological characteristics, including the inherent ability to affect adaptive variations within.​

In a nutshell: That is what creationism is, and that is the essential difference between creationism and evolutionary theory.

Simple.

There's no imagining of biological history.

It's just remarkable that people like you still exist, but then again, you folks do spill out of Pakistani Madrassahs.

Lunchbox!

I remember many years ago Stephen Jay Gould talking about how he wished most of the people promoting evolution would shut up because they are making things worse. Arguing for evolution when they really have no clue what they are talking about. I think he was talking about Hollie.

No where that I'm aware if does Evolution claim that one species can evolve into another completely different species, but hey, she's an illiterate moron so what can one expect?

You're aware of very little. That's why you're unable to contribute to the thread you opened.

I guess that makes you the pointless spammer.

No illiterate idiots like you took the thread off in a direction other than what was intended in the OP. If you weren't such an ignorant idiot, you'd have known that.

I deserve a spanking.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Creationists, like myself, believe it's true. I think transitional macroevolutionary theory is bogus. That's all.

Hmm, this is new to me, but it sounds not a bit like creationism. At least not the creationism most of us are familiar with.

I don't know what you mean. Creationism holds that God in a series of creative events directly caused all of the various kinds of creatures that exist or have ever existed on the planet Earth to be; that is, the history of biology is not a series of branching transmutations arising from a common ancestry over time.

As I have written elsewhere:

The evolutionist assumes that the paleontological record necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation. Given the complexity of life and the fact that the paleontological record overwhelming reflects, not a gradual appearance of an ever-increasingly more abundant and varied collection of species, but a series of abrupt appearances and extinctions of fully formed biological systems, it's not unreasonable to argue that we are looking at a series of distinct, creative events orchestrated by an intelligent being over time.

. . . The arrows that evolutionists scratch on charts between illustrations of species that are alleged to be directly related are not found in the paleontological record. They're the gratuitous additions of a theoretical model. The arrows are not artifacts of observable empirical phenomena.

. . . At various points along the way, evolutionary theory entails a common ancestry of branching transmutations. [The evolutionist] imagines a biological history consisting of an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, mostly driven by the mechanism of natural selection, and believes that this scenario provides the best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth. I see a biological history consisting of a series of direct, creative events and episodic extinctions, and believe that this scenario provides the best explanation for the abundance and vast variety of life, and expect that all forms of terrestrial life would necessarily share certain genetic and morphological characteristics, including the inherent ability to affect adaptive variations within.​

In a nutshell: That is what creationism is, and that is the essential difference between creationism and evolutionary theory.

Simple.

You are discounting speciation and environmental pressures entirely?

No.

Are you arguing that innumerable instances of adaptive speciation necessarily equals the transmutational speciation of a common ancestry over time? Well, yes, of course, that's what you believe occurred. For that's all Darwinism is in the final analysis: a never observed phenomenon predicated on the scientifically unfalsifiable, metaphysical presupposition of absolute naturalism or ontological naturalism.

What I'm saying is that though I can, and do, totally accept that extinctions and other like events have perhaps the greatest effect on evolution, I can't rule out "survival of the fittest" adaptation over time. I wasn't sure if from what I read, that you were discounting that.

No. I don't.

 

[PredFan]

Hmm, this is new to me, but it sounds not a bit like creationism. At least not the creationism most of us are familiar with.

I don't know what you mean. Creationism holds that God in a series of creative events directly caused all of the various kinds of creatures that exist or have ever existed on the planet Earth to be; that is, the history of biology is not a series of branching transmutations arising from a common ancestry over time.

As I have written elsewhere:

The evolutionist assumes that the paleontological record necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation. Given the complexity of life and the fact that the paleontological record overwhelming reflects, not a gradual appearance of an ever-increasingly more abundant and varied collection of species, but a series of abrupt appearances and extinctions of fully formed biological systems, it's not unreasonable to argue that we are looking at a series of distinct, creative events orchestrated by an intelligent being over time.

. . . The arrows that evolutionists scratch on charts between illustrations of species that are alleged to be directly related are not found in the paleontological record. They're the gratuitous additions of a theoretical model. The arrows are not artifacts of observable empirical phenomena.

. . . At various points along the way, evolutionary theory entails a common ancestry of branching transmutations. [The evolutionist] imagines a biological history consisting of an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, mostly driven by the mechanism of natural selection, and believes that this scenario provides the best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth. I see a biological history consisting of a series of direct, creative events and episodic extinctions, and believe that this scenario provides the best explanation for the abundance and vast variety of life, and expect that all forms of terrestrial life would necessarily share certain genetic and morphological characteristics, including the inherent ability to affect adaptive variations within.​

In a nutshell: That is what creationism is, and that is the essential difference between creationism and evolutionary theory.

Simple.

You are discounting speciation and environmental pressures entirely?

No.

Are you arguing that innumerable instances of adaptive speciation necessarily equals the transmutational speciation of a common ancestry over time? Well, yes, of course, that's what you believe occurred. For that's all Darwinism is in the final analysis: a never observed phenomenon predicated on the scientifically unfalsifiable, metaphysical presupposition of absolute naturalism or ontological naturalism.

What I'm saying is that though I can, and do, totally accept that extinctions and other like events have perhaps the greatest effect on evolution, I can't rule out "survival of the fittest" adaptation over time. I wasn't sure if from what I read, that you were discounting that.

No. I don't.

Well then I see no disagreement between us.

What makes me shake my head in disgust is hard headed people on both sides of the issue who are so set in their ways that the truth eludes them. It's funny that the anti-religion evolutionists are almost religious in their hard and fast absolute.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Creationists, like myself, believe it's true. I think transitional macroevolutionary theory is bogus. That's all.

Hmm, this is new to me, but it sounds not a bit like creationism. At least not the creationism most of us are familiar with.

I don't know what you mean. Creationism holds that God in a series of creative events directly caused all of the various kinds of creatures that exist or have ever existed on the planet Earth to be; that is, the history of biology is not a series of branching transmutations arising from a common ancestry over time.

As I have written elsewhere:

The evolutionist assumes that the paleontological record necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation. Given the complexity of life and the fact that the paleontological record overwhelming reflects, not a gradual appearance of an ever-increasingly more abundant and varied collection of species, but a series of abrupt appearances and extinctions of fully formed biological systems, it's not unreasonable to argue that we are looking at a series of distinct, creative events orchestrated by an intelligent being over time.

. . . The arrows that evolutionists scratch on charts between illustrations of species that are alleged to be directly related are not found in the paleontological record. They're the gratuitous additions of a theoretical model. The arrows are not artifacts of observable empirical phenomena.

. . . At various points along the way, evolutionary theory entails a common ancestry of branching transmutations. [The evolutionist] imagines a biological history consisting of an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, mostly driven by the mechanism of natural selection, and believes that this scenario provides the best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth. I see a biological history consisting of a series of direct, creative events and episodic extinctions, and believe that this scenario provides the best explanation for the abundance and vast variety of life, and expect that all forms of terrestrial life would necessarily share certain genetic and morphological characteristics, including the inherent ability to affect adaptive variations within.​

In a nutshell: That is what creationism is, and that is the essential difference between creationism and evolutionary theory.

Simple.

There's no imagining of biological history.

It's just remarkable that people like you still exist, but then again, you folks do spill out of Pakistani Madrassahs.

Lunchbox!

I remember many years ago Stephen Jay Gould talking about how he wished most of the people promoting evolution would shut up because they are making things worse. Arguing for evolution when they really have no clue what they are talking about. I think he was talking about Hollie.

No where that I'm aware if does Evolution claim that one species can evolve into another completely different species, but hey, she's an illiterate moron so what can one expect?

Well, according to Darwinism, over a relatively long period of time, an innumerable number of transitional adaptations are thought to eventually affect transmutations of species from one kind to another, i.e., beginning with transitional branchings of speciation. Even Gould's punctuated equilibrium model entails anywhere from tens-of-thousands to hundreds-of-thousands of years. But then he's talking about instances of established, transitional branching events of speciation that eventually lead to speciation from one kind of order of species to another, not the kind of freakish occurrences that Hollie apparently has in mind that would falsify the Darwinian notion of a common ancestry.

Hollie doesn't grasp the distinction I'm making between adaptive speciation within established orders of species and the macro-evolutionary, transmutational speciation of a common ancestry.

In any event, all the creationist is saying is that he does not believe that the latter can or did occur. He simply holds that the biblical account, though not a scientific treatise, does not support such a scenario. I hold that the Bible asserts that biological history is a series of direct, creative events of discretely unique, fully formed and unrelated biological systems/creatures over time, albeit, all sharing a similar genetic and/or morphological infrastructure. After all, they are species of the same planet, subject to the same environmental and atmospheric conditions thereof.

That's simply what I believe to be true.

On the other hand, my conviction is based on the notion that the Bible is in fact God's word and that its metaphysics are methodological naturalism. Is that scientifically verifiable or falsifiable? No! Is it possible to falsify Darwinian evolutionary theory which is based on the metaphysics of absolute naturalism (theistic) or the metaphysics of ontological naturalism (atheistic)? No!

Can I assert with absolutely certainty that I'm right and the theistic evolutionist is wrong?

No! I can't! Those who grasp the rational, metaphysical and empirical complexities and uncertainties of the matter get that. We may be looking at a combination of processes here for all I know.

Science tentatively verifies or falsifies things.

Logic is used to prove or disprove things.

 

[Hollie]

Hmm, this is new to me, but it sounds not a bit like creationism. At least not the creationism most of us are familiar with.

I don't know what you mean. Creationism holds that God in a series of creative events directly caused all of the various kinds of creatures that exist or have ever existed on the planet Earth to be; that is, the history of biology is not a series of branching transmutations arising from a common ancestry over time.

As I have written elsewhere:

The evolutionist assumes that the paleontological record necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation. Given the complexity of life and the fact that the paleontological record overwhelming reflects, not a gradual appearance of an ever-increasingly more abundant and varied collection of species, but a series of abrupt appearances and extinctions of fully formed biological systems, it's not unreasonable to argue that we are looking at a series of distinct, creative events orchestrated by an intelligent being over time.

. . . The arrows that evolutionists scratch on charts between illustrations of species that are alleged to be directly related are not found in the paleontological record. They're the gratuitous additions of a theoretical model. The arrows are not artifacts of observable empirical phenomena.

. . . At various points along the way, evolutionary theory entails a common ancestry of branching transmutations. [The evolutionist] imagines a biological history consisting of an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, mostly driven by the mechanism of natural selection, and believes that this scenario provides the best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth. I see a biological history consisting of a series of direct, creative events and episodic extinctions, and believe that this scenario provides the best explanation for the abundance and vast variety of life, and expect that all forms of terrestrial life would necessarily share certain genetic and morphological characteristics, including the inherent ability to affect adaptive variations within.​

In a nutshell: That is what creationism is, and that is the essential difference between creationism and evolutionary theory.

Simple.

There's no imagining of biological history.

It's just remarkable that people like you still exist, but then again, you folks do spill out of Pakistani Madrassahs.

Lunchbox!

I remember many years ago Stephen Jay Gould talking about how he wished most of the people promoting evolution would shut up because they are making things worse. Arguing for evolution when they really have no clue what they are talking about. I think he was talking about Hollie.

No where that I'm aware if does Evolution claim that one species can evolve into another completely different species, but hey, she's an illiterate moron so what can one expect?

Well, according to Darwinism, over a relatively long period of time, an innumerable number of transitional adaptations are thought to eventually affect transmutations of species from one kind to another, i.e., beginning with transitional branchings of speciation. Even Gould's punctuated equilibrium model entails anywhere from tens-of-thousands to hundreds-of-thousands of years. But then he's talking about instances of established, transitional branching events of speciation that eventually lead to speciation from one kind of order of species to another, not the kind of freakish occurrences that Hollie apparently has in mind that would falsify the Darwinian notion of a common ancestry.

Hollie doesn't grasp the distinction I'm making between adaptive speciation within established orders of species and the macro-evolutionary, transmutational speciation of a common ancestry.

In any event, all the creationist is saying is that he does not believe that the latter can or did occur. He simply holds that the biblical account, though not a scientific treatise, does not support such a scenario. I hold that the Bible asserts that biological history is a series of direct, creative events of discretely unique, fully formed and unrelated biological systems/creatures over time, albeit, all sharing a similar genetic and/or morphological infrastructure. After all, they are species of the same planet, subject to the same environmental and atmospheric conditions thereof.

That's simply what I believe to be true.

On the other hand, my conviction is based on the notion that the Bible is in fact God's word and that its metaphysics are methodological naturalism. Is that scientifically verifiable or falsifiable? No! Is it possible to falsify Darwinian evolutionary theory which is based on the metaphysics of absolute naturalism (theistic) or the metaphysics of ontological naturalism (atheistic)? No!

Can I assert with absolutely certainty that I'm right and the theistic evolutionist is wrong?

No! I can't! Those who grasp the rational, metaphysical and empirical complexities and uncertainties of the matter get that. We may be looking at a combination of processes here for all I know.

Science tentatively verifies or falsifies things.

Logic is used to prove or disprove things.

Your babbling is tragically naive but not uncommon for ignorant religionists who lack a science vocabulary.

It's actually comical to see the hyper-religious attempt to use "logic" as an explanation for magic and supernaturalism that defines their man-made gawds.

It's worth addressing what the Xtian fundamentalist has to lose by conceding evolution as the means for diversity of life on the planet and by conceding to non-literal bible tales. Evolution being true means there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. That's why they will resist, to the bitter end, in spite of the bibles' tales being absurdities of nature, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.

The Christian fundamentalist revulsion for science is precisely because of the exploration being undertaken by science. Science has reduced the job requirements for gawds. Where once it was believed that gawds opened every flower petal and oversaw every human endeavor. Now the gawds are relegated to sitting on thrones and paper shuffling.

The likely discovery of life elsewhere in the solar system is going to be utterly devastating to the religious articles. Life as we know it on this planet per christianity is a very earthly product of gawds and miracles and supernaturalism and supermagicalism. Life elsewhere will prove irresolvable for the gawds model.

Although, life discovered elsewhere off this planet will cause the religionists to re-interpret some verse and "discover" a new bible prophesy, like magic!

 

[PredFan]

I don't know what you mean. Creationism holds that God in a series of creative events directly caused all of the various kinds of creatures that exist or have ever existed on the planet Earth to be; that is, the history of biology is not a series of branching transmutations arising from a common ancestry over time.

As I have written elsewhere:

The evolutionist assumes that the paleontological record necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation. Given the complexity of life and the fact that the paleontological record overwhelming reflects, not a gradual appearance of an ever-increasingly more abundant and varied collection of species, but a series of abrupt appearances and extinctions of fully formed biological systems, it's not unreasonable to argue that we are looking at a series of distinct, creative events orchestrated by an intelligent being over time.

. . . The arrows that evolutionists scratch on charts between illustrations of species that are alleged to be directly related are not found in the paleontological record. They're the gratuitous additions of a theoretical model. The arrows are not artifacts of observable empirical phenomena.

. . . At various points along the way, evolutionary theory entails a common ancestry of branching transmutations. [The evolutionist] imagines a biological history consisting of an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, mostly driven by the mechanism of natural selection, and believes that this scenario provides the best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth. I see a biological history consisting of a series of direct, creative events and episodic extinctions, and believe that this scenario provides the best explanation for the abundance and vast variety of life, and expect that all forms of terrestrial life would necessarily share certain genetic and morphological characteristics, including the inherent ability to affect adaptive variations within.​

In a nutshell: That is what creationism is, and that is the essential difference between creationism and evolutionary theory.

Simple.

There's no imagining of biological history.

It's just remarkable that people like you still exist, but then again, you folks do spill out of Pakistani Madrassahs.

Lunchbox!

I remember many years ago Stephen Jay Gould talking about how he wished most of the people promoting evolution would shut up because they are making things worse. Arguing for evolution when they really have no clue what they are talking about. I think he was talking about Hollie.

No where that I'm aware if does Evolution claim that one species can evolve into another completely different species, but hey, she's an illiterate moron so what can one expect?

Well, according to Darwinism, over a relatively long period of time, an innumerable number of transitional adaptations are thought to eventually affect transmutations of species from one kind to another, i.e., beginning with transitional branchings of speciation. Even Gould's punctuated equilibrium model entails anywhere from tens-of-thousands to hundreds-of-thousands of years. But then he's talking about instances of established, transitional branching events of speciation that eventually lead to speciation from one kind of order of species to another, not the kind of freakish occurrences that Hollie apparently has in mind that would falsify the Darwinian notion of a common ancestry.

Hollie doesn't grasp the distinction I'm making between adaptive speciation within established orders of species and the macro-evolutionary, transmutational speciation of a common ancestry.

In any event, all the creationist is saying is that he does not believe that the latter can or did occur. He simply holds that the biblical account, though not a scientific treatise, does not support such a scenario. I hold that the Bible asserts that biological history is a series of direct, creative events of discretely unique, fully formed and unrelated biological systems/creatures over time, albeit, all sharing a similar genetic and/or morphological infrastructure. After all, they are species of the same planet, subject to the same environmental and atmospheric conditions thereof.

That's simply what I believe to be true.

On the other hand, my conviction is based on the notion that the Bible is in fact God's word and that its metaphysics are methodological naturalism. Is that scientifically verifiable or falsifiable? No! Is it possible to falsify Darwinian evolutionary theory which is based on the metaphysics of absolute naturalism (theistic) or the metaphysics of ontological naturalism (atheistic)? No!

Can I assert with absolutely certainty that I'm right and the theistic evolutionist is wrong?

No! I can't! Those who grasp the rational, metaphysical and empirical complexities and uncertainties of the matter get that. We may be looking at a combination of processes here for all I know.

Science tentatively verifies or falsifies things.

Logic is used to prove or disprove things.

Your babbling is tragically naive but not uncommon for ignorant religionists who lack a science vocabulary.

It's actually comical to see the hyper-religious attempt to use "logic" as an explanation for magic and supernaturalism that defines their man-made gawds.

It's worth addressing what the Xtian fundamentalist has to lose by conceding evolution as the means for diversity of life on the planet and by conceding to non-literal bible tales. Evolution being true means there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. That's why they will resist, to the bitter end, in spite of the bibles' tales being absurdities of nature, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.

The Christian fundamentalist revulsion for science is precisely because of the exploration being undertaken by science. Science has reduced the job requirements for gawds. Where once it was believed that gawds opened every flower petal and oversaw every human endeavor. Now the gawds are relegated to sitting on thrones and paper shuffling.

The likely discovery of life elsewhere in the solar system is going to be utterly devastating to the religious articles. Life as we know it on this planet per christianity is a very earthly product of gawds and miracles and supernaturalism and supermagicalism. Life elsewhere will prove irresolvable for the gawds model.

Although, life discovered elsewhere off this planet will cause the religionists to re-interpret some verse and "discover" a new bible prophesy, like magic!

Wow! I knew you were full of shit about science, but I now see that you are full if shit about religion as well. How neatly packaged and fit together your delusions are! It's actually interesting to witness.

What else are you ignorant about? I'll bet you are a democrat too, am I right?

 

[Hollie]

There's no imagining of biological history.

It's just remarkable that people like you still exist, but then again, you folks do spill out of Pakistani Madrassahs.

Lunchbox!

I remember many years ago Stephen Jay Gould talking about how he wished most of the people promoting evolution would shut up because they are making things worse. Arguing for evolution when they really have no clue what they are talking about. I think he was talking about Hollie.

No where that I'm aware if does Evolution claim that one species can evolve into another completely different species, but hey, she's an illiterate moron so what can one expect?

Well, according to Darwinism, over a relatively long period of time, an innumerable number of transitional adaptations are thought to eventually affect transmutations of species from one kind to another, i.e., beginning with transitional branchings of speciation. Even Gould's punctuated equilibrium model entails anywhere from tens-of-thousands to hundreds-of-thousands of years. But then he's talking about instances of established, transitional branching events of speciation that eventually lead to speciation from one kind of order of species to another, not the kind of freakish occurrences that Hollie apparently has in mind that would falsify the Darwinian notion of a common ancestry.

Hollie doesn't grasp the distinction I'm making between adaptive speciation within established orders of species and the macro-evolutionary, transmutational speciation of a common ancestry.

In any event, all the creationist is saying is that he does not believe that the latter can or did occur. He simply holds that the biblical account, though not a scientific treatise, does not support such a scenario. I hold that the Bible asserts that biological history is a series of direct, creative events of discretely unique, fully formed and unrelated biological systems/creatures over time, albeit, all sharing a similar genetic and/or morphological infrastructure. After all, they are species of the same planet, subject to the same environmental and atmospheric conditions thereof.

That's simply what I believe to be true.

On the other hand, my conviction is based on the notion that the Bible is in fact God's word and that its metaphysics are methodological naturalism. Is that scientifically verifiable or falsifiable? No! Is it possible to falsify Darwinian evolutionary theory which is based on the metaphysics of absolute naturalism (theistic) or the metaphysics of ontological naturalism (atheistic)? No!

Can I assert with absolutely certainty that I'm right and the theistic evolutionist is wrong?

No! I can't! Those who grasp the rational, metaphysical and empirical complexities and uncertainties of the matter get that. We may be looking at a combination of processes here for all I know.

Science tentatively verifies or falsifies things.

Logic is used to prove or disprove things.

Your babbling is tragically naive but not uncommon for ignorant religionists who lack a science vocabulary.

It's actually comical to see the hyper-religious attempt to use "logic" as an explanation for magic and supernaturalism that defines their man-made gawds.

It's worth addressing what the Xtian fundamentalist has to lose by conceding evolution as the means for diversity of life on the planet and by conceding to non-literal bible tales. Evolution being true means there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. That's why they will resist, to the bitter end, in spite of the bibles' tales being absurdities of nature, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.

The Christian fundamentalist revulsion for science is precisely because of the exploration being undertaken by science. Science has reduced the job requirements for gawds. Where once it was believed that gawds opened every flower petal and oversaw every human endeavor. Now the gawds are relegated to sitting on thrones and paper shuffling.

The likely discovery of life elsewhere in the solar system is going to be utterly devastating to the religious articles. Life as we know it on this planet per christianity is a very earthly product of gawds and miracles and supernaturalism and supermagicalism. Life elsewhere will prove irresolvable for the gawds model.

Although, life discovered elsewhere off this planet will cause the religionists to re-interpret some verse and "discover" a new bible prophesy, like magic!

Wow! I knew you were full of shit about science, but I now see that you are full if shit about religion as well. How neatly packaged and fit together your delusions are! It's actually interesting to witness.

What else are you ignorant about? I'll bet you are a democrat too, am I right?

What's interesting is your inability to offer a coherent response. Pretty typical for you angry, self-hating zealots.