No, just wholly meaningless to an actual discussion. This isn't philosophy for the mentally handicapped.

So your self presumptions are wholly overrated.

Theories on the origins of life are different from the theory of evolution.

Neither is particularly useful day to day.

(12-16-2015 11:57 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Creation Lots of stuff preceded evolution.

So what?

(12-16-2015 11:11 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 10:46 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 09:18 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Man, these threads always make me sad. So many people have such a skewed understanding of what evolution is, and it's clearly skewed in a way to defend their religious beliefs.

Remind me again how evolution says that matter was created from nothing.

It doesn't, that has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary theory.
Evolution states we all come from a common ancestor, and through random mutations and environmental pressures, that led to the biodiversity we have today. It makes no statement on the creation of that ancestor (abiogenesis), or the creation of the universe (the Big Bang), both of which have no bearing on the theory of evolution at all.
Your response is actually a perfect example of what I meant in the portion I quoted, lump everything in with evolution, and hope that people don't go out of their way to learn about actual evolutionary theory.

So where did the universe and that ancestor come from?

(12-16-2015 12:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Neither is particularly useful day to day.

Neither is calculus, thermodynamics, heat/mass transport or Laplace Transforms. Doesn't mean that these topics aren't important to every day life.

(12-16-2015 12:17 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Theories on the origins of life are different from the theory of evolution.

True.

I have no problem with evolution. I believe it happened, and I believe that it is a perfectly acceptable way for a Creator to have structured things.

I do have a problem when believers in evolution attempt to extrapolate an origins of life theory from evolution, i.e. evolution in Godless, therefore the origins of the universe and life must be Godless. As you note, the two are different.

(12-16-2015 12:42 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 11:57 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Creation Lots of stuff preceded evolution.

So what?

Yep.

(12-16-2015 12:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 11:11 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 10:46 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 09:18 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Man, these threads always make me sad. So many people have such a skewed understanding of what evolution is, and it's clearly skewed in a way to defend their religious beliefs.

Remind me again how evolution says that matter was created from nothing.

It doesn't, that has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary theory.
Evolution states we all come from a common ancestor, and through random mutations and environmental pressures, that led to the biodiversity we have today. It makes no statement on the creation of that ancestor (abiogenesis), or the creation of the universe (the Big Bang), both of which have no bearing on the theory of evolution at all.
Your response is actually a perfect example of what I meant in the portion I quoted, lump everything in with evolution, and hope that people don't go out of their way to learn about actual evolutionary theory.

So where did the universe and that ancestor come from?

To hard. So wrath must be reigned down upon you.

(12-16-2015 11:11 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 10:46 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 09:18 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Man, these threads always make me sad. So many people have such a skewed understanding of what evolution is, and it's clearly skewed in a way to defend their religious beliefs.

Remind me again how evolution says that matter was created from nothing.

It doesn't, that has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary theory.

Evolution states we all come from a common ancestor, and through random mutations and environmental pressures, that led to the biodiversity we have today. It makes no statement on the creation of that ancestor (abiogenesis), or the creation of the universe (the Big Bang), both of which have no bearing on the theory of evolution at all.

Your response is actually a perfect example of what I meant in the portion I quoted, lump everything in with evolution, and hope that people don't go out of their way to learn about actual evolutionary theory.

Did you read the thread title?

Also, calling people mentally handicapped simply means you have lost the argument. (Thats what it means to intelligent people anyway) I know its the standard knee jerk liberal coming out of you, but it is really shallow.

Again I tell you, you will have to make a choice on whether to be a scientist, or an ideologue. You cant be both, because they are mutually exclusive. If you are going to cling to your idealogies, you are the complete opposite of a scientist.

(12-16-2015 12:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 11:11 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 10:46 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 09:18 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Man, these threads always make me sad. So many people have such a skewed understanding of what evolution is, and it's clearly skewed in a way to defend their religious beliefs.

Remind me again how evolution says that matter was created from nothing.

It doesn't, that has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary theory.
Evolution states we all come from a common ancestor, and through random mutations and environmental pressures, that led to the biodiversity we have today. It makes no statement on the creation of that ancestor (abiogenesis), or the creation of the universe (the Big Bang), both of which have no bearing on the theory of evolution at all.
Your response is actually a perfect example of what I meant in the portion I quoted, lump everything in with evolution, and hope that people don't go out of their way to learn about actual evolutionary theory.

So where did the universe and that ancestor come from?

Not sure, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

(12-16-2015 01:48 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 11:11 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 10:46 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 09:18 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Man, these threads always make me sad. So many people have such a skewed understanding of what evolution is, and it's clearly skewed in a way to defend their religious beliefs.

Remind me again how evolution says that matter was created from nothing.

It doesn't, that has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary theory.

Evolution states we all come from a common ancestor, and through random mutations and environmental pressures, that led to the biodiversity we have today. It makes no statement on the creation of that ancestor (abiogenesis), or the creation of the universe (the Big Bang), both of which have no bearing on the theory of evolution at all.

Your response is actually a perfect example of what I meant in the portion I quoted, lump everything in with evolution, and hope that people don't go out of their way to learn about actual evolutionary theory.

Did you read the thread title?

Also, calling people mentally handicapped simply means you have lost the argument. (Thats what it means to intelligent people anyway) I know its the standard knee jerk liberal coming out of you, but it is really shallow.

Again I tell you, you will have to make a choice on whether to be a scientist, or an ideologue. You cant be both, because they are mutually exclusive. If you are going to cling to your idealogies, you are the complete opposite of a scientist.

Garden variety Creationism directly opposes both evolution and abiogenesis.

(12-16-2015 01:15 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 12:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 11:11 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 10:46 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 09:18 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Man, these threads always make me sad. So many people have such a skewed understanding of what evolution is, and it's clearly skewed in a way to defend their religious beliefs.

Remind me again how evolution says that matter was created from nothing.

It doesn't, that has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary theory.
Evolution states we all come from a common ancestor, and through random mutations and environmental pressures, that led to the biodiversity we have today. It makes no statement on the creation of that ancestor (abiogenesis), or the creation of the universe (the Big Bang), both of which have no bearing on the theory of evolution at all.
Your response is actually a perfect example of what I meant in the portion I quoted, lump everything in with evolution, and hope that people don't go out of their way to learn about actual evolutionary theory.

So where did the universe and that ancestor come from?

To hard. So wrath must be reigned down upon you.

Again, this is outside of evolution, but the end result of going down this path is going to be an infinite regress. I'll just skip to the end: Why not assume that matter and energy always existed - even if the universe in it's current form came about via what most believe was a "big bang"?

(12-16-2015 01:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Not sure, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

Of course it is relevant, but you don't want to answer it because the answer doesn't fit your prejudices.

(12-16-2015 01:48 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 11:11 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 10:46 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 09:18 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Man, these threads always make me sad. So many people have such a skewed understanding of what evolution is, and it's clearly skewed in a way to defend their religious beliefs.

Remind me again how evolution says that matter was created from nothing.

It doesn't, that has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary theory.

Evolution states we all come from a common ancestor, and through random mutations and environmental pressures, that led to the biodiversity we have today. It makes no statement on the creation of that ancestor (abiogenesis), or the creation of the universe (the Big Bang), both of which have no bearing on the theory of evolution at all.

Your response is actually a perfect example of what I meant in the portion I quoted, lump everything in with evolution, and hope that people don't go out of their way to learn about actual evolutionary theory.

Did you read the thread title?

Also, calling people mentally handicapped simply means you have lost the argument. (Thats what it means to intelligent people anyway) I know its the standard knee jerk liberal coming out of you, but it is really shallow.

Again I tell you, you will have to make a choice on whether to be a scientist, or an ideologue. You cant be both, because they are mutually exclusive. If you are going to cling to your idealogies, you are the complete opposite of a scientist.

1. I read the title, maybe you should do the same. Evolution as a theory is very well defined, and working within that definition is not at all contradicted by the titke.

2. I didn't call anyone mentally handicapped, I used the term to describe pedantic philosophy that has no bearing in this discussion. So far you're 0 for 2, and it's not getting better.

3. In what way am I being an ideologue? You say that I am, but you provide no evidence or explanation for what you mean by this.

It is telling though, that unlike myself who took the time to respond to your question politely and thoroughly, you don't actually address my response and instead go straight to childish, ideologically biased ad hominems.

(12-16-2015 01:57 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 01:15 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 12:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 11:11 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 10:46 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Remind me again how evolution says that matter was created from nothing.

It doesn't, that has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary theory.
Evolution states we all come from a common ancestor, and through random mutations and environmental pressures, that led to the biodiversity we have today. It makes no statement on the creation of that ancestor (abiogenesis), or the creation of the universe (the Big Bang), both of which have no bearing on the theory of evolution at all.
Your response is actually a perfect example of what I meant in the portion I quoted, lump everything in with evolution, and hope that people don't go out of their way to learn about actual evolutionary theory.

So where did the universe and that ancestor come from?

To hard. So wrath must be reigned down upon you.

Again, this is outside of evolution, but the end result of going down this path is going to be an infinite regress. I'll just skip to the end: Why not assume that matter and energy always existed - even if the universe in it's current form came about via what most believe was a "big bang"?

Because they don't want to, plain and simple.

(12-16-2015 01:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 01:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Not sure, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

Of course it is relevant, but you don't want to answer it because the answer doesn't fit your prejudices.

I did answer though, saying I don't know is a perfectly reasonable answer to this question. The only prejudice is thinking one must have an answer to a question despite a lack of evidence.

(12-16-2015 02:04 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 01:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 01:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Not sure, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

Of course it is relevant, but you don't want to answer it because the answer doesn't fit your prejudices.

I did answer though, saying I don't know is a perfectly reasonable answer to this question. The only prejudice is thinking one must have an answer to a question despite a lack of evidence.

Not knowing is a reasonable answer.
Asserting irrelevance is not, because this question gets directly at the heart of the larger issue here.

(12-16-2015 02:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 02:04 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 01:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 01:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Not sure, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

Of course it is relevant, but you don't want to answer it because the answer doesn't fit your prejudices.

I did answer though, saying I don't know is a perfectly reasonable answer to this question. The only prejudice is thinking one must have an answer to a question despite a lack of evidence.

Not knowing is a reasonable answer.
Asserting irrelevance is not, because this question gets directly at the heart of the larger issue here.

No, it is patently irrelevant to the discussion of evolution as it is well beyond the scope of evolutionary theory. But, you said I don't answer when I clearly did. At least admit you misspoke.