(12-16-2015 02:01 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(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:  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.

And now science is a want. lol

Your teachers telling you something is irrelevant just means your teachers are ignoramuses. Stop letting them hold you back.

(12-09-2015 04:37 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Neither evolution nor creationism are mutually exclusive. I certainly know that animals and plants both evolve, but that doesn't mean that modern man, Homo Sapiens, were not created in God's image.

If I get to heaven and find out God looks like Richard Simmons or Pee Wee Herman I'm going to be upset.

The original post was about evolution. So a question about how the universe started is kinda out of scope. But these threads sometimes branch out anyway.

(12-16-2015 02:21 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Your teachers telling you something is irrelevant just means your teachers are ignoramuses. Stop letting them hold you back.

Sure, words mean nothing and we should also ignore the evidence supporting the theory of gravity because we don't know where all this matter comes from. You should bow out of this discussion.

LOL. Go through life however you chose. No sweat off my nuts.

(12-16-2015 02:24 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The original post was about evolution. So a question about how the universe started is kinda out of scope. But these threads sometimes branch out anyway.

No, the original post was about evolution versus creationism, as both concepts are specifically mentioned in the thread title. And that question is relevant to the dispute between the two.

As I said earlier, it's not a dispute with me. I have no problem reconciling the concept of a Creator God with anything that science has ever produced, including evolution. But merely insisting that a discussion of evolution cannot extend to the question asked is admitting that there is a big piece of the puzzle that evolution cannot explain. To be fair, evolution in its purest sense does not attempt to explain it. But there are those who have tried to extrapolate it to provide answers where it clearly does not. And exposing that is the point of the question. By saying that it is irrelevant, you have closed the door to any extrapolation argument that you might choose to make, and that pretty much resolves the issue for me.

(12-16-2015 02:24 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The original post was about evolution. So a question about how the universe started is kinda out of scope. But these threads sometimes branch out anyway.

Once more, read the title.

(12-16-2015 02:24 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The original post was about evolution. So a question about how the universe started is kinda out of scope. But these threads sometimes branch out anyway.

The problem is, people who have interests in mistakenly defending their religious beliefs purposefully conflate the two in order to bring doubt to evolution. You don't see people bringing up the creation of the universe to dismiss germ theory, it's a tactic only applied to evolution in order to obfuscate those not well versed in science.

(12-16-2015 02:29 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 02:24 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The original post was about evolution. So a question about how the universe started is kinda out of scope. But these threads sometimes branch out anyway.

Once more, read the title.

Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe.

(12-16-2015 02:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 02:24 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The original post was about evolution. So a question about how the universe started is kinda out of scope. But these threads sometimes branch out anyway.

No, the original post was about evolution versus creationism, as both concepts are specifically mentioned in the thread title. And that question is relevant to the dispute between the two.

As I said earlier, it's not a dispute with me. I have no problem reconciling the concept of a Creator God with anything that science has ever produced, including evolution. But merely insisting that a discussion of evolution cannot extend to the question asked is admitting that there is a big piece of the puzzle that evolution cannot explain. To be fair, evolution in its purest sense does not attempt to explain it. But there are those who have tried to extrapolate it to provide answers where it clearly does not. And exposing that is the point of the question. By saying that it is irrelevant, you have closed the door to any extrapolation argument that you might choose to make, and that pretty much resolves the issue for me.

Creationism can mean anything anyone wants, it's not an actual valid theory in any way, so pointing to that as if it has a set definition is ludicrous.

(12-16-2015 02:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 02:29 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 02:24 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The original post was about evolution. So a question about how the universe started is kinda out of scope. But these threads sometimes branch out anyway.

Once more, read the title.

Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe.

And as long as you are willing to observe that boundary, we have no disagreement.

As I'm sure you are probably aware, there are a lot of proponents of evolution who are not willing to abide by that boundary, and attempt to extrapolate from evolution across that boundary. As long as you are not one of those, we have no material differences.

(12-16-2015 02:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Creationism can mean anything anyone wants, it's not an actual valid theory in any way, so pointing to that as if it has a set definition is ludicrous.

Are you saying that you can't define creationism but you know it's wrong?

(12-16-2015 02:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 02:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Creationism can mean anything anyone wants, it's not an actual valid theory in any way, so pointing to that as if it has a set definition is ludicrous.

Are you saying that you can't define creationism but you know it's wrong?

(12-16-2015 02:18 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 02:01 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(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:  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.

And now science is a want. lol

I was referring to Christians when I wrote that.

(12-16-2015 02:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 02:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Creationism can mean anything anyone wants, it's not an actual valid theory in any way, so pointing to that as if it has a set definition is ludicrous.

Are you saying that you can't define creationism but you know it's wrong?

Creationist views differ depending on who you speak to. Some accept evolution as stated, some will not acknowledged that macro-evolution occurs, and some throw out the entire theory.

(12-16-2015 02:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 02:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 02:29 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 02:24 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The original post was about evolution. So a question about how the universe started is kinda out of scope. But these threads sometimes branch out anyway.

Once more, read the title.

Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe.

And as long as you are willing to observe that boundary, we have no disagreement.

As I'm sure you are probably aware, there are a lot of proponents of evolution who are not willing to abide by that boundary, and attempt to extrapolate from evolution across that boundary. As long as you are not one of those, we have no material differences.

I have not heard anyone propose Evolution as evidence regarding either the beginning of the universe, or how life started. There are other sciences related to those - but that's a different argument.

(12-16-2015 02:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 02:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 02:29 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 02:24 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The original post was about evolution. So a question about how the universe started is kinda out of scope. But these threads sometimes branch out anyway.

Once more, read the title.

Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe.

And as long as you are willing to observe that boundary, we have no disagreement.

As I'm sure you are probably aware, there are a lot of proponents of evolution who are not willing to abide by that boundary, and attempt to extrapolate from evolution across that boundary. As long as you are not one of those, we have no material differences.

Owl, this is perfect example of why you are such a frustrating poster. In a thread full of dozens of posters who clearly don't know that evolution doesn't have anything to do with the beginning of the universe, you make it a point to have a poster who understands that admit that some people who agree with evolution sometimes misuse the theory themselves. Instead of correcting those who are actually wrong in this thread, you chastise hypothetical people who aren't in this thread, and unsurprisingly, those are the people that would be considered 'liberal'.

Stop. You're better than that, and you're certainly smarter than to not realize what you're doing. It's the same as the discussion of climate change, you'll go out of your way to criticize people who don't support nuclear energy who aren't in the thread while just dismissing the fact dozens of posters post patently false statements regarding the science of it itself.

You're doing a disservice to this messageboard because there are conservatives here that would likely listen to you if you took the time to correct them instead of going out of your way to blame some semblance of liberalism.

(12-16-2015 02:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 02:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Creationism can mean anything anyone wants, it's not an actual valid theory in any way, so pointing to that as if it has a set definition is ludicrous.

Are you saying that you can't define creationism but you know it's wrong?

Like stated above, creationism isn't an actual theory and therefore can mean pretty much anything, much like cryptozoology or paranormal psychology. That they do not have rigid guidelines to what they entail does not mean they are pseudoscience and unable to be dismissed.

But, you knew that, and instead of adding to the discussion in a meaningful way and maybe educating people here who don't know enough about evolutionary theory, you made sure to get in childish dig. Congrats on lowering the bar.

(12-16-2015 02:48 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 02:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 02:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 02:29 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 02:24 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The original post was about evolution. So a question about how the universe started is kinda out of scope. But these threads sometimes branch out anyway.

Once more, read the title.

Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe.

And as long as you are willing to observe that boundary, we have no disagreement.

As I'm sure you are probably aware, there are a lot of proponents of evolution who are not willing to abide by that boundary, and attempt to extrapolate from evolution across that boundary. As long as you are not one of those, we have no material differences.

I have not heard anyone propose Evolution as evidence regarding either the beginning of the universe, or how life started. There are other sciences related to those - but that's a different argument.

It's what he does, and it's really tiresome. No one in this thread who supports evolution used evolution in that manner, but dozens who question it used it in that manner. His response? Make sure those who support evolution know what it means. It'd be cute if he were not as intelligent as he is.