(12-16-2015 02:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  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.

People, including specifically me, have a hard time taking you seriously because of posts like this where you go off and have a hissy fit about nothing.

I've made my views on this subject pretty clear in this and numerous prior threads. I believe that evolution is most likely the HOW of what happened but it is not intended to address, nor does it address, the WHY. I happen to believe the WHY rests with a Creator God. I take the Bible not as an inerrant history book, but rather as a metaphorical guide to living and to developing and maintaining a relationship with that Creator God. Therefore I have no conflict with evolution.

Where I do have a conflict with evolution is how it is applied by some adherents who want to use it as a basis to deny the existence of a God, or indeed any higher power. So they take the position that evolution happened without any Godly direction, and that proves there is no God, and therefore the existence of the universe came about without any God to create it. I take the position that it is perfectly reasonable for a Creator God to have chosen evolution as His way to accomplish the development of species, including human beings. That was the point of my question, and the answer that it's irrelevant to evolution is okay with me because that means that the proponent of that answer is not seeking to extrapolate from evolution to atheism. If it is irrelevant to evolution, then that means that evolution does not extend to explain creation, and therefore there is no conflict between evolution and creationism as I understand the two concepts.

I realize that there are posters on here who don't understand creation as I do and others who don't understand evolution as I do. We disagree. My positions should be known to them. If they want to argue the point with me, we can have that discussion. Right now the only argument I am getting is from the evolution side, so that's what I responded to.

(12-16-2015 07:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 02:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  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.

People, including specifically me, have a hard time taking you seriously because of posts like this where you go off and have a hissy fit about nothing.

I've made my views on this subject pretty clear in this and numerous prior threads. I believe that evolution is most likely the HOW of what happened but it is not intended to address, nor does it address, the WHY. I happen to believe the WHY rests with a Creator God. I take the Bible not as an inerrant history book, but rather as a metaphorical guide to living and to developing and maintaining a relationship with that Creator God. Therefore I have no conflict with evolution.

Where I do have a conflict with evolution as applied by some adherents its that they want as a basis to dispute the existence of a God, or indeed any higher power. So they take the position that evolution happened without any Godly direction, and that proves there is no God, and therefore the existence of the universe came about without any God to create it. That was the point of my question, and the answer that it's irrelevant to evolution is okay with me because that means that the proponent of that answer is not seeking to extrapolate from evolution to atheism. If it is irrelevant to evolution, then that means that evolution does not extend to explain creation, and therefore there is no conflict between evolution and creationism as I understand the two concepts.

I realize that there are posters on here who don't understand creation as I do and others who don't understand evolution as I do. We disagree. My positions should be known to them. If they want to argue the point with me, we can have that discussion. Right now the only argument I am getting is from the evolution side, so that's what I responded to.

Replying specifically to the bold part:

The debate exists between Creationism and Evolution exists because most people see it differently than you. Creationism, as most people in the US see it, conflicts with Evolution, Abiogenesis, and (possibly) the Big Bang Theory.

If everyone saw it the way you do, we'd be discussing the formation of the universe instead.

(12-16-2015 07:19 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  The debate exists between Creationism and Evolution exists because most people see it differently than you. If everyone saw it the way you do, we'd all be debating what happened before the Big Bang instead.

Probably so. And we'd be doing it on a sports message board. And it would be interesting to see where people lined up and how passionate they were about it.

"One could still believe that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang. He could even have created it at a later time in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang. But it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when He might have carried out his job." - Stephen Hawking

(12-16-2015 07:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 02:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  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.

People, including specifically me, have a hard time taking you seriously because of posts like this where you go off and have a hissy fit about nothing.

I've made my views on this subject pretty clear in this and numerous prior threads. I believe that evolution is most likely the HOW of what happened but it is not intended to address, nor does it address, the WHY. I happen to believe the WHY rests with a Creator God. I take the Bible not as an inerrant history book, but rather as a metaphorical guide to living and to developing and maintaining a relationship with that Creator God. Therefore I have no conflict with evolution.

Where I do have a conflict with evolution is how it is applied by some adherents who want to use it as a basis to deny the existence of a God, or indeed any higher power. So they take the position that evolution happened without any Godly direction, and that proves there is no God, and therefore the existence of the universe came about without any God to create it. I take the position that it is perfectly reasonable for a Creator God to have chosen evolution as His way to accomplish the development of species, including human beings. That was the point of my question, and the answer that it's irrelevant to evolution is okay with me because that means that the proponent of that answer is not seeking to extrapolate from evolution to atheism. If it is irrelevant to evolution, then that means that evolution does not extend to explain creation, and therefore there is no conflict between evolution and creationism as I understand the two concepts.

I realize that there are posters on here who don't understand creation as I do and others who don't understand evolution as I do. We disagree. My positions should be known to them. If they want to argue the point with me, we can have that discussion. Right now the only argument I am getting is from the evolution side, so that's what I responded to.

You have a weird definition of a hissy fit, I guess pointing out your hypocrisy and absurdly obvious bias is throwing a hissy fit?

As I said in another post that you didn't reply to, your "conflict with evolution" doesn't exist in this discussion. No ones used evolution that way here, yet here you are, bringing it up as if it's a pertinent point in the discussion. You ignore the dozens of posters who are misusing the term to deny evolutions existence, and instead have now made it a point twice to explain how some evolutionists misuse the theory themselves. Sure, no one is arguing that every evolution supporter uses the theory correctly, but that is absolutely not what's happening throughout this thread. You're ignoring the fact that people are actually misusing evolutionary theory to mistakenly defend their own religious beliefs right here in this thread, and instead of correcting those actual mistakes which exist in this thread, decide to make sure that we know some evolutionists use evolution to incorrectly disprove religion, despite that not actually happening.

Call it a hissy fit if you want, but in reality it's just me calling you out on your bias and on the fact you have a problem correcting conservatives while simultaneously seem to go out of your way to correct the liberals even if none of the liberals you're talking to need correcting.

As for the complaint about people misusing evolution to deny religion? Part of that is on the religions who base their belief set in the literal translation that man was created 10,000 years ago in their current state, that no evolution occurred, and the belief in a literal worldwide flood in that period. Evolution does disprove that belief set, a belief set that is bandied about far more often in the US than it should be, but of course it does not disprove a belief set based on the beliefs you stated above.

(12-16-2015 04:38 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:32 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:28 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:08 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 03:47 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I'd prefer an evidence-based society over a superstition-based society, but that's just me.

No problem with evidence. It is the elaborate stories that are taken as dogma and the suggestion that those that don't follow the dogma are are somehow lesser people. You have a story and some breadcrumbs that could support it, but you could also tell a lot more than one story out of those breadcrumbs. We can't even tell the story of the JFK assassination with more concrete breadcumbs. How many stories have been created on the subject using the same breadcrumbs? Yet, the story of how life became over 4.5 billion+ years is correct verbatum as told by the scientific establishment? I mean, I suppose it's possible.

Now you're just being ridiculous.

A good hypothesis is inspired by something observable and testable. Theories are made up of validated hypotheses, and explain what we observe. Evidence guides the creation of a theory, 100% of the way. Any conclusion reached is subject to change if novel evidence is gathered.

Creationism is a bad hypothesis inspired by an ancient myth. It's the opposite of a theory - a conclusion was made, and people are attempting to bend the evidence to fit it.

That is the thing, this is not testable. No scientist, to my knowledge, has created one species out of another. And yes, I know it is supposed to happen slowly over time, but that doesn't change the fact that at some point the species changes and thus cannot mate with the previous species.

The word you're looking for is Speciation. It's an evolutionary process, not the entire theory of evolution.

It's not necessary to recreate it to confirm evolution, but for the record, we have created one species from another.

In the animal kingdom? If you have a link, that would be a fascinating read. I haven't seen it.

Where are you seeing dozens of poster denying the existence of evolution ucf, misusing terms or otherwise?

(12-17-2015 09:17 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:38 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:32 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:28 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:08 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  No problem with evidence. It is the elaborate stories that are taken as dogma and the suggestion that those that don't follow the dogma are are somehow lesser people. You have a story and some breadcrumbs that could support it, but you could also tell a lot more than one story out of those breadcrumbs. We can't even tell the story of the JFK assassination with more concrete breadcumbs. How many stories have been created on the subject using the same breadcrumbs? Yet, the story of how life became over 4.5 billion+ years is correct verbatum as told by the scientific establishment? I mean, I suppose it's possible.

Now you're just being ridiculous.

A good hypothesis is inspired by something observable and testable. Theories are made up of validated hypotheses, and explain what we observe. Evidence guides the creation of a theory, 100% of the way. Any conclusion reached is subject to change if novel evidence is gathered.

Creationism is a bad hypothesis inspired by an ancient myth. It's the opposite of a theory - a conclusion was made, and people are attempting to bend the evidence to fit it.

That is the thing, this is not testable. No scientist, to my knowledge, has created one species out of another. And yes, I know it is supposed to happen slowly over time, but that doesn't change the fact that at some point the species changes and thus cannot mate with the previous species.

The word you're looking for is Speciation. It's an evolutionary process, not the entire theory of evolution.

It's not necessary to recreate it to confirm evolution, but for the record, we have created one species from another.

In the animal kingdom? If you have a link, that would be a fascinating read. I haven't seen it.

All domesticated animals are our creation, and depending on the definition of species you wish to use, would fit this criteria. Cows are no longer aurochs, horses look absolutely nothing like their wild predecessors, and our domesticated plants are *WAY* different than their wild counterparts.

(12-17-2015 09:18 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Where are you seeing dozens of poster denying the existence of evolution ucf, misusing terms or otherwise?

Dozens was hyperbole, but every single poster discussing abiogensis or the big bang as if they are at all pertinent to evolution is misusing the term. Also, ER statement about a cave drawing of a monkey giving birth to a human is pretty clearly a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.

Facepalm. To the creating of species. Fail.

(12-17-2015 09:21 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 09:18 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Where are you seeing dozens of poster denying the existence of evolution ucf, misusing terms or otherwise?

Dozens was hyperbole, but every single poster discussing abiogensis or the big bang as if they are at all pertinent to evolution is misusing the term. Also, ER statement about a cave drawing of a monkey giving birth to a human is pretty clearly a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.

That was a joke in response to someone claiming there was historical evidence of evolution, when in reality, they didn't understand what historical evidence is. It doesn't exist in this case.

(12-17-2015 09:21 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 09:18 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Where are you seeing dozens of poster denying the existence of evolution ucf, misusing terms or otherwise?

Dozens was hyperbole, but every single poster discussing abiogensis or the big bang as if they are at all pertinent to evolution is misusing the term. Also, ER statement about a cave drawing of a monkey giving birth to a human is pretty clearly a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.

So denying "evolved" into merely misusing of a term. Cool.

(12-17-2015 09:27 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 09:21 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 09:18 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Where are you seeing dozens of poster denying the existence of evolution ucf, misusing terms or otherwise?

Dozens was hyperbole, but every single poster discussing abiogensis or the big bang as if they are at all pertinent to evolution is misusing the term. Also, ER statement about a cave drawing of a monkey giving birth to a human is pretty clearly a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.

So denying "evolved" into merely misusing of a term. Cool.

Why do I even try with you?

Want to try again or something? Bumbling fool.

(12-17-2015 09:38 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Want to try again or something? Bumbling fool.

Ya, I'm a bumbling fool. It's not that you're incapable of having a discussion.

I'm not the one all over the place denying what some say and putting words in others mouths. But carry on.

(12-16-2015 04:32 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:28 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:08 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 03:47 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I'd prefer an evidence-based society over a superstition-based society, but that's just me.

No problem with evidence. It is the elaborate stories that are taken as dogma and the suggestion that those that don't follow the dogma are are somehow lesser people. You have a story and some breadcrumbs that could support it, but you could also tell a lot more than one story out of those breadcrumbs. We can't even tell the story of the JFK assassination with more concrete breadcumbs. How many stories have been created on the subject using the same breadcrumbs? Yet, the story of how life became over 4.5 billion+ years is correct verbatum as told by the scientific establishment? I mean, I suppose it's possible.

Now you're just being ridiculous.

A good hypothesis is inspired by something observable and testable. Theories are made up of validated hypotheses, and explain what we observe. Evidence guides the creation of a theory, 100% of the way. Any conclusion reached is subject to change if novel evidence is gathered.

Creationism is a bad hypothesis inspired by an ancient myth. It's the opposite of a theory - a conclusion was made, and people are attempting to bend the evidence to fit it.

That is the thing, this is not testable. No scientist, to my knowledge, has created one species out of another. And yes, I know it is supposed to happen slowly over time, but that doesn't change the fact that at some point the species changes and thus cannot mate with the previous species.

Tigers can mate with lions. Horses with donkeys. And these are relatively far apart genetically when compared to any evolutionary change that would happen over a single generation. I don't think anybody is suggesting an ape gave birth to a human. An ape gave birth to another ape whose pelvic bones were slightly different from it's mother's thus allowing it to stand ever so slightly more upright. Do you think that slight change would effect the reproductive abilities of the new ape? When these changes are added up over the millennia then there would be significant change from where we began but not over a single generation.

(12-17-2015 09:40 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 09:38 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Want to try again or something? Bumbling fool.

Ya, I'm a bumbling fool. It's not that you're incapable of having a discussion.

Don't worry about it. It's funny how they are constantly asking you to "prove" evolution, which is a scientific fact at this point. But they literally can give zero proof about any other way man came about except to say "faith." So, just let it go.

(12-17-2015 09:17 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:38 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:32 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:28 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:08 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  No problem with evidence. It is the elaborate stories that are taken as dogma and the suggestion that those that don't follow the dogma are are somehow lesser people. You have a story and some breadcrumbs that could support it, but you could also tell a lot more than one story out of those breadcrumbs. We can't even tell the story of the JFK assassination with more concrete breadcumbs. How many stories have been created on the subject using the same breadcrumbs? Yet, the story of how life became over 4.5 billion+ years is correct verbatum as told by the scientific establishment? I mean, I suppose it's possible.

Now you're just being ridiculous.

A good hypothesis is inspired by something observable and testable. Theories are made up of validated hypotheses, and explain what we observe. Evidence guides the creation of a theory, 100% of the way. Any conclusion reached is subject to change if novel evidence is gathered.

Creationism is a bad hypothesis inspired by an ancient myth. It's the opposite of a theory - a conclusion was made, and people are attempting to bend the evidence to fit it.

That is the thing, this is not testable. No scientist, to my knowledge, has created one species out of another. And yes, I know it is supposed to happen slowly over time, but that doesn't change the fact that at some point the species changes and thus cannot mate with the previous species.

The word you're looking for is Speciation. It's an evolutionary process, not the entire theory of evolution.

It's not necessary to recreate it to confirm evolution, but for the record, we have created one species from another.

In the animal kingdom? If you have a link, that would be a fascinating read. I haven't seen it.

In the animal kingdom? Why is that a requirement?

Here's an example with fruit flies:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2409365?seq...b_contents

(12-17-2015 12:18 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 09:17 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:38 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:32 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:28 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Now you're just being ridiculous.

A good hypothesis is inspired by something observable and testable. Theories are made up of validated hypotheses, and explain what we observe. Evidence guides the creation of a theory, 100% of the way. Any conclusion reached is subject to change if novel evidence is gathered.

Creationism is a bad hypothesis inspired by an ancient myth. It's the opposite of a theory - a conclusion was made, and people are attempting to bend the evidence to fit it.

That is the thing, this is not testable. No scientist, to my knowledge, has created one species out of another. And yes, I know it is supposed to happen slowly over time, but that doesn't change the fact that at some point the species changes and thus cannot mate with the previous species.

The word you're looking for is Speciation. It's an evolutionary process, not the entire theory of evolution.

It's not necessary to recreate it to confirm evolution, but for the record, we have created one species from another.

In the animal kingdom? If you have a link, that would be a fascinating read. I haven't seen it.

In the animal kingdom? Where else would it happen?

Plant kingdom, I would guess.