The atmosphere and ozone

[Jet Black]

If all evolution deals with are the species, does that not make it rather narrow in it's scope?

it deals with the descent and modification of life, and yes, it is limited in it's scope. but most study of evolution is study of other, very complex and wide rangind disciplines, from paeleantology to molecular biology. "evolution" is simply a model of how it all came to be.

 

[Jet Black]

According to a gallop poll:

10% believe that evolution occured without God's help.
39% believe that God guided evolution.
44% believe that God created humans in the last 10,000 years.
7% have no opinion.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html

those would be americans. and the truth is not determined by the numbers of people who believe something.

 

[Jet Black]

That does not explain how the atmosphere,

not entirely, there are things in the atmosphere that are only there because of life

the earth,

it's not meant to.

the invironment,

"environment" and it's not meant to.

the solor system,

"solar" and it's not meant to

much less the universe came into being.

it's not meant to.

Even evolution can not explain why so many of the species are extinct.

well natural selection got rid of them for "some reason" depending on the environment. other than that, it doesn't tell us that a meteor hit the planet, but then it's not meant to.

why do you keep trying to say that evolution has anything to do with all thest things that are irrelevant? we don't criticise electromegnetism because it doesn't explain why things fall.

 

[Jet Black]

So many contributing factors essential to life on earth being possible. If even one of them wasn't there, life wouldn't exist. But all of it just came together on it's own. Give me a break.

no no, if one of them wasn't there... we wouldn't exist.. that is not the same as life wouldn't exist... look up extremophiles.... animals that life in crazy places like boiling water, hydrothermal vents, buried caves full of nasty lethal chemicals, and lakes under glaciers and ice caps.

 

[Joshua777777]

*sigh* In creation the beginning of the universe, of the earth, and of life is all grouped. That's the *only* reason we use the term Evolutionist to broadly. It's what we are used to. Next time, please don't post two pages complaining about that before answering the question.

 

[Jet Black]

*sigh* In creation the beginning of the universe, of the earth, and of life is all grouped. That's the *only* reason we use the term Evolutionist to broadly. It's what we are used to. Next time, please don't post two pages complaining about that before answering the question.

we have to, because it's incredibly irritating. It is like me just referring to you as theists, and lumping in everyone from creationists to buddhists to roman god worshippers.. essentially the "evolutionist" tag is one created with the intention of obfuscation of the sciences (just look at how many times badfish has said "you think we evolved from a singularity", despite repeatedly being told otherwise, and how many times creationists immediately say "LOL u think we evolved from a rock") and the attempt to make evolution look like a religion, which it is not.
Separation of the different disciplines is very important, because then it is clear what the remit of the discussion of that discipline is. If you say "science" then we know you are talking about science generally. If you say "evolution" then we know you are not talking about cosmology or abiogenesis. The different disciplines all use different tools, imagine going up to an engineer and referring to all of his tools as spanners, everything from pneumatic drills to screws, you call them all spanners. he will probably hit you with a spanner after a while.

you might be used to it, but it is not acceptable. I suggest you change.

 

[Arikay]

What Jet Said

Besides being wrong, calling things like abiogenesis part of Evolution is also deceitful when it comes to creationist organizations.

Abiogenesis has no where near the evidence evolution has. So they link the two, and then try to take down Evolution through abiogenesis. This is a very Deceitful way of doing things.

Its like if I linked creationism to the bible and said that since creationism was false, The bible was false.
This would be a deceitful thing to do, as I know it is not correct. I do not do it, because of that.

*sigh* In creation the beginning of the universe, of the earth, and of life is all grouped. That's the *only* reason we use the term Evolutionist to broadly. It's what we are used to. Next time, please don't post two pages complaining about that before answering the question.

 

[Joshua777777]

Ok ok, I'll try to use the word Science in place of Evolution when talking about a genral topic. Happy?

And no, I wouldn't mind being called a Theist because all that says is I believe in a God. I would go into a rant about why I think evolution is a religion and in reality has little to do with science, but it would be kind of useless at this point as I'm still working on the argument, and the fact that this thread is getting to long already.

 

[Arikay]

If you want, you could start another thread about it, as Im sure there are a lot of scientists here that would disagree with you. But they cant make corrections till they see what needs to be corrected.

And, yes, science would be a much better term when discussing science, as it is much more correct.

Ok ok, I'll try to use the word Science in place of Evolution when talking about a genral topic. Happy?

And no, I wouldn't mind being called a Theist because all that says is I believe in a God. I would go into a rant about why I think evolution is a religion and in reality has little to do with science, but it would be kind of useless at this point as I'm still working on the argument, and the fact that this thread is getting to long already.

 

[Jet Black]

Ok ok, I'll try to use the word Science in place of Evolution when talking about a genral topic. Happy?

I would feel like you have created my own personal heaven for me, thankyou

And no, I wouldn't mind being called a Theist because all that says is I believe in a God.

but not if I started inappropriately using theism to tell you that you believed in more God, or nirvana or something else. This is the problem that scientists have. people start talking about evolution and then wander off to talk about big bang cosmology as if it is even remotely relevant.

I would go into a rant about why I think evolution is a religion and in reality has little to do with science, but it would be kind of useless at this point as I'm still working on the argument, and the fact that this thread is getting to long already.

well feel free to start a new thread

 

[JohnR7]

why do you keep trying to say that evolution has anything to do with all thest things that are irrelevant? we don't criticise electromegnetism because it doesn't explain why things fall.

Because when you read about things that have nothing to do with evolution, like geology, they keep claiming that evolution has something to do with it.

 

[Jet Black]

Because when you read about things that have nothing to do with evolution, like geology, they keep claiming that evolution has something to do with it.

like when?

 

[Data]

Because when you read about things that have nothing to do with evolution, like geology, they keep claiming that evolution has something to do with it.

'They' being creationists?