Let's clear this up once and for all

[Washington]

The following notions

Evolution – The Evidence of Why Scientists Believe in Evolution
Evolution, in this context, can be defined as: the belief that all living things, including man, resulted by natural changes from lifeless matter, with no supernatural intervention involved.
source

Macroevolution claims that all life forms come from an original life form which was generated from non-living matter.
source

One of the fundamental precepts underling the theory of evolution is that the natural world is a "closed system". That is to say, it is closed off to outside influences, making God and the supernatural both unnecessary and irrelevant in regard to the origin of the universe and life.
From the outset, evolution requires a great leap of faith in believing that matter somehow created itself out of nothing or else is eternal.
source

According to evolution you are from a rock which eroded into the primordial ooze, became a "simple" cell, a simple amphibian, fish, bird, monkey etc.
source

This knowledge is important since it allows for changes within species but refutes the evolutionist supposition of spontaneous generation of life from dead matter.
source

There is no evidence for the evolution model. This can be seen in the many unproven assumptions held by evolutionists.
First, there is no evidence for spontaneous generation. The belief that life evolved from non-life contradicts both the cell theory and the law of biogenesis. The Miller-Urey experiments have failed to produce life in the lab (if they were successful, it would be evidence for the creation model not the evolution model).
source

Evolution theory says that life originated from inanimate matter through random chance processes in spite of the well-proven Law of Probability
source


​

[glow=blue]Are all wrong[/glow]​

Evolution does NOT concern itself with origins. It only deals with the change organisms undergo. Evolution couldn't care less if it was god or Walt Disney who created first life. And the fact that the above quoted sources as well as so many other creationists don't understand this simple fact demonstrates just how ignorant they are of their arch enemy, evolution.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Whooooosh.

The sound resulting from this flying right over a creationists head.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution does NOT concern itself with first causes. It only deals with the change organisms undergo.

But those changes are much too slow.

For macroevolution to work, it needs massive amounts of time to transpire.

And this 'god or Walt Disney' that evolution 'couldn't care less about' only allocated about 1/2.95 x 10[sup]6[/sup] years to the equation.

 

[Washington]

But those changes are much too slow.

For macroevolution to work, it needs massive amounts of time to transpire.

And this 'god or Walt Disney' that evolution 'couldn't care less about' only allocated about 1/2.95 x 10[sup]6[/sup] years to the equation.

I would appreciate it if you did not try to derail the OP with irrelevant side issues.

Thank you,

Washington

 

[AV1611VET]

I would appreciate it if you did not try to derail the OP with irrelevant side issues.

Thank you,

Washington

'Irrelevant side issue'?

14,000,000,000 years vs 6100 years is a 'side issue' in a thread where you're trying to 'clear up' misconceptions about evolution; which if I'm not mistaken, is changes that occur over time?

The 2nd post in this thread goads a response from a "creationist" --- are [modified] YECs excluded?

 

[Hespera]

'Irrelevant side issue'?

14,000,000,000 years vs 6100 years is a 'side issue' in a thread where you're trying to 'clear up' misconceptions about evolution; which if I'm not mistaken, is changes that occur over time?

The 2nd post in this thread goads a response from a "creationist" --- are [modified] YECs excluded?

We do know you have a misconception here, but, you know, even if you had been right about the "embedded age" stuff, then, that would be the time when all that thar evolution stuff took place.

 

[gaara4158]

'Irrelevant side issue'?

14,000,000,000 years vs 6100 years is a 'side issue' in a thread where you're trying to 'clear up' misconceptions about evolution; which if I'm not mistaken, is changes that occur over time?

The 2nd post in this thread goads a response from a "creationist" --- are [modified] YECs excluded?

I fail to see the problem. The assertion isn't that evolution doesn't contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible, it's that evolution doesn't deal in origins, just changes since the origin.

 

[AV1611VET]

You want me in this thread or not, Washington?

If not, just say so and I'll vacate.

If you do (or don't care), then you're gonna have to defend your OP against a seasoned creationist.

Your call.

 

[Alunyel]

But those changes are much too slow.

For macroevolution to work, it needs massive amounts of time to transpire.

And this 'god or Walt Disney' that evolution 'couldn't care less about' only allocated about 1/2.95 x 10[sup]6[/sup] years to the equation.

And what rational evidence is there to support your claim that the Earth is ~6000 years old? Bearing in mind, this evidence will also have to explain the mountain of evidence that says the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old.

 

[AV1611VET]

Goodbye --- /thread

 

[OldStyleBlues]

Are all wrong

You are making this claim so the burden of proof is on you to show how and why "all are wrong".

 

[OldStyleBlues]

And what rational evidence is there to support your claim that the Earth is ~6000 years old.

The bible!

 

[Washington]

You want me in this thread or not, Washington?

If not, just say so and I'll vacate.

If you do (or don't care), then you're gonna have to defend your OP against a seasoned creationist.

Your call.

Only if you only address the issue of creationists' mistaken belief that evolution concerns itself with the origin of life. And thank you for asking.

 

[Cabal]

But those changes are much too slow.

For macroevolution to work, it needs massive amounts of time to transpire.

I don't know if anyone else here feels the same - but I think if this were the only issue raised against evolution from a creationist pov (that it was theoretically possible but there simply wasn't enough time for it happen), I think I'd have a much easier time understanding where creationists were coming from.

 

[Washington]

You are making this claim so the burden of proof is on you to show how and why "all are wrong".

And what if I and my friends all said that the U.S. Libertarian party is a communist front organization, and you then said no it isn't, to which I replied, "You are making this claim of denial so the burden of proof is on you to show how and why all of us are wrong." Kind of an ass-backward demand isn't it. The burden in the case of the OP ultimately lies with those who make the association between evolution and origins, not those of us who deny it. And so far I have NEVER EVER seen any creationist show such a connection, nor have I ever seen it made in evolutionary literature. So put the burden of proof where it belongs.

 

[ragarth]

1/2.95 x 10[sup]6[/sup] years

Please don't mix fractions and decimals, it's bad form.

338,983.051 years.

There ya go, fixed that for you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Only if you only address the issue of creationists' mistaken belief that evolution concerns itself with the origin of life.

Evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life --- if it did, we would pwn it back to last Thursday.

Evolution concerns itself with life --- after life appears on the earth --- (or in the universe) --- God and angels [conveniently] excepted.

How's that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Please don't mix fractions and decimals, it's bad form.

338,983.051 years.

There ya go, fixed that for you.

Okay --- thanks.

I divided 14 billion by 6100 to come up with that.

 

[OldStyleBlues]

And what if I and my friends all said that the U.S. Libertarian party is a communist front organization, and you then said no it isn't, to which I replied, "You are making this claim of denial so the burden of proof is on you to show how and why all of us are wrong.

Way to flip it. You can't shift the burden of proof. You are the one making the positive claim thus the burden of proof is on you to show your cards and back up you're assertion. If I say that "I have an invisible pink unicorn in my garage", the burden of proof then falls on me to provide evidence of said invisible pink unicorn as I am the one making the claim. If you have evidence that "All are wrong" then you have to back up you're assertions. ToE is already well backed up by evidence, It's shown it's cards. The rules of logic and science indicate that there must be some kind of basis (either in substance or in thought) for an assertion or else it must be denied. An assertion, without evidence, is not accepted as true. That is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought is. Critical thought means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up. And without critical thought, logic and science are abandoned, and this is the only kind of productive thought humanity has ever come up with. To reject critical thought is to turn one’s back on thinking and embrace the Dark Ages.

 

[Washington]

Way to flip it.

Yes it was. Exactly the way.