Creationism and evolution.

[bhsmte]

But that's not correct. Evolution leaves all the "creation" process to the imaginary god abiogenesis, and the creation of the universe to the imaginary god on the other side of the big bang.

Evolution simply turns away from the topic of origins and blissfully pleads ignorance like nuns in a convent.

Are you saying evolution rules out a God?

Better run that by all the theistic evolution people, which there are many.

 

[Goonie]

But that's not correct. Evolution leaves all the "creation" process to the imaginary god abiogenesis, and the creation of the universe to the imaginary god on the other side of the big bang.

Evolution simply turns away from the topic of origins and blissfully pleads ignorance like nuns in a convent.

The theory of evolution is concerned with the process of change in all forms of life over generations, it says nothing about the origin of life.

The theory of Evolution does not address the origin of life nor the creation of the universe since guess what, that is notvwhat the theory is about.

To put it another way it is a bit like saying you do not believe in the theory of gravity because it does not explain why my cat has spots.

 

[justlookinla]

The theory of evolution is concerned with the process of change in all forms of life over generations, it says nothing about the origin of life.

The theory of Evolution does not address the origin of life nor the creation of the universe since guess what, that is notvwhat the theory is about.

Darwinism is concerned with the creation of all life from an alleged single life form of long long ago by only naturalistic means. It's an atheistic creationist worldview, admit it or not.....and not based on the scientific method.

 

[random person]

AND the False Theory of Evolution is the biggest Lie ever dreamed up by people who have REJECTED God's Holy Word as True. Evolution, in the simple sense, is nothing more than changes within His (Jesus) kinds and Their (Trinity) kinds. Today's scientists had fallen into God's Snare which He set with the Flood.

As they are falsely teaching our little children their fantasies, they are caught in the Trap which exposes their False Teaching that Humans evolved from the common ancestor of Apes. They have stumbled over the Fact that Humans were made long Before any other creature, on another world, which was totally destroyed in the Flood.

Scripture calls them the Scoffers of the last days as they become "willingly ignorant" that Adam's world was clean dissolved in the flood and our Cosmos will be burned. ll Peter 3:3-7 God Bless you

Just to add my .02 cents, I believe in strictly in a local flood, history agrees.

Otherwise, what an incredible journey those pair of walruses, seals, platypuses, koalas, South American sloths, penguins (both Arctic and Antarctic), South American anacondas, orangutans, toads, frogs, tortoises, turtles, etc, etc, etc made. But not only that, they had to make the journey back again.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Are you saying evolution rules out a God?

Better run that by all the theistic evolution people, which there are many.

Interesting thought. What if what you call "natural selection" is actually purposeful guidance by God?
How would science know the difference? Isn't the absence of "frankencritters" evidence of intelligent design (although there are some scary organisms out there).

 

[justlookinla]

Interesting thought. What if what you call "natural selection" is actually purposeful guidance by God?
How would science know the difference? Isn't the absence of "frankencritters" evidence of intelligent design (although there are some scary organisms out there).

Natural selection doesn't create new life forms in Darwinist creationist theory, only mutations create new life forms. Natural selection only populates (or depopulates) the new life forms created by mutation.

 

[bhsmte]

Interesting thought. What if what you call "natural selection" is actually purposeful guidance by God?
How would science know the difference? Isn't the absence of "frankencritters" evidence of intelligent design (although there are some scary organisms out there).

As long as ID has no scientific definition and no reliable test to determine if it is present that is falsifiable, anything can be claimed to be evidence for ID.

Same applies to anything that is unfalsifiable.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

As long as ID has no scientific definition and no reliable test to determine if it is present that is falsifiable, anything can be claimed to be evidence for ID.

Same applies to anything that is unfalsifiable.

Falsifiable is a very confusing term to me, in this regard, i.e. it isn't true unless it can be proven to be false. Makes no sense.

 

[Gene2memE]

Darwinism is concerned with the creation of all life from an alleged single life form of long long ago

'Darwinism' is a loaded term. You may as well refer to gravity as 'Newtonism', relativity as 'Einsteinism' or electromagnetics as 'Amperism'.

Evolution, the scientific theory that Darwin forwarded and 10,000s of thousands of others have since modified and advanced, postulates a universal common ancestor that existed sometime around 3.5-3.7 b.y.a. This postulation is made because its what is suggested by the evidence.

Darwin was not alone in forwarding the evidence for evolution, and he may have actually been pre-empted by some other writers from 20 years earlier (of which he may or may not have been aware), but he presented the most grounded, evidentially supported version of the theory.

by only naturalistic means.

Science can only ever deal with the natural.

It's an atheistic

A scientific theory is not theistic. It is not atheistic either. It is simply a series of statements that offer the best explanation for the evidence we observe in the natural world. Just because it contradicts certain interpretations of certain religious texts, does not make it atheistic.

creationist

Creationist: "At a broad level, a Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will.... Here, Creationism means the taking of the Bible, particularly the early chapters of Genesis, as literally true guides to the history of the universe and to the history of life, including us humans, down here on earth... Creationism in this more restricted sense entails a number of beliefs.

from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/

Both common and specialist definitions of the term 'creationist' would appear to be in opposition to the reality of what the theory of evolution actually is.

worldview

Evolution is not a worldview. Apart from its scientific description of how life changes, evolution has no dogmas, tenants, proscriptions, beliefs or practices that anyone could associate with a worldview.

and not based on the scientific method.

Perhaps you'd like to point out, specifically and using examples, just where the theory of evolution is not based on the scientific method.
You can start with the ~37,000 papers published on 'biological evolution' this year alone, and then work backwards. Shouldn't take long.

https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?as_ylo=2015&q=biological+evolution&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Remember to show your working.

 

[bhsmte]

Falsifiable is a very confusing term to me, in this regard, i.e. it isn't true unless it can be proven to be false. Makes no sense.

Which is why, it is up to someone claiming something is true, to provide the evidence that it is true.

You see, I could tell you, I was abducted by aliens last night and taken to their space ship and returned home and you could not prove this didn't happen. My claim is not falsifiable, because you can not prove it didn't happen. It would be up to me to provide evidence this occured and I could explain how the space ship looked like and explain how the personal experience was so real, it has to be true. Would you believe me, probably not, but you can't prove that I am wrong.

 

[justlookinla]

'Darwinism' is a loaded term. You may as well refer to gravity as 'Newtonism', relativity as 'Einsteinism' or electromagnetics as 'Amperism'.

It's a term used to identify a certain creationist viewpoint introduced about 150 years ago.

Evolution, the scientific theory that Darwin forwarded and 10,000s of thousands of others have since modified and advanced, postulates a universal common ancestor that existed sometime around 3.5-3.7 b.y.a. This postulation is made because its what is suggested by the evidence.

Actually, only one use of the term "evolution" proposes a single life form from which all life, including humanity, was created. Other uses of the term "evolution" doesn't address that particular view.

Darwin was not alone in forwarding the evidence for evolution, and he may have actually been pre-empted by some other writers from 20 years earlier (of which he may or may not have been aware), but he presented the most grounded, evidentially supported version of the theory.

Darwin simply introduced a series of guesses and suppositions concerning how all life was created and wasn't based on the scientific method.

Science can only ever deal with the natural.

This why Darwinist creationism isn't science.

A scientific theory is not theistic. It is not atheistic either. It is simply a series of statements that offer the best explanation for the evidence we observe in the natural world. Just because it contradicts certain interpretations of certain religious texts, does not make it atheistic.

"Best explanation" is a subjective term.

Creationist: "At a broad level, a Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will.... Here, Creationism means the taking of the Bible, particularly the early chapters of Genesis, as literally true guides to the history of the universe and to the history of life, including us humans, down here on earth... Creationism in this more restricted sense entails a number of beliefs.

from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/

Both common and specialist definitions of the term 'creationist' would appear to be in opposition to the reality of what the theory of evolution actually is.

Darwinist guesses and suppositions are a from of creationism. It's an attempt to explain how all life, including humanity, was created. (Not abiogenesis).

Evolution is not a worldview. Apart from its scientific description of how life changes, evolution has no dogmas, tenants, proscriptions, beliefs or practices that anyone could associate with a worldview.

Darwinist creationism is certainly a worldview. The primary dogma of Darwinism is that humanity is nothing more than just another life from created from only mindless, meaningless and purposeless naturalistic mechanisms. In Darwinism, the worldview is that humanity has no more, or less, value than any other life form.

Perhaps you'd like to point out, specifically and using examples, just where the theory of evolution is not based on the scientific method.
You can start with the ~37,000 papers published on 'biological evolution' this year alone, and then work backwards. Shouldn't take long.

https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?as_ylo=2015&q=biological+evolution&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Remember to show your working.

Perhaps you'd like to point out, using the scientific method, where humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms. If unable to do this, we see that the theory is simply a worldview based on the guesses and suppositions of pseudo-science.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't see how anyone can believe that the incred complexity of life-forms could have been accomplished by a random, purposeless process.

Which is why, it is up to someone claiming something is true, to provide the evidence that it is true.

You see, I could tell you, I was abducted by aliens last night and taken to their space ship and returned home and you could not prove this didn't happen. My claim is not falsifiable, because you can not prove it didn't happen. It would be up to me to provide evidence this occured and I could explain how the space ship looked like and explain how the personal experience was so real, it has to be true. Would you believe me, probably not, but you can't prove that I am wrong.

Not exactly the same thing as examining an organism and deciding if it was the product of design. We know immediately that a skyscraper is the work of a designer, but something infinitely more complex is not regarded the same way.

This is strange because everything in nature screams intelligent design.

 

[SkyWriting]

The theory of evolution is concerned with the process of change in all forms of life over generations, it says nothing about the origin of life.
The theory of Evolution does not address the origin of life nor the creation of the universe since guess what, that is not what the theory is about.
To put it another way it is a bit like saying you do not believe in the theory of gravity because it does not explain why my cat has spots.

I appreciate your sticking to the mantra....but unless the rules of nature changed, the origins of life on this planet still follow the same rules when life began as they do today. And bloggers are the only ones who separate the two.

Not colleges:
Studying the origin of life - Understanding Evolution

Nor Darwin's ideas:
Charles Darwin and the Origin of Life

Nor real biologists:
The origin and early evolution of life is an inseparable part of the discipline of Astrobiology. The journal Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres places special importance on this interconnection.

 

[Gene2memE]

Perhaps you'd like to point out, using the scientific method, where humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms.

That's not what I argued. But, if you want it, here it is:

http://download.bioon.com.cn/view/u...5_649eaff1a1a1b6ac62f6VBRAekvEDnrx.attach.pdf

 

[SkyWriting]

Are you saying evolution rules out a God?
Better run that by all the theistic evolution people, which there are many.

The two topics are unrelated.

 

[justlookinla]

That's not what I argued. But, if you want it, here it is:

http://download.bioon.com.cn/view/u...5_649eaff1a1a1b6ac62f6VBRAekvEDnrx.attach.pdf

Nope, a meaningless link isn't evidence. You provide evidence, using the scientific method, where humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms.

Notice what I'm asking for. HOW was humanity created....supported by the scientific method. Quote the part of the several page link you provided which addresses this claim.

 

[SkyWriting]

Abiogenesis isn't a god, and the theory of evolution works equally well with a supernatural or natural origin to the first life. Why do creationists try to discredit evolution by making it look like their religious beliefs?

How would that discredit it? Did you think through the logic on that?

 

[bhsmte]

I don't see how anyone can believe that the incred complexity of life-forms could have been accomplished by a random, purposeless process.


Not exactly the same thing as examining an organism and deciding if it was the product of design. We know immediately that a skyscraper is the work of a designer, but something infinitely more complex is not regarded the same way.

This is strange because everything in nature screams intelligent design.

If everything screams intelligent design, why can no one provide a scientific definition of what design is and or provide a test to determine when it exists and when it doesn't exist?

 

[Jan Volkes]

Falsifiable is a very confusing term to me, in this regard, i.e. it isn't true unless it can be proven to be false. Makes no sense.

Of course you would never for one second think that you should find out what "Falsifiable" means, it might cause you to learn things you would rather not know which in turn could damage what you want to believe.
That I suppose is why you are a creationist, you don't understand something so you go for the easiest thing you can understand, it's a childish way to think but completely understandable, a kind of imagined bliss through forced ignorance.

 

[Goonie]

Darwinism is concerned with the creation of all life from an alleged single life form of long long ago by only naturalistic means. It's an atheistic creationist worldview, admit it or not.....and not based on the scientific method.

Interesting, do I take your word that evolution is not based on the scientific method, or that of 100,000s of qualified scientists, the entirety of the academic establishment etc that it is.

The theory of evolution is a theory just like any other, it is not athiestic, or theistic and as has been stated millions of religious people recognise this fact.