Discussion on the topic of evolution - Who believes what?

[Everybodyknows]

Evolution isn't a theory, it's a natural phenomenon. It covers adaptations after life begins, that includes fully formed living creatures. There is no theory of evolution, it either happens or it doesn't but it certainly doesn't include everything, that's an assumption.

Ok sorry. I should have said:
The fact of evolution covers changes in life over time not the origin of life.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Evolution isn't a theory, it's a natural phenomenon. It covers adaptations after life begins, that includes fully formed living creatures. There is no theory of evolution, it either happens or it doesn't but it certainly doesn't include everything, that's an assumption.

 

[mark kennedy]

Ok sorry. I should have said:
The fact of evolution covers changes in life over time not the origin of life.

I know what you meant and that's not evolution, that's the Darwinian a priori assumption of universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic means. Evolution is a phenomenon, not a blanket assumption for everything in natural history.

 

[Everybodyknows]

I know what you meant and that's not evolution, that's the Darwinian a priori assumption of universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic means. Evolution is a phenomenon, not a blanket assumption for everything in natural history.

I suppose you could view common ancestry as an a priori assumption, particularly if you ignore all evidence

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know what you meant and that's not evolution, that's the Darwinian a priori assumption of universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic means. Evolution is a phenomenon, not a blanket assumption for everything in natural history.

Assumptions of the sort that you are speaking of are not allowed in the world of science, and neither Darwin nor modern scientists make any such assumptions. They drew extremely well supported conclusions based upon evidence. To call those "assumptions" is the worst sort of personal attack against them. Do you have any valid evidence to support your beliefs at all or are you bearing false witness against your neighbor? Now you could have stated that you do not believe them, but when you go so far as to attack them you put the burden of proof upon yourself. Not just in a debate, but according to the Ninth Commandment as well.

 

[pitabread]

There is no theory of evolution

 

[mark kennedy]

I suppose you could view common ancestry as an a priori assumption, particularly if you ignore all evidence

I've never ignored the evidence, I've been studying it for years. You on the other hand are impervious to evidence, it's always fascinated me how all you have to do is criticize creationists and your an instant expert, no reading required. There is no way you come to the conclusion of chimp/human common ancestry based on fossil or genomic evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've never ignored the evidence, I've been studying it for years. You on the other hand are impervious to evidence, it's always fascinated me how all you have to do is criticize creationists and your an instant expert, no reading required. There is no way you come to the conclusion of chimp/human common ancestry based on fossil or genomic evidence.

It does not matter if one has studied the evidence for years. When one keeps repeating the same errors countless times even after being corrected by many people then that person should be the last to make any claims.

Simply pointing out the obvious fact that creationists are wrong hardly makes one an expert. One must actually understand what has been presented.

By the way, if you have studied the evidence for years then you should be aware that there are mountains of evidence for the theory of evolution and no evidence for creationism. You should be aware of the fact that no creationist has been able to supply any evidence for the claims of creationism. Or perhaps you do not understand the concept of evidence either. Which would make your studying of evidence rather pointless. Most creationists run away from even discussing the nature of evidence. Are you up to it?

 

[Everybodyknows]

I've never ignored the evidence, I've been studying it for years. You on the other hand are impervious to evidence, it's always fascinated me how all you have to do is criticize creationists and your an instant expert, no reading required. There is no way you come to the conclusion of chimp/human common ancestry based on fossil or genomic evidence.

I was kind of trying to make the point that I don't think you really know what the term a priori means. It is one thing to argue that belief in common ancestry comes from a misinterpretation of evidence, but it's completely absurd to say it is an a priori assumption.

 

[Everybodyknows]

But I thought evolution was just a theory??? I'm totally confused now. How can it be just a theory and not a theory at the same time?

 

[AV1611VET]

But I thought evolution was just a theory???

Macroevolultion is.

I'm totally confused now.

Microevolution is the term that applies to adaptation.

How can it be just a theory and not a theory at the same time?

When it's science.

 

[Everybodyknows]

Macroevolultion is.Microevolution is the term that applies to adaptation.
When it's science.

And what about the spoon?

 

[AV1611VET]

And what about the spoon?

A spoon is a microshovel.

 

[Speedwell]

We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made. (Nicene Creed)
​

Notice God as Creator tops the list, then the incarnation, then another confession of God as Creator. It is definitely essential doctrine and why would I believe the promise of eternal life if I didn't believe God created life in the first place?

It would be nice if you would explain what the affirmation of God as creator in the Nicene Creed has to do with universal common ancestry.

The last time you raised this issue and I questioned you about it you accused me of only pretending to accept the tenets of the Nicene Creed and had me banned for a month for denying it. I suppose you could go that route again, but an explanation would be much better.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Macroevolultion is.Microevolution is the term that applies to adaptation.
When it's science.

I think I like this post best because it shows an astounding lack of understanding of basic scientific terms and it uses that astounding lack of understanding to attack science.

FTW!

 

[Obliquinaut]

A spoon is a microshovel.

Just so long as we all agree that there are no ladles. That would be a macro-spoon.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think I like this post best because it shows an astounding lack of understanding of basic scientific terms and it uses that astounding lack of understanding to attack science.

Which term(s) in particular did I show an astounding lack of understanding in?

1. microevolution
2. macroevolution
3. adaptation
4. science

 

[mark kennedy]

I was kind of trying to make the point that I don't think you really know what the term a priori means. It is one thing to argue that belief in common ancestry comes from a misinterpretation of evidence, but it's completely absurd to say it is an a priori assumption.

I do know what it means, without prior, empirical evidence would be apostori. A dead give away is the way you say all the evidence yet present none. That means prior to the evidence common ancestry is uniformly assumed bad creation categorically rejected. By the way if evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life that means creation can never contradict TOE and vise versa

 

[Speedwell]

I do know what it means, without prior, empirical evidence would be apostori. A dead give away is the way you say all the evidence yet present none. That means prior to the evidence common ancestry is uniformly assumed bad creation categorically rejected. By the way if evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life that means creation can never contradict TOE and vise versa

In this case, a priori would mean that the idea of universal common ancestry was accepted before enough was known about the process of evolution to suggest it as a reasonable inference. Can you show that this is what happened?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Which term(s) in particular did I show an astounding lack of understanding in?

1. microevolution
2. macroevolution
3. adaptation
4. science

THEORY. Creationists always stumble on the word "Theory". It's one of the FIRST things they are alerted to and yet they never ever quite "get it".

It's funny because it's the simplest part of the whole thing. A simple definition.

So now explain to me why, if you guys have so much trouble with a simple definition you are able to find so many flaws in science that has developed over 200 years and the work of countless thousands of independent scientists?