Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's obvious that it does. What more can be said?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No it doesn't. You have not shown in any shape or form that complexity supports creation. You just said it does and just left it.

No, you just don't accept shapes and forms that support creation. Some things are obvious.

http://www.istockphoto.com/photos/butterfly-wings?sort=best&excludenudity=true&mediatype=photography&phrase=Butterfly Wings

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, you just don't accept shapes and forms that support creation. Some things are obvious.

http://www.istockphoto.com/photos/butterfly-wings?sort=best&excludenudity=true&mediatype=photography&phrase=Butterfly Wings

No, all you have done is shown your own personal incredulity. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ever heard of cosmic evolution?

Yes. And it's not the same as biological evolution,

No kidding?

1 is not the same as a ten-number set; it is only one component of it.

... which is what the theory of evolution refers to.

Yes.

As I said before, evolution is now a highly compartmentalized version of the whole picture.

The reason for this, in my opinion, is that creation-evolution debates were being won by creationists because evolutionists couldn't explain abiogenesis.

So they compartmentalized evolution and removed abiogenesis out of the picture.

 

[Speedwell]

No kidding?

1 is not the same as a ten-number set; it is only one component of it.Yes.

As I said before, evolution is now a highly compartmentalized version of the whole picture.

The reason for this, in my opinion, is that creation-evolution debates were being won by creationists because evolutionists couldn't explain abiogenesis.

So they compartmentalized evolution and removed abiogenesis out of the picture.

Or it could be that abiogenesis and evolution are two different biological processes. They always were; we just had to explain that to Creationists. You see, Creationists are under the mistaken impression that the purpose of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God and so they thought if science couldn't come up with a naturalistic explanation for the beginning of life, evolution would lose by default. But alas, that is not the case. Evolution would remain a viable theory even if God created life initially.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or it could be that abiogenesis and evolution are two different biological processes.

Ya.

I've been hearing that here for over ten years now.

In fact, it is one of the first things I learned here.

They always were;

That's called retconning.

... we just had to explain that to Creationists.

Just don't get all in a tither if they don't accept it right away.

There's always a probation period between hearing something new and accepting it; as Galileo found out.

Scientists like to blame Christianity for not accepting his theory from the day it was shown them, when most of them back then probably didn't buy it themselves.

You see, Creationists are under the mistaken impression that the purpose of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God and so they thought if science couldn't come up with a naturalistic explanation for the beginning of life, evolution would lose by default.

Sounds good to me.

But alas, that is not the case. Evolution would remain a viable theory even if God created life initially.

The theory of [biological] evolution is going to wax stronger and stronger, culminating in the Tribulation period.

Then Jesus will come back and put an end to it Himself.

 

[Speedwell]

Ya.

I've been hearing that here for over ten years now.

In fact, it is one of the first things I learned here.That's called retconning.Just don't get all in a tither if they don't accept it right away.

There's always a probation period between hearing something new and accepting it; as Galileo found out.

Scientists like to blame Christianity for not accepting his theory from the day it was shown them, when most of them back then probably didn't buy it themselves.Sounds good to me.The theory of [biological] evolution is going to wax stronger and stronger, culminating in the Tribulation period.

Then Jesus will come back and put an end to it Himself.

And when is the rapture going to come and take you away?

 

[AV1611VET]

And when is the rapture going to come and take you away?

Seven years prior to Armageddon.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, all you have done is shown your own personal incredulity. Nothing more, nothing less.

Perhaps a little incredulity.
Did you look at those butterfly wing patterns? Evolution? I don't think so.

 

[Speedwell]

Perhaps a little incredulity.
Did you look at those butterfly wing patterns? Evolution? I don't think so.

Which would have a little more credibility if you understood how evolution is supposed to work. What, specifically, about those patterns makes it "incredible" that they were generated by an iterative algorithm?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Perhaps a little incredulity.
Did you look at those butterfly wing patterns? Evolution? I don't think so.

No, it's a lot of incredulity on your part. And the second part of your comment really does nothing to refute my point.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, it's a lot of incredulity on your part. And the second part of your comment really does nothing to refute my point.

If that's the way you see it who am I to argue?

 

[SteveB28]

Perhaps a little incredulity.
Did you look at those butterfly wing patterns? Evolution? I don't think so.

"I don't think so" does not qualify as a logical conclusion based upon the examination of evidence.

It's always going to be the EVIDENCE upon which your ship of foolishness founders.......

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"I don't think so" does not qualify as a logical conclusion based upon the examination of evidence.

Isn't that exactly what scientists say when considering creation?

 

[SteveB28]

Isn't that exactly what scientists say when considering creation?

That it is unsupported by evidence....?

Absolutely!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That it is unsupported by evidence....?

Absolutely!

Both sides are looking at the same evidence aren't we?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Which would have a little more credibility if you understood how evolution is supposed to work. What, specifically, about those patterns makes it "incredible" that they were generated by an iterative algorithm?

Who created the 'iterative algorithm', or is that the place where "a miracle happens"?

 

[Loudmouth]

Perhaps a little incredulity.
Did you look at those butterfly wing patterns? Evolution? I don't think so.

When the Pope refused to believe that the Earth moved about the Sun the Earth still continued its path around the Sun. Perhaps one day you will realize that reality doesn't care about what you believe.

 

[Loudmouth]

Both sides are looking at the same evidence aren't we?

No, we aren't. ID/creationists refuse to look at the evidence we are looking at.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, we aren't. ID/creationists refuse to look at the evidence we are looking at.

You are constantly showing us that evidence. Why do think we shouldn't see God's hand in it?