What is evolution?

[franklin]

Originally posted by D. Scarlatti
So Franklin if you are referring to the United States Supreme Court as it sat in 1987 (or today for that matter: seven out of nine current Justices are Republican appointees) as the "liberals and the political correctness/anti-God crowd who won't allow creationism in the public schools!!" with the "depraved minds of humanists," clearly you need more than an introductory lesson in biology, you need one in rudimentary American politics.

Congrads to you Scar, you get an A- for politics! You are politically correct! I never said that just because someone is a Republican that automatically makes them conservative!  There are plenty of Repub's that are lib's..... and for the supreme court, they made it legal to have babies murdered in the womb!  ChildKilling has it's roots in the Atheistic/evolutionary mindset also...... Survival of the Fittest!  sound familiar?

 

[Morat]

  Actually, abortion would be inconsistant with evolution. Evolution works by differential reproduction.

  Having abortions would lower your chances of passing your genes on, as each one would remove one potential offspring, making your genes less represented in the next generation.

*shrug*. But then again, no one but you thinks evolution is some sort of philosophy or moral system. The rest of us think it's a descriptive model of life's diversity.

 

 

[npetreley]

Having abortions would lower your chances of passing your genes on, as each one would remove one potential offspring, making your genes less represented in the next generation.

If only liberalism were genetic, that might be encouraging, but it isn't (genetic or encouraging).

But then again, no one but you thinks evolution is some sort of philosophy or moral system.

Evolution is a philosophy that has moral consequences, so count me in, too.

 

[Morat]

  It's a philosophy, really? Please point out what papers establish the philosophical tenets of evolution.

   Bear in mind, that since evolution is a scientific theory, they'll have to be in biology Journals, written by biologists.

  Oh wait. You don't ever back up your statements, do you? 

 

 

[Jerry Smith]

Not unless he's got something pre-fab he doesn't. No.

In the dating "fudge" thread, he has a pre-fab from an article discussing the illegitimate attempts to discredit radiometric dating that Stone Cold or somebody perpetrated Geochron lab. There is a statement to the effect that estimated age should have been given so that spurious results could be identified by the lab, and he has integrated that rather nicely into his conspiracy theory of dating methods.

 

[franklin]

  Originally posted by Morat
  Actually, abortion would be inconsistant with evolution. Evolution works by differential reproduction.  

 

You silver tongued defenders of your false doctrine can put any kind of fancy label you want on your depraved mindset and call it what you like, killing human life in the womb is still rooted in Atheism/evolution!

  Having abortions would lower your chances of passing your genes on, as each one would remove one potential offspring, making your genes less represented in the next generation. [/B]

 

A very sick statement to make and extremely disrespectful toward the preciousness of life that God has created!  Of course the genes won't be passed on!  You would have a dead baby!  But you guys don't believe in a supreme creator, right? 

 

 

*shrug*. But then again, no one but you thinks evolution is some sort of philosophy or moral system. The rest of us think it's a descriptive model of life's diversity. [/B]

Its more like an immoral system and is the result of a reprobate mind....  a model for life's diversity????  That's a joke!

 

 

[Jerry Smith]

Franklin, ranting in red and blue doesn't make your objections more accurate. I understand that you dislike atheistic philosophy, oppose abortion, and very rightly despise tyranny and genocide. The simple point is that NONE of these have ANY intrisic relationship to the science of evolution. You are behaving like a heel: you object to evolution, but instead of stating reasonable objections you are employing smear tactics: poisoning the well by attempting to associate science with unrelated philosophies, political positions, and political systems.

Smear tactics are no good here.

 

[randman]

"Smear tactics are no good here."

Hmmm...I guess all those posts questioning Nick's integrity just appeared out of thin air.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
"Smear tactics are no good here."

Hmmm...I guess all those posts questioning Nick's integrity just appeared out of thin air.

Considering that Nick always dodges supporting his statements, the questions about his integrity were justified. Considering that the questions about his integrity have gone undefended, and yet he continues to spam nearly every thread on this board with accusations and allegations against people he hasn't even met, then I'd say the answers to those questions have arrived.

 

[npetreley]

It's a philosophy, really? Please point out what papers establish the philosophical tenets of evolution.

As Lewontin admits, it requires an a-priori commitment to material causes, which is a philosophy. Since there is no directly observable evidence, it also requires a very vivid imagination, so you could also call it mythology.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley

As Lewontin admits, it requires an a-priori commitment to material causes, which is a philosophy.

Not a philosophy, a methodology. The same one that made digital watches possible. Repeat 100 times until you have memorized this word: methodology (sounds like Methodist, but with and 'ology' where the 'ist' normally goes).

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by franklin
  

Blah blah
 

What a riot.

OK, which one of you is playing the troll here?

 

[franklin]

  Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Franklin, ranting in red and blue doesn't make your objections more accurate.

I'll change the colors if you like!  The colors have nothing to do with this at all!  that's chocolate color, like it?

  I understand that you dislike atheistic philosophy, oppose abortion, and very rightly despise tyranny and genocide.[/B]

  

Wow, Jerry you took the words right out of my mouth!  You just gave the perfect definition of evolution!  it's getting better, keep it up! HItler loved evolution, he was a great tyrant!  Not to mention the genocide he performed!  His thinking fell right in line with your thinking, Survival of the fittest!

  The simple point is that NONE of these have ANY intrisic relationship to the science of evolution. [/B]

 

Oh I am so impressed with your choice of words!  oh my... is that how you con people into your thinking with your fancy silverTongue dialog?  Doesn't impress me one bit!  Intrisic relationship?  wooo!  check you spelling next time professor! Intrinsic maybe? 

  You are behaving like a heel: you object to evolution, but instead of stating reasonable objections you are employing smear tactics: poisoning the well by attempting to associate science with unrelated philosophies, political positions, and political systems. Smear tactics are no good here [/B]

Well slap my hand for my misbehaving like a heel?   I posted plenty of good information in this thread and all you and your croneys have done is smear what I've posted, the heck are you talking about?  Don't give that line of trash pal! Everything you described is affected by your rediculas theory, it affects every aspect of life, that's why I brought it up!  Your theory is being exposed for the fraud that it is and not just by me!  I noticed there are a couple of others in here taking a stand against you too! hope you enjoy the colors!    

 

[randman]

Mythology? Sounds about right to me.

 

[npetreley]

Methodology: The practice of examining evidence with the a-priori assumption that evolution is true and then claim that it is scientific to say that evolution is the best fit for the evidence.

 

[Valerie412]

I can understand how an atheist can believe evolution.  I would like to know on what Scriptural evidence do the Christians on this thread rely to support their belief God created the universe in six time periods, millenia, or whatever, as opposed to six days?

Thanks

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Valerie412
I can understand how an atheist can believe evolution.  I would like to know on what Scriptural evidence do the Christians on this thread rely to support their belief God created the universe in six time periods, millenia, or whatever, as opposed to six days?

Thanks

I don't subscribe to any of them, but there are a number of potential exegeses of the six day passage that harmonize it with science. One is that there were six days of Pronouncements ("let there be"'s), followed by a few billion years of results, with each pronouncemen'ts culmination occurring in the future.

Another is the Day/Age interpretation, where one "day" of creation was an indefinite period of time (those who hold this view point out that the translation of the Hebrew word is ambiguous, and MIGHT be just as well translated as "period of time".)

A third is that the passage is considered to be that the passage cannot be interpreted literally, because it was only meant to convey the idea of creation to people who could not possibly understand the scientific details of the natural process - and because those details were not important. For the purposes of their understanding, the six-day account is merely a simplification presented in terms that they could understand.

I cannot call to mind any other specific harmonizations, but I would be suprised to find that there were no others.

YEC literalists discount all of the alternative interpretations, and sometimes give valid criticisms of them (at least in parts). In the mind of a YEC, there are only two options: the Bible is wrong or science is wrong, and they feel they should accept the Bible over science.

 

[kern]

HItler loved evolution, he was a great tyrant! Not to mention the genocide he performed! His thinking fell right in line with your thinking, Survival of the fittest!

You really don't want to start with this, franklin. You want everyone to start dredging up the horrible ways Christianity has been misused in history? The way a scientific principle has been used or misused has nothing to do with whether it's valid or not.

If a serial murderer claims that he was led to commit his murders by passages from the Bible, does that invalidate Christianity? Of course not. In the same way, your Hitler statements are red herrings and have nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution at all.

And to Valerie: Not all Christians are Bible literalists.

-Chris

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
Methodology: The practice of examining evidence with the a-priori assumption that evolution is true and then claim that it is scientific to say that evolution is the best fit for the evidence.

What a hypocrite!

 

[franklin]

  Originally posted by kern
You really don't want to start with this, franklin. You want everyone to start dredging up the horrible ways Christianity has been misused in history?

Hey, I don't deny the way the false prophets have misused Christianity in the past and in modern times! The fact of the matter is Christianity is the truth, evolution is not!

 The way a scientific principle has been used or misused has nothing to do with whether it's valid or not. [/B]

That is just my point, evolution has no scientific relevence at all!  It's a total fabrication and twisting the truth of God's creation.

 
If a serial murderer claims that he was led to commit his murders by passages from the Bible, does that invalidate Christianity? .[/B]

 

 Absolutely not, however, when something like this does occur in our society, all the anti-Christian left wing pundits including the liberal media do everything in their power to create how bad and negitive belief in God and the Bible and Christianity is!So don't tell me about how I don't want to start down this road! 

 In the same way, your Hitler statements are red herrings and have nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution at all.[/B]

 

Survival of the fittest is one of your doctrines, so don't you try to tell me not to bring Hitler into this!  

 
 Not all Christians are Bible literalists. [/B]

Well, we agree on something!  I don't believe all of the scripture is to be taken literally.... many scripture references are to be interpreted figuratively, however, when it comes to the Genesis account of the creation and scripture speaks for itself and common sence is applied, one can see that it is literal.