Does evolution have a purpose?

[YoursTrue]

One of the major purposes of the Theory of evolution that I have witnessed, is for some of its devout followers to become extremely incensed when someone disagrees with any part of it.

From my experience here, that seems to be the case with many.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah, it looks like a mess right now. I have hope that mankind will rise from the ashes.

My hope is that God will put an end to the ruination of the earth. I find it amazing that it actually says he will in the book of Revelation. He will ruin those ruining the earth, it says. Eye opener for me, and very hopeful. How he will do it is yet to be seen.

 

[Firelight]

Purpose? How is becoming incensed a purpose?
The theory of evolution has no more purpose than evolution does. It's just a theory, an explanation of process based on observation and testing.

I've never seen a believer of evolution become incensed by disbelief. We may become exasperated by a non-believer's obtuseness or ignorance; even annoyed if he persists in ignoring observed facts and repeated explanations, but disbelief doesn't threaten our ego-integrity the way science seems to pose a psychic threat to whose world is founded on myth.

As far as I’m concerned, the Theory of evolution and evolution are the same thing and are used interchangeably. Evolution is just a shortened form of the theory of evolution. Some people want to forget it’s theory and pretend it’s fact.

Your word: “exasperated” means ‘intensely irritated and frustrated.’ What does ‘irritated’ mean? ‘feeling or showing slight anger; annoyed.’ What does ‘frustrated’ mean? ‘angry, discouraged.’ So, now:

What does “exasperated” mean? ‘intensely angry, intensely annoyed, intensely discouraged.’

What does “incensed” mean? ‘Very angry, enraged.’

What’s the difference between the two words in regards to anger? None.

“Incensed” or “exasperated,” there’s no call for either just because someone disagrees with the theory of evolution and/or refuses to accept it as fact. Such disagreement certainly threatens the egos of some evolutionists in some manner, since they are unable to accept or respect the fact that others have a different view.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As far as I’m concerned, the Theory of evolution and evolution are the same thing and are used interchangeably. Evolution is just a shortened form of the theory of evolution. Some people want to forget it’s theory and pretend it’s fact.

Your word: “exasperated” means ‘intensely irritated and frustrated.’ What does ‘irritated’ mean? ‘feeling or showing slight anger; annoyed.’ What does ‘frustrated’ mean? ‘angry, discouraged.’ So, now:

What does “exasperated” mean? ‘intensely angry, intensely annoyed, intensely discouraged.’

What does “incensed” mean? ‘Very angry, enraged.’

What’s the difference between the two words in regards to anger? None.

“Incensed” or “exasperated,” there’s no call for either just because someone disagrees with the theory of evolution and/or refuses to accept it as fact. Such disagreement certainly threatens the egos of some evolutionists in some manner, since they are unable to accept or respect the fact that others have a different view.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. Just as there is the theory of gravity, that explains why things fall down and gravity itself, which makes things fall down. The theory of evolution explains how and why we are related to all life. You may not understand what a scientific theory is.

 

[Valjean]

As far as I’m concerned, the Theory of evolution and evolution are the same thing and are used interchangeably. Evolution is just a shortened form of the theory of evolution.

They're different.
Evolution is change over time. It's an observation. The theory of evolution is an explanation -- of the mechanisms by which the change occurs.

Some people want to forget it’s theory and pretend it’s fact.

And here is one of the repeated misunderstandings that become annoying.

This straw man seems to come up in almost every creationism vs evolution discussion. It's come up in dozens of different threads on RF alone. It immediately marks the poster as unfamiliar with science.

In science, "theory" doesn't mean conjecture or guesswork. A theory is a tested explanation of an observed phenomenon.
In science, 'theory' applies to those explanations with the very highest possible level of confidence. There is nothing higher than a theory.
A spherical Earth, a Sun centered solar system, germs causing disease -- all theories, as well as facts. Theory and fact aren't mutually exclusive.
Natural selection is a theory and a fact.

Your word: “exasperated” means ‘intensely irritated and frustrated.’ What does ‘irritated’ mean? ‘feeling or showing slight anger; annoyed.’ What does ‘frustrated’ mean? ‘angry, discouraged.’ So, now:

What does “exasperated” mean? ‘intensely angry, intensely annoyed, intensely discouraged.’

What does “incensed” mean? ‘Very angry, enraged.’

What’s the difference between the two words in regards to anger? None.

No, anger and exasperation are different. I may roll my eyes or sigh at repeated, false claims or conclusions, after repeated corrections; they may be annoying, but they don't anger me. Why would they anger me?
If you'd prefer, how about "irked?"

“Incensed” or “exasperated,” there’s no call for either just because someone disagrees with the theory of evolution and/or refuses to accept it as fact. Such disagreement certainly threatens the egos of some evolutionists in some manner, since they are unable to accept or respect the fact that others have a different view.

No. We don't feel threatened, and it's not the disagreement that's annoying. Our house is built on stone.

Our beliefs are well founded, extensively evidenced, and agreed on by almost everyone familiar with the subject. I'm no more angered by creationist claims than I would be by a kid pointing to my cat and insisting it was a chicken.
What we find irksome is when such claims are countered with logic &/or hard evidence, over and over, by multiple posters, and a few posts later the poster starts making exactly the same claims. It's the obtuseness that's annoying.

 

[Firelight]

They're different.
Evolution is change over time. It's an observation. The theory of evolution is an explanation -- of the mechanisms by which the change occurs.
And here is one of the repeated misunderstandings that become annoying.

This claim seems to come up in almost every creationism vs evolution discussion. It's come up in dozens of different threads on RF alone. It immediately marks the poster as unfamiliar with science.

In science, "theory" doesn't mean conjecture or guesswork. A theory is a tested explanation of an observed phenomenon.
In science, 'theory' applies to those explanations with the very highest possible level of confidence. There is nothing higher than a theory.
A spherical Earth, a Sun centered solar system, germs causing disease -- all theories, as well as facts. Theory and fact aren't mutually exclusive.
Natural selection is a theory and a fact.

No, anger and exasperation are different. I may roll my eyes or sigh at repeated, false claims or conclusions, after repeated corrections; they may be annoying, but they don't anger me. Why would they anger me?
If you'd prefer, how about "irked?"

No. We don't feel threatened, and it's not the disagreement that's annoying. Our house is built on stone.

Our beliefs are well founded, extensively evidenced, and agreed on by almost everyone familiar with the subject. I'm no more angered by creationist claims than I would be by a kid pointing to my cat and insisting it was a chicken.
What we find irksome is when such claims are countered with logic &/or hard evidence, over and over, by multiple posters, and a few posts later the poster starts making exactly the same claims. It's the obtuseness that's annoying.

Oh, the MULTIPLE times I’ve seen these SAME explanations on this forum. Over and over and over, again and again and again. You all must copy each other. I would expect a little variance amongst so many followers. One more of the same still doesn’t make it fact.

You must be incensed when a kid calls your cat a chicken. Poor kid. You don’t know what that kid sees through his eyes, and there’s no way you can know. Not knowing must really exasperate you.

 

[Valjean]

Oh, the MULTIPLE times I’ve seen these SAME explanations on this forum. Over and over and over, again and again and again. You all must copy each other. I would expect a little variance amongst so many followers. One more of the same still doesn’t make it fact.

You must be incensed when a kid calls your cat a chicken. Poor kid. You don’t know what that kid sees through his eyes, and there’s no way you can know. Not knowing must really exasperate you.

Silly Ape....

 

[ratiocinator]

Oh, the MULTIPLE times I’ve seen these SAME explanations on this forum. Over and over and over, again and again and again. You all must copy each other. I would expect a little variance amongst so many followers. One more of the same still doesn’t make it fact.

The thing is that there is a right and wrong answer to these things and it's the creationists (that repeat the "only a theory" nonsense) that are wrong. The definition if 'theory' in the context of science, is a matter for scientists. Misusing it in a discussion about the theory of evolution (which is a scientific theory) is simply wrong, a mistake that would only be made by those who are unfamiliar with science.

You are free to disagree with the theory of evolution and try to put forward arguments against it, but misusing scientific terms is not an argument and only shows that you haven't done your homework. People who persist in doing so, are just showing wilful ignorance, not arguing against the theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, the MULTIPLE times I’ve seen these SAME explanations on this forum. Over and over and over, again and again and again. You all must copy each other. I would expect a little variance amongst so many followers. One more of the same still doesn’t make it fact.

You must be incensed when a kid calls your cat a chicken. Poor kid. You don’t know what that kid sees through his eyes, and there’s no way you can know. Not knowing must really exasperate you.

Or we could all be right. You are making the same sort of complaint that child would make about people that keep telling him five times five is twentyfive when he thinks that it is only ten.

Like it or not you are an ape.

 

[Peter Stanley]

That's a lot of bacteria! Sounds like a pretty good reason not to believe in evolution to me

Its a fact look it up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its a fact look it up.

I did, and the usage of smileys generally indicates that a person is kidding.

 

[Peter Stanley]

I did, and the usage of smileys generally indicates that a person is kidding.

Right from nation heath institute : NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body

But you don't like facts. 1-3 percent of your body weight.

 

[Peter Stanley]

I won't argue with a person who rallies against know science its a waste of time - don't believe I don't care. I'm done here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right from nation heath institute : NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body

But you don't like facts. 1-3 percent of your body weight.

Dude! Once again, what does a smiley indicate?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I won't argue with a person who rallies against know science its a waste of time - don't believe I don't care. I'm done here.

Who has argued against you?

 

[YoursTrue]

They're different.
Evolution is change over time. It's an observation. The theory of evolution is an explanation -- of the mechanisms by which the change occurs.

It's an observation? When has anyone observed evolution? When also has anyone observed the mechanisms of these changes? Suppositions based on fossils is not observing evolution. If you think it is, all I can say to that thought is, have a good one, as some expressions go.

 

[Valjean]

It's an observation? When has anyone observed evolution? When also has anyone observed the mechanisms of these changes? Suppositions based on fossils is not observing evolution. If you think it is, all I can say to that thought is, have a good one, as some expressions go.

Are you serious?!
All this has been observed both in the lab and in the field, all over the world, hundreds of thousands of times!

How long have you been on RF? This has all been explained to you many times. We've sent you links and references, yet here you are apparently entirely ignorant of the entire field of biology.
Do you think the ToE is pure speculation?

OK. Instant evolution, observed:

 

[YoursTrue]

Are you serious?!
All this has been observed both in the lab and in the field, all over the world, hundreds of thousands of times!

How long have you been on RF? This has all been explained to you many times. We've sent you links and references, yet here you are apparently entirely ignorant of the entire field of biology.
Do you think the ToE is pure speculation?

OK. Instant evolution, observed:

See I was going to leave out viruses and bacteria because I thought (wrongly) that we were past that point. Evolution from bacteria to anything but bacteria just isn't there but if you know the transformation process in actuality to another item more ? than bacteria, please let me know. Please do not give me conjecture. Clearly bacteria change from type to type, but they stay bacteria. Maybe you can show me where that is wrong. If so, I will change my thought here.

 

[YoursTrue]

The thing is that there is a right and wrong answer to these things and it's the creationists (that repeat the "only a theory" nonsense) that are wrong. The definition if 'theory' in the context of science, is a matter for scientists. Misusing it in a discussion about the theory of evolution (which is a scientific theory) is simply wrong, a mistake that would only be made by those who are unfamiliar with science.

You are free to disagree with the theory of evolution and try to put forward arguments against it, but misusing scientific terms is not an argument and only shows that you haven't done your homework. People who persist in doing so, are just showing wilful ignorance, not arguing against the theory.

It's not just only a theory. It's simply not proven except as a matter of conjectural assertions.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah, it looks like a mess right now. I have hope that mankind will rise from the ashes.

At the beginning, before Adam and Eve had children, they rejected God's leadership, Eve thinking she didn't need God to tell her what to do. So He let her to make her own decisions as to what was good or bad for her. Except she had to cope with her husband who also discarded God's rulership in his life. I can only imagine she didn't eat poison mushrooms but died of old age, as the saying goes. A "natural" death. Nothing is said about the exact cause except that it was ensured by her creator that she would die as a result of her disobedience in that respect. More suffering was involved, but she lived for a much longer time than we do today.