Honest opinions from Christians please

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, I'm aware that evolution generally refers to the evolution of life, and is therefore in the field of biology -ie Macroevolution.

The term correctly refers only to the evolution of life, except as an analogy.

BTW - the term "macroevolution" is meaningless. It's based on an arbitrary distinction by creationists meaning "that part of the established theory of evolution that even a creationist can't disagree with without looking foolish or deceitful."

However, when we contrast in to creationism, we begin talking about Cosmic, stellar, etc. evolution.

No, you don't.

For example, macroevolution that you're talking about could only have happenned without a fairly large amount of time -without that time, the theory is sunk. Creationism purports that there was not that much time. Thus, we begin talking about the lot of evolutions.

I think you've gotten yourself a bit confused here. Yes, evolution makes certain predictions about things like the age of the Earth. So do other disciplines of science... plate tectonics, for instance. However, that doesn't make the initial formation of the Earth "planetary evolution" any more than it makes it "planetary tectonics".

 

[starlite]

It is possible.

So what is this point that I missed?

Point is.....I am perfectly content with appearing ignorant in the eyes of those who flaunt their so called higher education

 

[McBell]

Point is.....I am perfectly content with appearing ignorant in the eyes of those who flaunt their so called higher education

now why am I not surprised?

 

[painted wolf]

The theory of Evolution only covers Decent with Modification... how organisms adapt and change over time.

Other theories cover other areas... Stellar Evolution is a whole separate theory.

Just because it uses the word 'evolution' does not make it part of the actual Evolutionary Theory.

All other 'definitions' are pointless to a discussion of biology.

It is a common mistake to make... confusing various lay-definitions for the real thing. Like confusing the lay term 'theory' and the scientific term 'theory'.

wa:do

 

[jacobweymouth]

The term correctly refers only to the evolution of life, except as an analogy.

BTW - the term "macroevolution" is meaningless. It's based on an arbitrary distinction by creationists meaning "that part of the established theory of evolution that even a creationist can't disagree with without looking foolish or deceitful."


No, you don't.


I think you've gotten yourself a bit confused here. Yes, evolution makes certain predictions about things like the age of the Earth. So do other disciplines of science... plate tectonics, for instance. However, that doesn't make the initial formation of the Earth "planetary evolution" any more than it makes it "planetary tectonics".

macroevolution definition | Dictionary.com

microevolution definition | Dictionary.com

organic evolution definition | Dictionary.com

Cosmic Evolution encyclopedia topics | Reference.com

stellar Evolution encyclopedia topics | Reference.com

chemical evolution definition | Dictionary.com

Okay, here they are. They exist. Let's move on now?

 

[Draka]

Point is.....I am perfectly content with appearing ignorant in the eyes of those who flaunt their so called higher education

Glad you're content, but it's not "so-called". Shoot, since fourth graders seem to know more than you do about scientific fact and evolutionary processes, I have to wonder just how "lower" your education is.

 

[jacobweymouth]

All other 'definitions' are pointless to a discussion of biology.

The OP wasn't limited to biology.

 

[painted wolf]

But "The Theory of Evolution" is.

wa:do

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=macroevolutionOkay, here they are. They exist. Let's move on now?

The fact that you can find them in conversation doesn't make them scientific. Also, however you define things like "stellar evolution", it doesn't imply that it has anything at all to do with actual evolution the way you're implying it does.

The OP wasn't limited to biology.

It also wasn't limited to evolution.

 

[jacobweymouth]

Agreed.
How about you start with these:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-creation-evolution.html?highlight=evolution
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/77078-if-evolution-were-true.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-vs-religion/77679-evolution-what-lie.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...0-evolution-does-not-address-abiogenesis.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/59748-evolution-do-you-see-resemblence.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...nism/50108-evolution-many-percieve-wrong.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/38635-proof-against-evolution.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/26515-prove-me-wrong-evolution.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/26597-proof-against-evolution.html
​

Now I understand that that is a lot of information.
The question is are you actually going to do some research or are you merely going to reject it all without even looking?
The next question is are you going to actually do honest research or are you going to merely ratify your beliefs?


Do not worry.
I will not be holding my breath.

Any research I do will not be on a blog.

What exactly did you find ignorant? Are you ever going to tell me, or was I right in my assumption that you can't, and that's why the hominem arguments started.

 

[McBell]

Any research I do will not be on a blog.

What exactly did you find ignorant? Are you ever going to tell me, or was I right in my assumption that you can't, and that's why the hominem arguments started.

ROTFLMAO

I shall sit back and wait whilst those who know much more then myself explain evolution.
I will pay close attention to your responses to determine if you are actually willing to learn anything, or if you are merely going to cling to your little box.

It is all up to you now.

Good luck.

 

[jacobweymouth]

The fact that you can find them in conversation doesn't make them scientific. Also, however you define things like "stellar evolution", it doesn't imply that it has anything at all to do with actual evolution the way you're implying it does.

Oh I'll agree that they're not scientific. But they are used by scientists, and they're all dependent on each other

It's fast becoming apparent that ignorance isn't my special attribute, guys.

It also wasn't limited to evolution.

Great God...

I didn't say it was. If you go back to my original post, I addressed all three OP points in a response to autiodact, Mestemia threw a hissy fit, and here we are

 

[jacobweymouth]

ROTFLMAO

I shall sit back and wait whilst those who know much more then myself explain evolution.
I will pay close attention to your responses to determine if you are actually willing to learn anything, or if you are merely going to cling to your little box.

It is all up to you now.

Good luck.

I wish I could say I won, except you didn't even dare. Very interesting strategy.

 

[McBell]

I wish I could say I won, except you didn't even dare. Very interesting strategy.

won what?
Did you honestly think that you were "debating" anything?
Wow.
I mean, really, wow.

 

[painted wolf]

Oh I'll agree that they're not scientific. But they are used by scientists, and they're all dependent on each other

Not really. Stellar 'evolution' doesn't depend an iota on biology.

I've yet to meet a fellow biologist who uses the term 'macroevolution' or 'microevolution' except in reference to creationism.

wa:do

 

[jacobweymouth]

won what?
Did you honestly think that you were "debating" anything?
Wow.
I mean, really, wow.

As I said, I'd like to say I won.

Of course there was no debate. Just some attacks by you on me.

 

[McBell]

As I said, I'd like to say I won.

Of course there was no debate. Just some attacks by you one.

Attacks?
Wow.
You wave your ignorance around like a flag and when I flat out state as much, you whine about attacks....

But I digress.
I said I was going to wait and watch and see if you are going to actually learn anything or if you are merely going to defend your ignorance.

 

[jacobweymouth]

Not really. Stellar 'evolution' doesn't depend an iota on biology.

It does indirectly. In order for there to be life on earth, we have to have earth. Earth has to have a star. Therefore, it matters how the star got there.

EDIT: macroevolution is dependent on stellar evolution.

I've yet to meet a fellow biologist who uses the term 'macroevolution' or 'microevolution' except in reference to creationism.

Of course not. Why would he? When talking about any particular field, you'll say "evolution", as there's no need to distinguish.

You do realize that these terms were not originated by creationists? These are real life words.

 

[jacobweymouth]

Attacks?
Wow.
You wave your ignorance around like a flag and when I flat out state as much, you whine about attacks....

I'm not whining -I don't care one way or another. I'm just stating what you're doing.

But I digress.
I said I was going to wait and watch and see if you are going to actually learn anything or if you are merely going to defend your ignorance.

You see, you've yet to explain how I'm ignorant.

 

[painted wolf]

It does indirectly. In order for there to be life on earth, we have to have earth. Earth has to have a star. Therefore, it matters how the star got there.

In that case then, there is no distinction between any scientific concept. Gravity is the same as evolution. You can't have one without the other... according to what you've said.

EDIT: macroevolution is dependent on stellar evolution.

How so?

Of course not. Why would he? When talking about any particular field, you'll say "evolution", as there's no need to distinguish.

She wouldn't have to because there is no magic line between micro and macro.
The astrophysicists I know don't use the term evolution alone unless asking me about biological evolution. Stellar formation gets called stellar formation. Once in a rare while they may say Stellar evolution... but never simply evolution.

You do realize that these terms were not originated by creationists? These are real life words.

I'm aware... do you realize that the terms were never highly popular and are currently seen as useless in the light of modern genetics.

The fact that creationists hold the terms in such high regard only highlights their very slow adaptation to new findings in the scientific fields. The terms were coined in the 1920's... that is generally as current as Creationist arguments get. (though, some appear from the 1980's)

wa:do