Justify creationism over evolutionism

[Sonic247]

but that isn't evolving... evolution is change in allele frequencies over time. You can't have that without multiple generations.

An individual can change... but unless that is passed down to future generations then it doesn't matter.

wa:do

ps... those new cells with mutations... they're called cancer.

Then if that's the definition it goes back to what I said before; it happens too slowly. Because you say it doesn't happen to individual but groups. But a group is individuals. So even if it is only right at conception and it is an extremely insignificant change so that it is not even worth mentioning I can't feel, it's still true that evolution happens in individuals that can't feel it happen because it is so slow.

 

[Sonic247]

The Bible doesn't say anything about the Nicene Creed because the books of the Bible were written before the Nicene Creed. The Christian faith is shaped by the Christian acclamations of faith, Scripture, interpretations of Scripture, interpretations of Scripture in light of acclamations of faith, and on a side note, heresiology was a huge motif in developing Christianity; it was easier to define themselves against that which they were not than to create a concrete identity. Scripture however, both was informed and informed the shape of early Christian self identity. However, I must say that the self identity itself is concretified in the Christian acclamations of faith which if one cannot accept or does not see their identity within then they are simply not Christians.

If you don't like the Church councels then you have no business liking one of the Church canons of Scripture. If that's harsh, it's because it's meant to be. Christian faith is a tradition, a sacrament and a life. Filled with history, a history which as Christians we must see a continuity otherwise we cannot call ourselves apostolic in any sense.

Fundamentalist Christian faith attempts to do away with the Christian faith that existed for the past 2000 years and attempts to recreate the faith of the early first century movement. However, fundamentalist faith exists within the growing phenomenon of historical Christianity as a reaction to it (to the liturgy, rituals and faith). The literalist interpretations of Scripture are not in continuity with historical Christianity and are therefore outside of what is distinctly Christian identity.

Now, I'm a religious pluralist, so I have absolutely nothing against people who do not share my religion. So in no way am I saying this in a derogatory way, it's simply how I interpret the phenomenon of fundamentalism within the history of ideas.

Allan

So what your saying in a nutshell is that you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God.

 

[Tristesse]

Then if that's the definition it goes back to what I said before; it happens too slowly. Because you say it doesn't happen to individual but groups. But a group is individuals. So even if it is only right at conception and it is an extremely insignificant change so that it is not even worth mentioning I can't feel, it's still true that evolution happens in individuals that can't feel it happen because it is so slow.

I'm assuming your familiar with the term microevolution. Even creationists confirm that microevolution happens, well, if they didn't, they'd look pretty ridiculous. But, macroevloution is just microevolution, but on a large scale. And humans have a really hard time understading extrordinary periods of time, considering the average human only lives about 80 years. So, of course you wouldn't feel evolution happening.

 

[Autodidact]

At first I THOUGHT THAT IT MEANT TAKE OVER ECONOMICALLY But then I read this:The theory of everything (TOE) is a putative theory of theoretical physics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena. Initially, the term was used with an ironic connotation to refer to various overgeneralized theories. For example, a great-grandfather of Ijon Tichy — a character from a cycle of Stanisław Lem's science fiction stories of 1960s — was known to work on the "General Theory of Everything". Physicist John Ellis claims[1] to have introduced the term into the technical literature in an article in Nature in 1986.[2] Over time, the term stuck in popularizations of quantum physics to describe a theory that would unify or explain through a single model the theories of all fundamental interactions of nature.[3]
There have been many theories of everything proposed by theoretical physicists over the last century, but none have been confirmed experimentally. The primary problem in producing a TOE is that the accepted theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity are hard to combine.
Based on theoretical holographic principle arguments from the 1990s, many physicists believe that 11-dimensional M-theory, which is described in many sectors by matrix string theory, in many other sectors by perturbative string theory is the complete theory of everything, although there is no widespread consensus. So, it is all theory, and The God of heaven is
all real.

Please try to follow along. As I made clear in earlier posts, in which I wrote Theory of Evolution (ToE), ToE stands for the Theory of Evolution. DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS? (6th time I've asked.)

You obviously don't know what a theory is either.

You're not perhaps confusing evolution with atheism? They have nothing to do with each other.

Let's just agree that The God of heaven is real and created everything, including every living thing, and move on to discuss ToE, the Theory of Evolution, which is what this thread is about, O.K.?

 

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by blu
You have to learn to keep the lies out of science and then we can discuss it.
Translation:

Quote:
Originally Posted by What blu really meant
Please hide all that physical evidence that contradicts the bible so I can wallow in my own self ignorance.

I told you before, the bible is not a science or history book. It is of the Moral laws of God, and a book of the spirituality of Jesus' salvation plan. So how can an creation contradict its creator?

Great, so why do you use it as one? Since it is not a science book, how is it relevant to a discussion of scientific issues?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Sure they do, it's just change over time. I can grow new cells with mutations."

That statement shows a profound and deep failure to understand what ToE says. I am willing to bet (you name the $) that you NEVER in your entire life not once ever held in your grubby gnarled fingers a copy of Darwin's Origins - much less read a single word.

You haven't even grasped the implications of PW's observation that populations evolve - not individuals. You are really arguing that acquired characteristics are inherited. A 19th century fallacy that Darwin exposed.

One could say you have no idea what you are talking about. But that would be undue charity.

 

[Autodidact]

Way more observations though. Actually I feel it all the time. I don't feel myself evolving. I guess you'll say it's because it's happening so slowly which would make sense if it was true, but not so, oh well for you. hahaha

The Theory of Gravity is to your experience of gravity as the ToE is to the abundance of species on the planet. You feel weight, but the theory explains why. (a depression in the 3-dimensional time/space continuum, I think.) You see all the different species, and ToE explains why (descent w/modification + natural selection.) Within their respective fields, evolution is better supported and more widely accepted than the Theory of Gravity is within physics.

 

[Autodidact]

Oh yeah your right for sure. I had a nice haircut and now it's scraggly again so it definatly changed. And Darwin actually saw those different birds beaks so that's pretty scientific. But you know that's not what I'm talking about when I say evolution. Actually evolution follows the same patterns you observe, the weather gets drier the birds beak changes, it gets dark; people go to sleep, the sun comes up they wake up the weather gets wet again and the beak changes back. See it goes up and down, but stays within it's boundries. The genes for long beaks and short beaks were both in the birds already. It's just a matter of which qualities get highlighted by naturaul selection.

Nope. The genes for the different beaks came into existence by mutation, and were kept in the populations by natural selection. The same bird does NOT carry genes for long, short, strong, delicate, thick, thin, heavy, light etc. beaks.

 

[Autodidact]

Sure they do, it's just change over time. I can grow new cells with mutations.

You don't know what the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is either, do you?

 

[Autodidact]

Then if that's the definition it goes back to what I said before; it happens too slowly. Because you say it doesn't happen to individual but groups. But a group is individuals. So even if it is only right at conception and it is an extremely insignificant change so that it is not even worth mentioning I can't feel, it's still true that evolution happens in individuals that can't feel it happen because it is so slow.

Too slowly for what? For you to see it? Therefore it doesn't exist? Fortunately we have this nifty thing called science that helps us figure out things even if they happen slowly.

 

[tumbleweed41]

As tumbleweed says, Evolution is a lie, and I agree. Stay with science as designed by God, all of which has merely been uncovered, and screw Satan's view of it.

Don't misquote me buddy! Don't you know sarcasm when you see it?

 

[Autodidact]

Apparently there are a lot of things blu doesn't recognize. Taken altogether, we call those things "reality."

 

[painted wolf]

Then if that's the definition it goes back to what I said before; it happens too slowly.

not always... just twenty generations can cause dramatic change. It seems a long time because we live a long time. Twenty generations in mice is much faster... for fruit flies it's hardly any time at all.

Because you say it doesn't happen to individual but groups. But a group is individuals.

And as I said it's how the group changes... one individual can't start a new species... but as their grandchildren and so on become less and less like their ancestors you have evolution.

So even if it is only right at conception and it is an extremely insignificant change so that it is not even worth mentioning I can't feel, it's still true that evolution happens in individuals that can't feel it happen because it is so slow.

Mutation happens to individuals... it's not evolution unless those mutations make it into the next generation and eventually spread through a population.
Species do not arise from single individuals but in the composition of alleles held by populations. If the individuals allele doesn't change the population, then it doesn't matter how useful the mutation was.

wa:do

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Way more observations though. Actually I feel it all the time. I don't feel myself evolving. I guess you'll say it's because it's happening so slowly which would make sense if it was true, but not so, oh well for you. hahaha"

That is even MORE ignorant than your previous statement.

YOU are NOT evolving. :no:No individual organism is. You or any organism MAY show mutations and some of them MAY be useful. But that is NOT evolution.

 

[allanpopa]

So what your saying in a nutshell is that you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God.

That's absolutely false. I definately see my Christian identity in the Scriptures, even the more expanded Scriptures which other early Christian writers wrote, the Shepherd for instance and 1 Clement. I don't, however, think that these writings are inerrant, I think that that sort of thought is clearly a neo-colonial imperialist attitude to culture and identity. Also, it holds no basis in reality.

However, are the Scriptures the Word of God? Yes. Why? Because I find my identity in Scripture.

Allan

 

[Autodidact]

Sonic247 So what your saying in a nutshell is that you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God.

Of course not. What do you think I am, stupid?

 

[Luminous]

Don't misquote me buddy! Don't you know sarcasm when you see it?

sarcasm is ambiguous information...
"The Irony of Satire".
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677#30527340
the phenomenon of biased message processing.

 

[bluZero]

Don't misquote me buddy! Don't you know sarcasm when you see it?

No, I didn't notice it, I'll go back and reread you sarcasm to understand why I didn't recognise it. TY for the correction.

I did read it and in it you said it is blasphemous, so blasphemy is a lie, heresy is a lie. So buddy, how did I misquote you?

ORIGIN late Middle English : via ecclesiastical Latin from Greek blasphēmos ‘evil-speaking’ + -ous .

And you lied when you came back to the thread. #263- page 27.

 

[bluZero]

The Theory of Gravity is to your experience of gravity as the ToE is to the abundance of species on the planet. You feel weight, but the theory explains why. (a depression in the 3-dimensional time/space continuum, I think.) You see all the different species, and ToE explains why (descent w/modification + natural selection.) Within their respective fields, evolution is better supported and more widely accepted than the Theory of Gravity is within physics.

You are a areal ding dong, Auto Just because a person refuses to believe in the lie of evolution you assume that they know nothing at all, DUH!

A.S.S ume. When you assume, you make an A.S.S. of U and ME.:tuna:

At first I THOUGHT THAT IT MEANT TAKE OVER ECONOMICALLY But then I read this:The theory of everything (TOE) is a putative theory of theoretical physics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena. Initially, the term was used with an ironic connotation to refer to various overgeneralized theories. For example, a great-grandfather of Ijon Tichy — a character from a cycle of Stanisław Lem's science fiction stories of 1960s — was known to work on the "General Theory of Everything". Physicist John Ellis claims[1] to have introduced the term into the technical literature in an article in Nature in 1986.[2] Over time, the term stuck in popularizations of quantum physics to describe a theory that would unify or explain through a single model the theories of all fundamental interactions of nature.[3]
There have been many theories of everything proposed by theoretical physicists over the last century, but none have been confirmed experimentally. The primary problem in producing a TOE is that the accepted theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity are hard to combine.
Based on theoretical holographic principle arguments from the 1990s, many physicists believe that 11-dimensional M-theory, which is described in many sectors by matrix string theory, in many other sectors by perturbative string theory is the complete theory of everything, although there is no widespread consensus. So, it is all theory, and The God of heaven is
all real.

 

[Tristesse]

No, I didn't notice it, I'll go back and reread you sarcasm to understand why I didn't recognise it. TY for the correction.

I did read it and in it you said it is blasphemous, so blasphemy is a lie, heresy is a lie. So buddy, how did I misquote you?

ORIGIN late Middle English : via ecclesiastical Latin from Greek blasphēmos ‘evil-speaking’ + -ous .

And you lied when you came back to the thread. #263- page 27.

You didn't technically "misquote" him, but you took something he said, that he had the intent of being sarcastic, or jokey, and took it seriously. So, in a way it is a misquote.