Evolution and Creationism

[Freddy]

You don’t have to belong in a group, just be keen and go where the understanding is clearer.

I agree. Go join the creation museum. You’ll be happier there. Lots of people who will agree with you. A like-minded group.

Oh, hang on…

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But the op is giving something of a choice really. Evolution, or some version of it, or…creationism.

Nope. Read the OP again. It’s “Evolution and Creationism”. I’m perfectly fine with both. Do you have a problem with that?

I guess we’re getting closer. So creationism as in 6,000 years ago God made it all? That’s eventually what we got from Noose. Took ages but he came clean. Is that your position?

 

[o_mlly]

I guess we’re getting closer.

No, we’re not. Still waiting for you to define “scientifically” and then respond to the several other preamble positions proposed. Unless you’re just trolling here, why don’t you take a stand?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I guess we’re getting closer.

No, we’re not. Still waiting for you to define “scientifically” and then respond to the several other preamble positions proposed. Unless you’re just trolling here, why don’t you take a stand?

I think I said I wasn’t interested in defining terms to tie you down in how you wanted to give you own explanation. In fact I know I did. You can use any definition you like. Entirely up to you.

So is it creationism a la Noose? 6,000 years or so?

 

[o_mlly]

I think I said I wasn’t interested in defining terms to tie you down …

Got that and that doesn’t work as Votaire and I agree. I am interested in you defining your terms to tie you down. Do I have it wrong or do you not claim macroevolution is a scientific theory? If so, define “scientific” so we can proceed.

 

[Noose001]

As to ‘What now’, what will happen is that I will treat your posts on scientific matters with your admission in mind. It’ll save us both an enormous amount of time. I won’t have to try to argue with you about anything that requires the world to be older than a few thousand years old and you won’t have to read it.

Something of a win/win situation.

Took long enough, but we got there eventually.

I agree. Go join the creation museum. You’ll be happier there. Lots of people who will agree with you. A like-minded group.

Oh, hang on…

I guess we’re getting closer. So creationism as in 6,000 years ago God made it all? That’s eventually what we got from Noose. Took ages but he came clean. Is that your position?

It is clear you did not read anything i wrote. No problem, i’ll play along.

The planet is 6000 years old, do you dispute this?

 

[buffalo]

Doesn’t hold water today. People are allowed free thinking its Gods gift and have found the creation theory doesn’t work anymore.

Was there deception involved? Was the Holy Spirit sleeping all this time and suddenly woke up and decided to correct the record?

 

[o_mlly]

Was there deception involved?

The honesty of cosmologists:

Assuming that the Big Bang actually happened, what would the early moments of the universe be like?

Before a time classified as a Planck time, 10-43 seconds, all of the four fundamental forces are presumed to have been unified into one force. … Nothing is known of this period.

It is not that we know a great deal about later periods either, it is just that we have no real coherent models of what might happen under such conditions.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/planck.html
____________________________________________________________________-
The dishonesty of macroevolutionists:

Assuming that life spontaneously sprang out of a rock, what would the early moments of life be like?

First, don’t look at the man behind the curtain. Now, we will use the Three Card Monte rules. Watch the card with the face marked, “Human Being”. I’ll just flip and toss the three cards around a bit …There, now which card is the “Human Being” under? (Hint: It’s not under any of them.)

 

[lelinator]

Lelinator bailed because he realized that the self-evident and reasoned principles put forward would make macroevolution an untenable position. Why else would he run from the debate that he initiated?

Let me make this clear, I didn’t “bail” because macroevolution is untenable, I “bailed” because the topic of macroevolution, or more precisely, the opponents of macroevolution, are incapable of forming a rational counterargument, making any attempts at a worthwhile exchange of ideas impossible. To continue with such a fruitless discussion isn’t an effort that I choose to engage in.

Those of us who’ve been around long enough remember when the very mention of evolution was banned on this forum. I have simply chosen to personally reinstate that ban.

Perhaps someone, someday, will present a cogent argument against macroevolution. Unfortunately, the inane nature of the discussions on this topic means that I probably won’t be around to see it.

But feel free to carry on without me.

 

[Noose001]

Perhaps someone, someday, will present a cogent argument against macroevolution. Unfortunately, the inane nature of the discussions on this topic means that I probably won’t be around to see it.

When did anyone present a cogent argument for macroevolution?

 

[o_mlly]

Those of us who’ve been around long enough remember when the very mention of evolution was banned on this forum. I have simply chosen to personally reinstate that ban.

Perhaps someone, someday, will present a cogent argument against macroevolution. Unfortunately, the inane nature of the discussions on this topic means that I probably won’t be around to see it.

But feel free to carry on without me.

Yeah, sure. The “Declare victory and go home” strategy. We were doing so well “forming a rational counterargument” and you bailed.

We’ll try to go on w/o you

 

[Gigantals]

This is by far the most civilised Catholic debate concerning Evolution and Creationism I’ve ever seen.

 

[buffalo]

Perhaps someone, someday, will present a cogent argument against macroevolution

Have you not been reading? Macro does not happen. Micro does. In fact @freddy and @rossum have stepped back from their long held positions. of macro evolution, the extrapolated theory from micro that greater complexity arises through their god of BUC. Most of the top evo’s are wrestling with this now as the current science is giving them fits on how to reconcile.

 

[buffalo]

his is by far the most civilised Catholic debate concerning Evolution and Creationism I’ve ever seen.

One of the reasons I like this forum. The moderators keep it pretty clean.

On some other forums it takes one or two posts before vicious ad-hominems start. The antagonists here eventually get to it but are much more mild. Rule #1 is when out of arguments always attack the poster.

 

[Batman2.0]

Rule #1 is when out of arguments always attack the poster.

Actually??

 

[buffalo]

Actually??

That is how it usually goes.

 

[Batman2.0]

True, true.

 

[rossum]

Have you not been reading? Macro does not happen. Micro does. In fact @freddy and @rossum have stepped back from their long held positions. of macro evolution, the extrapolated theory from micro that greater complexity arises through their god of BUC. Most of the top evo’s are wrestling with this now as the current science is giving them fits on how to reconcile.

False. I have not “stepped back”. Macroevolution happens. We have evidence for macroevolution happening.

You tend to use a different definition where you talk of “devolution” rather than evolution. Evolution involves change; inevitably with change there are gains and losses. As humans evolved from earlier apes we lost some of our abilities to climb trees and gained abilities to walk and run longer distances across open grasslands. If you want to call that “devolution” then you are on your own.

In a scientific discussion you need to stick to the standard scientific definition, and by those definitions macroevolution happens and has been repeatedly observed.

Do you want me to link to the crayfish example of macroevolution again?

 

[buffalo]

False. I have not “stepped back”. Macroevolution happens. We have evidence for macroevolution happening.

You tend to use a different definition where you talk of “devolution” rather than evolution. Evolution involves change; inevitably with change there are gains and losses. As humans evolved from earlier apes we lost some of our abilities to climb trees and gained abilities to walk and run longer distances across open grasslands. If you want to call that “devolution” then you are on your own.

In a scientific discussion you need to stick to the standard scientific definition, and by those definitions macroevolution happens and has been repeatedly observed.

Do you want me to link to the crayfish example of macroevolution again?

You are still sticking to the arrow pointing from less complexity to more? I think not. Your position has softened from a few years ago.

We agree evolution involves change. No one argues that. The limits of the change are what is the issue;

The standard scientific terms? Why are we limited to sciences self defined terms. New ones come up all the time.

Your two examples, and the only two you could muster up over a decade of me asking, are examples of adaptation. Calling them a man made description of a new species is a circular argument. The reclassification of a new species is decided upon when they can no longer reproduce with each other. This lineage splitting with loss of ability once had is change, but if it leads to extinction, it reduces survival fitness. You well know that most evo adherents claimed that macroevolution was a creative process leading to organisms of more complexity and ability, from a simple celled organism to a human being. (tree of life has fallen) All that is needed is lots of time. We can be certain of it, because, here it comes, we know it did. You well know the evo defense because there are no examples, is to extrapolate microevolution and make the unproven claim that it happens in small successive steps over long times result in greater and greater complexity until we get cells that feature extensive internal communications, complex machinery, complex language and codes, transport mechanisms, adaptability, storage, memory, all without any extraneous outside (name removed by moderator)ut, except sunlight (your open systems claim) all working against the second law and genetic entropy.

Macro does not happen.

 

[BT3241]

You have no evidence.