In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

obvious Child · Mar 5, 2011

iamitter said:
We can trace back basically to how the Earth looked like when it was formed, how it changed, etc. Difference for him is, he believes the tracking and physical explanations up to 6000 years ago, which is when god put everything into place the way it looked 6000 years ago.

So basically God created two different worlds and hid all of the evidence of the massive change in physical laws? How does this render God not a liar? There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the physical laws of the universe radically changed.

He somehow finds ways to reconcile his studies with his faith.

Everyone does. He simply wants to believe and ignores everything that contradicts his belief.

obvious Child · Mar 5, 2011

digsbe said:
Lulz, I am clearly wrong. You win.

I'm done here. Every thread like this degenerates into a "creationists are stoopid!" "Ignorant of science"!11!1!. Let's debate with respect and reason.

I mainly focus on cancer research. It's amazing what things we are discovering.

If Genesis and related stories are corrected, how do you address the various physical laws issues?

How does water sort by complexity rather then shape and mass? (This is a big reason why I think YECs are bloody idiots)

How did that light we see from the origin of the universe age billions of years in just 6,000?

Why is there absolutely no support in the geological record for a literal interpretation?

OhIsee.Then · Mar 5, 2011

What has been suggested here, but not addresses directly (unless I missed something) is that the various biblical stories of creation fall to simple Newtonian physics. Evolution is not a necessary concept to cause disbelief in the creation stories that religions have. It is easier to consider Noah and the Ark since it is less emotional for most. Also, once a Bible has a Noah and the Ark story it causes doubt in the rest.

It is now hard to argue against Newtonian physics at this point. The argument can be that God did not have to obey the laws of physics for creation, but then you end up with an ordering problem, etc.

The point is, it is not between evolution and religion, or scientists and religious. Rather it’s between religious dogma and anything that might challenge it. Scientists are not challenging religion; it is not the objective or a consideration.

CaptainCourtesy · Mar 5, 2011

Moderator's Warning:

Please address the topic without personal attacks.

Black Dog · Mar 5, 2011

obvious Child said:
So there's no problem when the evidence from his job contradicts his religious belief?

Talk about cognitive dissonance there.

It doesn't have anything to do with his job. Physics as a field of study alone does not have much to do with evolution or creation. You are making assumptions you don't have information on.

obvious Child said:
And if that person wants to accept their God is the biggest deceiver of all time. Or they could merely acknowledge their religious belief is inherently contradictory.

It is thier call, not yours.

Faith does not require evidence.

obvious Child said:
A very specific belief. And you totally failed to understand why I called you a hypocrite. I made a very distinct point, as to which you fabricated my argument into something it entirely wasn't, calling my post baiting despite you doing the same thing.

Please point out where you indicated that by creationist you meant or implied only YEC?

obvious Child said:
But that would result in him no longer being a creationist. Creationism only survives in education, fact free zones. Educating oneself results in a creationist no longer being a creationist, or a creationist who knows their belief is wrong, but is purely in it to milk the money from his former ilk. Doctor Snelling for example. Who has submitted real geology papers while moon lighting as a fake creationist for the paycheck.

Nope nothing here.

Again the REAL definition and not one you made up...

Creationism: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — Creationism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

obvious Child said:
Class. Here's blackdog. He's a hypocrite.

Great personal attacks. I guess we are done here.

ricksfolly · Mar 5, 2011

scourge99 said:
Its a methodological problem.

Definitely... The universe was either created out of nothing or it's always been here in ever changing forms...

ricksfolly

obvious Child · Mar 5, 2011

Blackdog said:
It doesn't have anything to do with his job. Physics as a field of study alone does not have much to do with evolution or creation. You are making assumptions you don't have information on.

REALLY? You think that physics has not much to do with creation? Let's see you go on record.

Say for me "Physics has little to do with creation." I want that on record before I bring the real guns in.

It is thier call, not yours.

Actually it's logic's call. If the universal laws and practices we see today is not the universal laws and practices in the past and there is no evidence to support any change, how does that suggest that God is honest in the Torah or in daily life?

Faith does not require evidence.

Actually faith is by definition a belief without evidence. Therefore, faith requires the absence of evidence. If faith had evidence, it would no longer be faith. Proper definitions are helpful.

Please point out where you indicated that by creationist you meant or implied only YEC?

Every single post I have ever made about creationism (aside from the posts where I explicitly state I am discussing theistic evolution) since the very first day I started posting here.

It's like Navy Pride's definition of liberal. Everyone knows he means anyone who disagrees with him or any position he dislikes.

Nope nothing here.

Does it bother you that you are only one in the entire thread who didn't figure out we were discussing YECs?
21 pages of posts, numerous users. And you're the only one who didn't figure out the obvious point we aren't discussing theistic evolution.

Again the REAL definition and not one you made up

Everyone else knew we were discussing YECs. Literally. Everyone else.

Great personal attacks. I guess we are done here.

Hey, you act like a hypocrite. You get called a hypocrite. Real simple.

I am laughing at the lack of logic in your statements.

Hmmm. No evidence of this as to date.

Black Dog · Mar 5, 2011

obvious Child said:
REALLY? You think that physics has not much to do with creation? Let's see you go on record.

Ummm... That's not what I said. We were talking about...

So there's no problem when the evidence from his job contradicts his religious belief? - obvious Child

I said in responce to THE ABOVE STATEMENT YOU MADE...

It doesn't have anything to do with his job. Physics as a field of study alone does not have much to do with evolution or creation. You are making assumptions you don't have information on. - Blackdog

Do you know what aspect or field of physics he is in? No you don't.

Lets take a look...

•Chaos - the study of systems with strong sensitivity to initial conditions, so a slight change at the beginning quickly become major changes in the system

•Chemical Physics - the study of physics in chemical systems

•Computational Physics - the application of numerical methods to solve physical problems for which a quantitative theory already exists

•Cosmology - the study of the universe as a whole, including its origins and evolution

•Cryophysics / Cryogenics / Low Temperature Physics - the study of physical properties in low temperature situations, far below the freezing point of water

•Crystallography - the study of crystals and crystalline structures

•Electromagnetism - the study of electrical and magnetic fields, which are two aspects of the same phenomenon

•Electronics - the study of the flow of electrons, generally in a circuit

•Fluid Dynamics / Fluid Mechanics - the study of the physical properties of "fluids," specifically defined in this case to be liquids and gases

If you need more clarification, let me know.

obvious Child said:
Say for me "Physics has little to do with creation." I want that on record before I bring the real guns in.

As I pointed out above I never said anything of the kind. You are also assuming on info you don't have.

obvious Child said:
Actually it's logic's call. If the universal laws and practices we see today is not the universal laws and practices in the past and there is no evidence to support any change, how does that suggest that God is honest in the Torah or in daily life?

Please point out where in the Bible it says the "Laws of Nature" have been changed?

obvious Child said:
Actually faith is by definition a belief without evidence. Therefore, faith requires the absence of evidence. If faith had evidence, it would no longer be faith. Proper definitions are helpful.

Yes like the proper definition of "creationism?" :lol:

obvious Child said:
Every single post I have ever made about creationism (aside from the posts where I explicitly state I am discussing theistic evolution) since the very first day I started posting here.

I am sorry. I must have forgotten to memorize your posts on creationism and use of the proper definition. All I know is this time you said...

But that would result in him no longer being a creationist. Creationism only survives in education, fact free zones. Educating oneself results in a creationist no longer being a creationist, or a creationist who knows their belief is wrong, but is purely in it to milk the money from his former ilk. Doctor Snelling for example. Who has submitted real geology papers while moon lighting as a fake creationist for the paycheck. - obvious Child

Nothing about YEC etc. Just creationism.

obvious Child said:
[It's like Navy Pride's definition of liberal. Everyone knows he means anyone who disagrees with him or any position he dislikes.

No it is not even close to the same thing. :doh

obvious Child said:
Does it bother you that you are only one in the entire thread who didn't figure out we were discussing YECs?

This is what you responded with to Spud's question...

obvious Child said:
But we cannot ignore the fact that some religious people are. <--- You implyed ignorant And some are truly retarded. This one creationist I met (a few others tangled with him) argued that the flood and Genesis was literally true. When confronted with the issue of the geological record not sorting species by mass and shape, he basically argued that water doesn't sort by mass and shape. Except that you can test this. In your sink. A 5 lb dinosaur should end up on average, at a higher strata then a woolly mammoth. They don't. Ever. The problem with some evolution deniers is that they basically have a belief that requires their God to be a greatest deceiver of all time.

Nothing about YEC etc. My responce was...

Blackdog said:
So because one person is stupid, we must not ignore this fact and judge all people on the basis that some people are stupid? OK. Your logic makes perfect sense. :doh

Had nothing to do with YEC or anything else.

obvious Child said:
21 pages of posts, numerous users. And you're the only one who didn't figure out the obvious point we aren't discussing theistic evolution.

Some of us were. In 21 pages you somehow missed that? I guess like me you did not read the entire thread? :doh

obvious Child said:
Everyone else knew we were discussing YECs. Literally. Everyone else.

Making another assumption that is not true. :roll:

Then you finish off with more personal attacks.

obvious Child · Mar 5, 2011

Blackdog said:
Ummm... That's not what I said. We were talking about

Actually it was your own quote. Are you saying you didn't say that? Are you saying someone else posted that in your stead?

Do you know what aspect or field of physics he is in? No you don't

And as you point out, all of those, aside from cryo, eletro and Computational would have lent some evidence against YEC. Take that back, electro would provide evidence, particularly how electrons flow through atoms and in that regard how atoms bound and react to each other and I bet I can find something that would support the other two as well. Furthermore, during his education, a physics major takes general courses, and the most basic laws of physics contradict YEC at every level. So how he got to his job and what his current physics study is, still operate on the same basic principles of all Physics, none of which support YEC.

As I pointed out above I never said anything of the kind. You are also assuming on info you don't have.

Try again. You did. See above.

Please point out where in the Bible it says the "Laws of Nature" have been changed?

Don't need to. If the world was only 6,000 years old, all of the evidence we have today must operate on a different set of physical laws. Water now sorts by mass/density/shape not complexity as the flood has it. Light now travels at a much different rate then in the past. Biological systems now require external sources of energy for respiration rather then relying upon God for nourishment as there was no death. I can keep going on and on and on about how the modern world operates on a much different physical set of laws then the YEC world.

Yes like the proper definition of "creationism?" :lol:

Everyone else figured out no one was taking shots at theistic evolution. Why didn't you? Answer me that. Even Digsbee right off the bat knew that. And no one had to tell him.

I am sorry. I must have forgotten to memorize your posts on creationism and use of the proper definition.

Everyone else figured it out. Why didn't you?

Nothing about YEC etc. Just creationism.

Ask the rest of the thread. They got the subject matter without having to ask.
What does it say when everyone else knew the contempt for creationism wasn't theistic but YEC? Hint: it's you.

No it is not even close to the same thing. :doh

I dunno. No one else seems to have failed to realize it wasn't theistic evolution we were talking about. Hint: it's you.

Nothing about YEC etc. My responce was.

Really? So the mention of the literal flood didn't clue you in?

How about this line:

flood and Genesis was literally true

You can apologize now.

Had nothing to do with YEC or anything else.

Because you have a reading comprehension problem.

I guess when I was talking about people who thought creation was LITERALLY TRUE that meant I wasn't talking about YEC. :lamo

Some of us were. In 21 pages you somehow missed that? I guess like me you did not read the entire thread? :doh

Not in contempt of it.

Making another assumption that is not ture. :roll:

Did you see anyone else mistaken? Nope/

Then you finish off with more personal attacks. How brilliant. I guess you have no real argument?

Better then no real argument based on real comprehension problems.

Tell me, when I said "flood and Genesis was literally true" that meant "theistic evolution?"

Does that sound logical? Does it seem logical to assume I'm talking about theistic evolution when the only thing I was discussing was YEC topics?

Can you point out where I said a thing about theistic evolution? Try.

Black Dog · Mar 5, 2011

obvious Child said:
Ramblings by ovious Child

I was going to reply, but you are ignoring the facts I have stated, calling names and just ignoring the true definitions of words and making really bad red-herring arguments. So either you are having trouble understanding what I said or are just not up to par in this debate.

So you have a good night. :2wave:

Goshin · Mar 5, 2011

Moderator's Warning:

This is getting a bit heated. Everyone needs to take a break or chill a bit.... OC you in particular are pushing the limit of civility a bit much...

obvious Child · Mar 6, 2011

If blackdog wants to lie about what I wrote, he can. He should just expect retaliation.

Apparently when I said "This one creationist I met (a few others tangled with him) argued that the flood and Genesis was literally true. When confronted with the issue of the geological record not sorting species by mass and shape, he basically argued that water doesn't sort by mass and shape. Except that you can test this. In your sink. A 5 lb dinosaur should end up on average, at a higher strata then a woolly mammoth. They don't. Ever. The problem with some evolution deniers is that they basically have a belief that requires their God to be a greatest deceiver of all time."

Actually means I'm not talking about YEC, but instead theistic evolution.

I guess it's opposite month where what you actually say means the opposite of what you said.

obvious Child · Mar 6, 2011

Blackdog said:
I was going to reply, but you are ignoring the facts I have stated

Such as? Is this imaginary like my illogical arguments? Which by the way, you have provided absolutely none of so far.

calling names and just ignoring the true definitions of words and making really bad red-herring arguments.

Like how you completely missed the topic? Not to mention my actual use of LITERAL in the context of creationism? By the way, you know you actually quoted me saying LITERAL creationism at the same time you argued that quote said NOTHING about literal creationism? Good job there.

So either you are having trouble understanding what I said or are just not up to par in this debate.

I dunno. You argued that when I said "flood and Genesis was literally true" that I meant not literal creationism despite me saying the topic was literal creationism. You tell me.

So you have a good night. :2wave:

Still waiting for you to apologize.

Btw, note that my first post #88, I clearly state I was talking about YEC as evident by "flood and Genesis was literally true."

scourge99 · Mar 6, 2011

obvious Child said:
Such as? Is this imaginary like my illogical arguments? Which by the way, you have provided absolutely none of so far.

Like how you completely missed the topic? Not to mention my actual use of LITERAL in the context of creationism? By the way, you know you actually quoted me saying LITERAL creationism at the same time you argued that quote said NOTHING about literal creationism? Good job there.

I dunno. You argued that when I said "flood and Genesis was literally true" that I meant not literal creationism despite me saying the topic was literal creationism. You tell me.

Still waiting for you to apologize.

Btw, note that my first post #88, I clearly state I was talking about YEC as evident by "flood and Genesis was literally true."

As far as I know, 'theistic evolution' is just the general notion that evolution is willed or guided by god. It says nothing about macro evolution, noahs ark, 6-day creation, fossils, etc. I can imagine many variations of "theistic evolution" that are just as stupid, or more stupid than YEC. So unless Black Dog is referring to some very specific definition of "theistic evolution" than many of the same arguments against YEC also hold up against different variations of "theistic evolution".

obvious Child · Mar 6, 2011

scourge99 said:
As far as I know, 'theistic evolution' is just the general notion that evolution is willed or guided by god. It says nothing about macro evolution, noahs ark, 6-day creation, fossils, etc.

I think you misspoke there. How can theistic evolution be guided by God and not cover macro evolution? Last I understood of the general notion of TE is that God was basically in control of evolution and that the genesis/flood story is just a metaphorical story with possible real geological evidence of a minor flood with the area around the black sea constituting "the world." TE does talk about YEC largely in rejecting many of its ideas.

I can imagine many variations of "theistic evolution" that are just as stupid, or more stupid than YEC.

Some possibly. I do not see a material core difference between animism and intelligent design though. Basically, things happen because of a higher power.

So unless Black Dog is referring to some very specific definition of "theistic evolution" than many of the same arguments against YEC also hold up against different variations of "theistic evolution".

Some possibly. Not all though. Many of the specific attacks on YEC are about its crazy views on science. Theistic evolution doesn't have many of those problems. The fossil record alone refutes the notion of a YEC world. Theistic evolution doesn't have that problem.

Black Dog · Mar 6, 2011

obvious Child said:
If blackdog wants to lie about what I wrote, he can. He should just expect retaliation.

I did not lie.

obvious Child said:
Apparently when I said "This one creationist I met (a few others tangled with him) argued that the flood and Genesis was literally true. When confronted with the issue of the geological record not sorting species by mass and shape, he basically argued that water doesn't sort by mass and shape. Except that you can test this. In your sink. A 5 lb dinosaur should end up on average, at a higher strata then a woolly mammoth. They don't. Ever. The problem with some evolution deniers is that they basically have a belief that requires their God to be a greatest deceiver of all time."

You do realize theistic evolutionists also believe in the flood? I explained it in this very thread.

Have fun.

obvious Child said:
Actually means I'm not talking about YEC, but instead theistic evolution.

No, it does not.

obvious Child said:
I guess it's opposite month where what you actually say means the opposite of what you said.

No it is just a typical knee jerk reaction when someone does not know all the facts. :mrgreen:

Black Dog · Mar 6, 2011

obvious Child said:
Such as? Is this imaginary like my illogical arguments? Which by the way, you have provided absolutely none of so far.

Like how you completely missed the topic? Not to mention my actual use of LITERAL in the context of creationism? By the way, you know you actually quoted me saying LITERAL creationism at the same time you argued that quote said NOTHING about literal creationism? Good job there.

I dunno. You argued that when I said "flood and Genesis was literally true" that I meant not literal creationism despite me saying the topic was literal creationism. You tell me.

Still waiting for you to apologize.

Btw, note that my first post #88, I clearly state I was talking about YEC as evident by "flood and Genesis was literally true."

And again most theistic evolution supporters support the flood. Still don't get it do you?

Again nothing to respond to and nothing to apologies for. You are still operating on the notion you have information you don't have.

Read the thread. :2wave:

scourge99 · Mar 6, 2011

obvious Child said:
I think you misspoke there. How can theistic evolution be guided by God and not cover macro evolution?

Because unlike the theory of evolution, Theistic Evolution is just a viewpoint based on interpretation and religious conviction. The interpretations, religious preferences, and viewpoints are vast while the theory of evolution as put forth by scientists is NOT.

obvious Child said:
Last I understood of the general notion of TE is that God was basically in control of evolution and that the genesis/flood story is just a metaphorical story with possible real geological evidence of a minor flood with the area around the black sea constituting "the world." TE does talk about YEC largely in rejecting many of its ideas.

Theistic Evolution is just the general idea that evolution (in some respects) is accepted as true. It is NOT a cut-and-dry theory like that of evolution.

What i mean by cut-and-dry is that there is a consensus within the scientific community on what evolution is, even if there are disagreements or uncertainties over particular aspects. There is no such agreement over the term "theistic evolution" in respects to whether evolution is partially true or entirely true. That is, there is lots of wiggle-room for "theistic evolutionists" to pick-and-choose. For example, its very common to see Christians who agree that micro-evolution occurs or that macro-evolution occurs but then pick-and-choose that it doesn't occur for humans or that macro-evolution only occurs in things like bacteria. I would label all these people "theistic evolutionists", perhaps you differ.

obvious Child said:
I do not see a material core difference between animism and intelligent design though. Basically, things happen because of a higher power.

sure, that sound reasonable.

obvious Child said:
Many of the specific attacks on YEC are about its crazy views on science. Theistic evolution doesn't have many of those problems. The fossil record alone refutes the notion of a YEC world. Theistic evolution doesn't have that problem.

Once again, you, I, and blackdog have differing ideas on what theistic evolution entails.

Jzyehoshua · Mar 6, 2011

Hatuey said:
If you have spent any real time on this forum you're fully aware of the debate raging between those who support evolution and those who do not. There is little doubt that when examined as a whole, the majority of the scientific community overwhelmingly supports evolution as a logical explanation for the development of life. There is also little doubt that the majority of the American populace does not support evolution as explained by scientists. 78% of Americans believe God was involvement in the creation of humans either through creating us in our present form or by guiding the evolutionary process. Not surprisingly 76% of Americans consider themselves to be Christians. These numbers lead to believe that since there is little evidence for a 'debate among evolutionary scientists' the debate on evolution is between scientists and the religious. Do you agree? If not then I welcome you to support your statement.

This vote is public so vote only if you're willing to substantiate your answer.

This is not a debate on evolution but a debate on the debate itself.

I'd just point out your use of the term 'majority'. Clearly there is a segment, a growing one at that, in the scientific community which does not consider evolution science, since unlike natural selection and adaptation, it is not testable, observable, or repeatable.

I would point out that Darwin himself recognized that evolution's common ancestor was just one of two possibilities, the other being parent species. If you are to recognize a common ancestor as science, does that not mean you must likewise recognize the alternative of microevolution to the theory of macroevolution as science also?

"When we attempt to estimate the amount of structural difference between the domestic races of the same species, we are soon involved in doubt, from not knowing whether they have descended from one or several parent-species. This point, if it could be cleared up, would be interesting; if, for instance, it could be shown that the greyhound, bloodhound, terrier, spaniel, and bull-dog, which we all know propagate their kind so truly, were the offspring of any single species, then such facts would have great weight in making us doubt about the immutability of the many very closely allied and natural species—for instance, of the many foxes—inhabiting different quarters of the world. I do not believe, as we shall presently see, that all our dogs have descended from any one wild species; but, in the case of some other domestic races, there is presumptive, or even strong, evidence in favour of this view."
-"Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species", pages 16-17.

Darwin likewise recognized the lack of transitional forms (pages 171-174) and sterility resulting from interspeciary breeding (chapter VIII) as problematic to his theory that do not likewise plague the alternative theory of parent species.

At any rate, I would simply point out that Darwin himself did not consider the alternative to evolution as anti-scientific, and considered the opposing theory of parent species to in some cases have even "presumptive or strong evidence".

Troubadour · Mar 6, 2011

There is no "debate." There is simply modern civilization, and the noise of irrational, degenerate barbarism.

Black Dog · Mar 6, 2011

scourge99 said:
Because unlike the theory of evolution, Theistic Evolution is just a viewpoint based on interpretation and religious conviction. The interpretations, religious preferences, and viewpoints are vast while the theory of evolution as put forth by scientists is NOT.

Theistic Evolution is just the general idea that evolution (in some respects) is accepted as true. It is NOT a cut-and-dry theory like that of evolution.

What i mean by cut-and-dry is that there is a consensus within the scientific community on what evolution is, even if there are disagreements or uncertainties over particular aspects. There is no such agreement over the term "theistic evolution" in respects to whether evolution is partially true or entirely true. That is, there is lots of wiggle-room for "theistic evolutionists" to pick-and-choose. For example, its very common to see Christians who agree that micro-evolution occurs or that macro-evolution occurs but then pick-and-choose that it doesn't occur for humans or that macro-evolution only occurs in things like bacteria. I would label all these people "theistic evolutionists", perhaps you differ.

sure, that sound reasonable.

Once again, you, I, and blackdog have differing ideas on what theistic evolution entails.

Theistic evolution is simple...

The theistic evolutionist believes organic evolution was simply "the way God did it" as He brought the Universe and its contents into existence. And although there are almost as many varieties of theistic evolution as there are people who espouse it, a few characteristics are common to all. For example, the theistic evolutionist believes in: (a) an old Earth; (b) wholly natural processes responsible for life as we see it, once the initial matter was brought into existence by God, and; (c) a figurative (non-literal) interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.

Most of us believe the flood written from the perspective of a man 2000 years ago is true (as far as the flood goes.) The flood was a local event that encompassed the entire world of the writer. So the writer of the story did not lie or deceive. Scientific evidence does support a massive flood in the location described in the Bible.

If anyone is interested: The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local

Scourge this was a very good post. You and I differ less than you think. The difference is I believe things are real that you think are a fairy tail. As far as the reasons of, we are pretty close. If you know what I mean.

Obvious Child is making up definitions for words that are according to the dictionary and any other source wrong. He does however expect us to simply accept that.

Black Dog · Mar 6, 2011

Troubadour said:
There is no "debate." There is simply modern civilization, and the noise of irrational, degenerate barbarism.

Typical insults and no substance. Trolling at it finest.

obvious Child · Mar 6, 2011

Blackdog said:
I did not lie.

That's what Truth Detector used to say. After he blatantly fabricated arguments from quotes that in no way supported what he claimed. Try again.

You do realize theistic evolutionists also believe in the flood? I explained it in this very thread.

And your argument was awful. I see you are pretending that I never made the subject about literal creationism despite saying so. I find it hilarious you claimed I never said anything about YEC after you quoted me specifically discussing literal creationism.

Still waiting for your apology.

Have fun blackdog!

No, it does not.

Indeed. It doesn't. You were absolutely, 100% WRONG. Thanks for admitting it!

No it is just a typical knee jerk reaction when someone does not know all the facts. :mrgreen:

Indeed! You claimed I said nothing about YEC after you quoting me specifically discussing YEC. You clearly descended into typical knee jerk reaction as you demonstrated clear lack of facts.

Glad we can agree you screwed up.

obvious Child · Mar 6, 2011

Blackdog said:
And again most theistic evolution supporters support the flood. Still don't get it do you?

As a metaphorical story. That's not what what everyone else is talking about.

Not as the literal truth.

Again nothing to respond to and nothing to apologies for. You are still operating on the notion you have information you don't have.

Read the thread. :2wave:

Like how you falsely claimed I said nothing about YEC after you quoting me discussing just YEC?

You can apologize now.

RTFT. :2wave:

Btw, look up "LITERAL" in the dictionary. You seem to be very unaware of what it means.

Obvious Child is making up definitions for words that are according to the dictionary and any other source wrong. He does however expect us to simply accept that.

I guess you do think that literal creationism = theistic evolution then. Kind of stupid no?

obvious Child · Mar 6, 2011

scourge99 said:
Because unlike the theory of evolution, Theistic Evolution is just a viewpoint based on interpretation and religious conviction. The interpretations, religious preferences, and viewpoints are vast while the theory of evolution as put forth by scientists is NOT.

But how does that prove that TE doesn't cover macroevolution? As you stated, TE is just a viewpoint based on interpretation and religious conviction. And as you stated they are vast. How does that prove TE doesn't discuss macro?

Theistic Evolution is just the general idea that evolution (in some respects) is accepted as true. It is NOT a cut-and-dry theory like that of evolution.

What i mean by cut-and-dry is that there is a consensus within the scientific community on what evolution is, even if there are disagreements or uncertainties over particular aspects. There is no such agreement over the term "theistic evolution" in respects to whether evolution is partially true or entirely true. That is, there is lots of wiggle-room for "theistic evolutionists" to pick-and-choose. For example, its very common to see Christians who agree that micro-evolution occurs or that macro-evolution occurs but then pick-and-choose that it doesn't occur for humans or that macro-evolution only occurs in things like bacteria. I would label all these people "theistic evolutionists", perhaps you differ.

I don't disagree with this. In fact I did argue much of the same thing when I discussed TE as varying from a few steps from YEC to virtual atheism.

sure, that sound reasonable.

It does piss off intelligent design people to compare their belief to animism though. That's always fun to do.

eace

Once again, you, I, and blackdog have differing ideas on what theistic evolution entails.

Indeed. Blackdog seems to define theistic evolution as YEC as he accused me of never discussing TE despite me stating "literal." That's exceptionally peculiar.

In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

Yes

No

Equal Opportunity Hater

Equal Opportunity Hater

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

King Of The Dog Pound

Equal Opportunity Hater

King Of The Dog Pound

Equal Opportunity Hater

King Of The Dog Pound

Burned Out Ex-Mod

Equal Opportunity Hater

Equal Opportunity Hater

Equal Opportunity Hater

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

New member

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

Equal Opportunity Hater

Equal Opportunity Hater

Equal Opportunity Hater