Theory of Evolution vs the Hypothesis of Creation (myth, believe, versus)

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by ZugZub

We'd be interested to see what you consider as "evidence" though.

Originally Posted by kdbrich

Show me that you actually have looked at the evidence and are doing more than just regurgitating what some teacher taught you.

Is that really YOU saying this, kd? You who won''t read anything I've provided links to, nor anything sanspeur or roxolan have politely provided?

Why is it dismissed as "what some teacher taught you"? Something wrong with that? What if Dawkins or Jesus or William F. Buckley Jr. or the Reverend Jesse Jackson (wellllll.... maybe not THAT one...) walked into the room to expound on their specific area of expertise. Would you walk out if you found their information disquieting or against your personal spirituality?

Perhaps you prefer the Robert Schuller / Crystal Cathedral type of presentation?

Perhaps your definition of "evidence" is at odds with ours? Perhaps?

[Serena Sattar]

a deity created the big bang for you to study evolution with. every reaction that every occurred was caused by a deity. even mutations that formed the human species was created by a deity.

[ParkTwain]

Originally Posted by serena nisha sattar

a deity created the big bang for you to study evolution with. every reaction that every occurred was caused by a deity. even mutations that formed the human species was created by a deity.

There is no need for that hypothesis. Does your thinking not subscribe to Occam's Razor? If not, how do you feel about those web-footed unicorns I see in your bedroom every night?

Can someone please define evolution - and don't give me this 'it's change'.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Can someone please define evolution - and don't give me this 'it's change'.

Ever hear of google?

• development: a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage); "the development of ...
• (biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms

It is change.

Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evol...efinition.html

Originally Posted by sanspeur

Ever hear of google?

• development: a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage); "the development of ...
• (biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms

It is change.

Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

What is Evolution?

That's what I thought you would say.

First, your first two bullet points do not say anyhting about changing from one species (or a higher clasification) to another. Has science actually come to a conclusion on what a species is? Obviously there is change within what we typically think of as a species. But that is a far cry from Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism.

Your 'It is change' comment is to simplified and was once the complete opposite of what Darwin had in mind. I mean he was the one who got this whole ball of wax rollin. It must be nice to change definitions in the middle of the controversy.

With the above definition you could just as easily go from more comlex to less complex. AAARRRHHH.

Second, your biological evolution comment can't get off the ground without the first cell in order to pass on or change 'the genetic material' in a positve more complex direction. This pharse 'the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.' is totally unsubtantiated and and has not been proven.

If all you have to offer is change with-in an undefined category called a species or whatever I fully agree. Whooooopiiidee - Doooodaaah!!! That says nothing it is just extrapolations and infrences from such a state.

[Bud235]

When we discuss what religious "creationism" is in logical terms such as "theory" or "hypothesis", we are not going to get any meaningful results.

The reason: "creationism" like anything and everything in religions, are not subject to "testing", i.e. there is no questioning allowed what so ever -- the focus from religion is on "faith".

That is totally against human logic, since anything and everything should be subject to "testing" from facts and evidences. There is no such thing as faith ignoring facts and evidences.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

That's what I thought you would say.

First, your first two bullet points do not say anyhting about changing from one species (or a higher clasification) to another. Has science actually come to a conclusion on what a species is? Obviously there is change within what we typically think of as a species. But that is a far cry from Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism.

Your 'It is change' comment is to simplified and was once the complete opposite of what Darwin had in mind. I mean he was the one who got this whole ball of wax rollin. It must be nice to change definitions in the middle of the controversy.

With the above definition you could just as easily go from more comlex to less complex. AAARRRHHH.

Second, your biological evolution comment can't get off the ground without the first cell in order to pass on or change 'the genetic material' in a positve more complex direction. This pharse 'the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.' is totally unsubtantiated and and has not been proven.

If all you have to offer is change with-in an undefined category called a species or whatever I fully agree. Whooooopiiidee - Doooodaaah!!! That says nothing it is just extrapolations and infrences from such a state.

The first two "bullet points" are from the dictionary.

Secondly what you say hasn't been proven has, but you will have to do your own research, because I know it is impossible to argue with a willfully blind creationist.

Originally Posted by sanspeur

The first two "bullet points" are from the dictionary.

Secondly what you say hasn't been proven has, but you will have to do your own research, because I know it is impossible to argue with a willfully blind creationist.

Nice Ad-Hominen

It your belief not mine. If you just want to state thing fine by me but to say it is proven and offer none does not do much for discussion.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by serena nisha sattar

a deity created the big bang for you to study evolution with. every reaction that every occurred was caused by a deity. even mutations that formed the human species was created by a deity.

Interesting creative theory. Not even an hypothesis though....