Not Darwin's Law, it's God's Law.

[M.D. Rawlings]

Actually, you mindless zealot, evolution does in fact make predictions.

Such as?

Such as - perform a search with the term "evolution makes predictions"

I've done the work so I know what is available. Do your homework assignment and get back to us.

Such as - give us the peer reviewed data as to how your gawds magically *poofed* existence.

Such as? Let's see this homework of yours.

You didn't do your homework. You're lazy and ineffectual.

Do the search like you were instructed and report back to us.

Nonsense. Macroevolution is at best a hypothetico-deductive scientific theory, entailing long-term, futuristic intuitions that cannot be currently observed or tested. Hindsight, 20/20 declarations regarding what has survived, has survived are not predictions. Both environmental change and mutation are random; the product of two random variables is a random variable. On the other hand, the microspeciation of adaptation entails limited, albeit, generationally recurring patterns of mathematically predictable variations within species over time relative to environmental and dietary factors. Let me help you, as I know that you don't really know anything about the science, Hollie, and never have: Can Scientists Predict the Future of Evolution Quanta Magazine

And abiogenesis is a mere hypothesis, one that is utterly indemonstrable. the Pasteurian theory that omne vivum ex vivo, i.e., all life is from life stands. Prebiotic research is not about demonstrating the actuality of an abiogenetic origin of life, but about identifying what monomeric precursors of biology were available to the primordial world, how the other indispensable monomeric precursors came to be, and how it might have all come together from the indispensable monomers to the indispensable compounds, i.e., from aggregation to polymerization, from replication to recombination, from transmutation to realization—in a contaminate-invested environment incessantly pushing the process in the wrong direction.

 

[Hollie]

Actually, you mindless zealot, evolution does in fact make predictions.

Such as?

Such as - perform a search with the term "evolution makes predictions"

I've done the work so I know what is available. Do your homework assignment and get back to us.

Such as - give us the peer reviewed data as to how your gawds magically *poofed* existence.

Such as? Let's see this homework of yours.

You didn't do your homework. You're lazy and ineffectual.

Do the search like you were instructed and report back to us.

Nonsense. Macroevolution is at best a hypothetico-deductive scientific theory, entailing long-term, futuristic intuitions that cannot be currently observed or tested. Hindsight, 20/20 declarations regarding what has survived, has survived are not predictions. Both environmental change and mutation are random; the product of two random variables is a random variable. On the other hand, the microspeciation of adaptation entails limited, albeit, mathematically predictable variations within species over time relative to environmental and dietary factors. Let me help you, as I know that you don't really know anything about the science, Hollie, and never have: Can Scientists Predict the Future of Evolution Quanta Magazine

And abiogenesis is a mere hypothesis, one that is utterly indemonstrable. the Pasteurian theory that omne vivum ex vivo, i.e., all life is from life stands. Prebiotic research is not about demonstrating the actuality of an abiogenetic origin of life, but about identifying what monomeric precursors of biology were available to the primordial world, how the other indispensable monomeric precursors came to be, and how it might have all come together from the indispensable monomers to the indispensable compounds, i.e., from aggregation to polymerization, from replication to recombination, from transmutation to realization—in a contaminate-invested environment incessantly pushing the process in the wrong direction.

Let me help you as it's obvious you know nothing of the biological sciences or the science disciplines supporting evolutionary biology.

Evolution and Philosophy Predictions and Explanations

The Predictive Power of Evolutionary Biology and the Discovery of Eusociality in the Naked Mole Rat NCSE

29 Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent

See? This is what happens when you're addled by religious extremism. You become a buffoonish example of the debilitating disease known as Hyper-religious Syndrome

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Nowhere in history is there an instance of someone's head exploding at the discovery of new knowledge.

Imagine trying to explain that to someone like you.

Well, there's certainly no danger in your head ever exploding from real knowledge, let alone from any instance of actually comprehending the intellectual processes of the scientifically literate evolutionist or creationist of Judeo-Christianity regarding the potentialities of the theoretically interchangeable metaphysics and natural physics of speciation.

 

[PredFan]

The Bible tells us that God Created the world. The Bible doesn't say exactly how. The Bible itself in written and word form is thousands of years old. Imagine trying to explain genes, DNA, mutation, environmental pressures, etc., to Hebrews 5 or 6 thousand years ago? God in his infinite wisdom, knew that Man would eventually learn how it happened. He designed us to.

I certainly agree with this. The biblical account of origins in Genesis is not a scientific treatise, but a theological treatise that provides the foundation and general framework for understanding the cosmological order. It’s a general guide, subject to hermeneutical maturation in the face of new information. God left science to us.

That's so silly. The genesis fable is a confused, contradictory tale wherein your gawds lied and satan told the truth.

Really, Bunky, you should actually read the fable and try to do more than mimic some slack-jawed, drooling zealot.

Such fine folks you angry, self-hating Christians.

What I hate is illiterate idiots such as you. Go start your own thread moron.

 

[guno]

Such as?

Such as - perform a search with the term "evolution makes predictions"

I've done the work so I know what is available. Do your homework assignment and get back to us.

Such as - give us the peer reviewed data as to how your gawds magically *poofed* existence.

Such as? Let's see this homework of yours.

You didn't do your homework. You're lazy and ineffectual.

Do the search like you were instructed and report back to us.

Nonsense. Macroevolution is at best a hypothetico-deductive scientific theory, entailing long-term, futuristic intuitions that cannot be currently observed or tested. Hindsight, 20/20 declarations regarding what has survived, has survived are not predictions. Both environmental change and mutation are random; the product of two random variables is a random variable. On the other hand, the microspeciation of adaptation entails limited, albeit, mathematically predictable variations within species over time relative to environmental and dietary factors. Let me help you, as I know that you don't really know anything about the science, Hollie, and never have: Can Scientists Predict the Future of Evolution Quanta Magazine

And abiogenesis is a mere hypothesis, one that is utterly indemonstrable. the Pasteurian theory that omne vivum ex vivo, i.e., all life is from life stands. Prebiotic research is not about demonstrating the actuality of an abiogenetic origin of life, but about identifying what monomeric precursors of biology were available to the primordial world, how the other indispensable monomeric precursors came to be, and how it might have all come together from the indispensable monomers to the indispensable compounds, i.e., from aggregation to polymerization, from replication to recombination, from transmutation to realization—in a contaminate-invested environment incessantly pushing the process in the wrong direction.

Let me help you as it's obvious you know nothing of the biological sciences or the science disciplines supporting evolutionary biology.

Evolution and Philosophy Predictions and Explanations

The Predictive Power of Evolutionary Biology and the Discovery of Eusociality in the Naked Mole Rat NCSE

29 Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent

See? This is what happens when you're addled by religious extremism. You become a buffoonish example of the debilitating disease known as Hyper-religious Syndrome

Christophrenia

INITIAL PHASE

In the initial phase, Christophrenia may cause extreme anxiety or even phobic reactions when the patient is confronted with secular practices and/or traditions, often resulting in an obsessive- compulsive urge to either ban the teaching of evolution or to force public school children to recite either The Lord’s Prayer or The Pledge of Allegiance. The patient may feel an overwhelming urge to make an obscene phone call to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, or, may assume that Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a Satanic organization dedicated to the elimination of Fundamentalist Christianity , when, in fact it is the patient which may want to eradicate every theological belief except his or her own.

INTERMEDIATE PHASE

Depending on how far the patient has deteriorated, the patient may or may not recognize the fact that the Constitution is a secular document which preserves the religious liberties of all Citizens, regardless as to the belief systems that those citizens may embrace. Other patients may come to believe that the Founding Fathers were conservative Christians who wanted to create a Christian Republic. Even when confronted with the true, Deist nature of men like Jefferson, Madison, Paine, and Franklin, the patient will continue to espouse the false belief that the Founding Fathers wanted to create a Christian Theocracy.


ADVANCED PHASE


In the Advanced Phase the patient finally breaks with reality.


Christophrenia Diseases of the Radical Christian Right The Sirens Chronicles

 

[Hollie]

Nowhere in history is there an instance of someone's head exploding at the discovery of new knowledge.

Imagine trying to explain that to someone like you.

Well, there's certainly no danger in your head ever exploding from real knowledge, let alone from any instance of actually comprehending the intellectual processes of the scientifically literate evolutionist or creationist of Judeo-Christianity regarding the potentialities of the theoretically interchangeable metaphysics and natural physics of speciation.

I'm not surprised you're left to pointless babbling. You science-loathing, illiterate bible thumpers are easily refuted.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Such as?

Such as - perform a search with the term "evolution makes predictions"

I've done the work so I know what is available. Do your homework assignment and get back to us.

Such as - give us the peer reviewed data as to how your gawds magically *poofed* existence.

Such as? Let's see this homework of yours.

You didn't do your homework. You're lazy and ineffectual.

Do the search like you were instructed and report back to us.

Nonsense. Macroevolution is at best a hypothetico-deductive scientific theory, entailing long-term, futuristic intuitions that cannot be currently observed or tested. Hindsight, 20/20 declarations regarding what has survived, has survived are not predictions. Both environmental change and mutation are random; the product of two random variables is a random variable. On the other hand, the microspeciation of adaptation entails limited, albeit, mathematically predictable variations within species over time relative to environmental and dietary factors. Let me help you, as I know that you don't really know anything about the science, Hollie, and never have: Can Scientists Predict the Future of Evolution Quanta Magazine

And abiogenesis is a mere hypothesis, one that is utterly indemonstrable. the Pasteurian theory that omne vivum ex vivo, i.e., all life is from life stands. Prebiotic research is not about demonstrating the actuality of an abiogenetic origin of life, but about identifying what monomeric precursors of biology were available to the primordial world, how the other indispensable monomeric precursors came to be, and how it might have all come together from the indispensable monomers to the indispensable compounds, i.e., from aggregation to polymerization, from replication to recombination, from transmutation to realization—in a contaminate-invested environment incessantly pushing the process in the wrong direction.

Let me help you as it's obvious you know nothing of the biological sciences or the science disciplines supporting evolutionary biology.

Evolution and Philosophy Predictions and Explanations

The Predictive Power of Evolutionary Biology and the Discovery of Eusociality in the Naked Mole Rat NCSE

29 Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent

See? This is what happens when you're addled by religious extremism. You become a buffoonish example of the debilitating disease known as Hyper-religious Syndrome

Uh-huh. And if you really understood what you're reading, arguments with which I am well familiar, you would realize that your links merely affirm the hypothetico-deductive nature of transitional macroevolutionary theory ultimately predicated on a metaphysics of naturalism, albeit, via the predictive processes of adaptive microspeciation.

 

[Hollie]

Such as - perform a search with the term "evolution makes predictions"

I've done the work so I know what is available. Do your homework assignment and get back to us.

Such as - give us the peer reviewed data as to how your gawds magically *poofed* existence.

Such as? Let's see this homework of yours.

You didn't do your homework. You're lazy and ineffectual.

Do the search like you were instructed and report back to us.

Nonsense. Macroevolution is at best a hypothetico-deductive scientific theory, entailing long-term, futuristic intuitions that cannot be currently observed or tested. Hindsight, 20/20 declarations regarding what has survived, has survived are not predictions. Both environmental change and mutation are random; the product of two random variables is a random variable. On the other hand, the microspeciation of adaptation entails limited, albeit, mathematically predictable variations within species over time relative to environmental and dietary factors. Let me help you, as I know that you don't really know anything about the science, Hollie, and never have: Can Scientists Predict the Future of Evolution Quanta Magazine

And abiogenesis is a mere hypothesis, one that is utterly indemonstrable. the Pasteurian theory that omne vivum ex vivo, i.e., all life is from life stands. Prebiotic research is not about demonstrating the actuality of an abiogenetic origin of life, but about identifying what monomeric precursors of biology were available to the primordial world, how the other indispensable monomeric precursors came to be, and how it might have all come together from the indispensable monomers to the indispensable compounds, i.e., from aggregation to polymerization, from replication to recombination, from transmutation to realization—in a contaminate-invested environment incessantly pushing the process in the wrong direction.

Let me help you as it's obvious you know nothing of the biological sciences or the science disciplines supporting evolutionary biology.

Evolution and Philosophy Predictions and Explanations

The Predictive Power of Evolutionary Biology and the Discovery of Eusociality in the Naked Mole Rat NCSE

29 Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent

See? This is what happens when you're addled by religious extremism. You become a buffoonish example of the debilitating disease known as Hyper-religious Syndrome

Uh-huh. And if you really understood what you're reading, arguments with which I am well familiar, you would realize that your links merely affirm the hypothetico-deductive nature of transitional macroevolutionary theory ultimately predicated on a metaphysics of naturalism, albeit, via the predictive processes of adaptive microspeciation.

Uh-huh. Which tells me you haven't the first clue regarding the links I gave you. See, that's the danger you science illiterate thumpers face. Lacking a science vocabulary leaves you with limited options but to retreat to failed attempts to disparage the facts of biological evolution when your appeals to magical / supernatural tales and fables of gawds and acceptance of fear and superstition.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Bible tells us that God Created the world. The Bible doesn't say exactly how. The Bible itself in written and word form is thousands of years old. Imagine trying to explain genes, DNA, mutation, environmental pressures, etc., to Hebrews 5 or 6 thousand years ago? God in his infinite wisdom, knew that Man would eventually learn how it happened. He designed us to.

I certainly agree with this. The biblical account of origins in Genesis is not a scientific treatise, but a theological treatise that provides the foundation and general framework for understanding the cosmological order. It’s a general guide, subject to hermeneutical maturation in the face of new information. God left science to us.

Imagine trying to explain that kind of thing to Hebrews wandering the desert 2-3 thousand years ago?

Agree. This will give some insight into my creationist worldview: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2013/12/elementary-my-dear-watson-rebuttal-of_9.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10227044/


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248427/

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Christophrenia

INITIAL PHASE

In the initial phase, Christophrenia may cause extreme anxiety or even phobic reactions when the patient is confronted with secular practices and/or traditions, often resulting in an obsessive- compulsive urge to either ban the teaching of evolution or to force public school children to recite either The Lord’s Prayer or The Pledge of Allegiance. The patient may feel an overwhelming urge to make an obscene phone call to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, or, may assume that Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a Satanic organization dedicated to the elimination of Fundamentalist Christianity , when, in fact it is the patient which may want to eradicate every theological belief except his or her own.

INTERMEDIATE PHASE

Depending on how far the patient has deteriorated, the patient may or may not recognize the fact that the Constitution is a secular document which preserves the religious liberties of all Citizens, regardless as to the belief systems that those citizens may embrace. Other patients may come to believe that the Founding Fathers were conservative Christians who wanted to create a Christian Republic. Even when confronted with the true, Deist nature of men like Jefferson, Madison, Paine, and Franklin, the patient will continue to espouse the false belief that the Founding Fathers wanted to create a Christian Theocracy.


ADVANCED PHASE


In the Advanced Phase the patient finally breaks with reality.


Christophrenia Diseases of the Radical Christian Right The Sirens Chronicles

Historically illiterate doofus alert!

Neither Franklin nor Madison were Deistic purists, and the Republic was founded on the Anglo-American tradition of natural law as derived from the Augustinian paradigm and systematically expounded by Locke, the Father of classical liberalism, in his Two Treatises of Civil Government. Lockean natural law was extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought, which both the Christians and the Deists of the Republic's founding wholeheartedly embraced. The mystical aspects of Judeo-Christianity are irrelevant, and the vast majority of the Founders were Christians, not Deists. Now go start your own OP with regard to your historical illiteracies elsewhere. This OP is about something else.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Hmmm...no Creationists out and about today?

Evolution is nonsense. Evolution makes no real predictions. It's irrational, based on the notion that the self-ordering properties of mere chemistry and the physical laws of nature managed to produce staggeringly complex biological systems and, thereafter, ever-increasingly complex and varied transitional forms light years above the infrastructural-level of ontology, something that has never been directly observed or known to be possible. Transitional speciation has never been observed, let alone life-producing, chemical evolution (abiogenesis). Hence, evolution is a rationally and empirically indemonstrable what if. It's mere philosophy predicated on the metaphysical, scientifically unfalsifiable presupposition that all of cosmological and biological history is an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect at best, or predicated on the metaphysical, scientifically unfalsifiable presupposition of ontological naturalism at worst. Illusion. Error. Falsehood.

Evolution isn't supposed to make predictions. It is the best explanation of how things got to be the way they are.

You do not think that evolution is an acceptable explanation of how God created living things?

Why is a biological history of speciation entailing a series of creative events and extinctions over time any less viable?

Who says it is?

Creationists, like myself, believe it's true. I think transitional macroevolutionary theory is bogus. That's all.

 

[PredFan]

Hmmm...no Creationists out and about today?

Evolution is nonsense. Evolution makes no real predictions. It's irrational, based on the notion that the self-ordering properties of mere chemistry and the physical laws of nature managed to produce staggeringly complex biological systems and, thereafter, ever-increasingly complex and varied transitional forms light years above the infrastructural-level of ontology, something that has never been directly observed or known to be possible. Transitional speciation has never been observed, let alone life-producing, chemical evolution (abiogenesis). Hence, evolution is a rationally and empirically indemonstrable what if. It's mere philosophy predicated on the metaphysical, scientifically unfalsifiable presupposition that all of cosmological and biological history is an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect at best, or predicated on the metaphysical, scientifically unfalsifiable presupposition of ontological naturalism at worst. Illusion. Error. Falsehood.

Evolution isn't supposed to make predictions. It is the best explanation of how things got to be the way they are.

You do not think that evolution is an acceptable explanation of how God created living things?

Why is a biological history of speciation entailing a series of creative events and extinctions over time any less viable?

Who says it is?

Creationists, like myself, believe it's true. I think transitional macroevolutionary theory is bogus. That's all.

Hmm, this is new to me, but it sounds not a bit like creationism. At least not the creationism most of us are familiar with.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

As a conservative who has a love for science, it is a continual source of embarrassment the way that my fellow conservatives act with regards to evolution. We all know that the true idiots are on the left, and this one thing that we fight about drags us down.

My fellow conservatives, why is it so hard to accept that Evolution is how God created living things? What makes anyone think that evolution is an affront to God?

Charles Darwin discovered how God works woth respect to the living world. If you took the time to really look at the miracle of evolution, you would find God's hand there.

The evidence of evolution is there, there is no evidence for Creationism as it is currently defined. In my mind, evolution is how God created all living things. Evolution IS creation.

You don't really address this in your OP, but one of things that I think many people misunderstand about Science, specifically scientific theories, is that theories are not facts nor are they truth or beliefs. I don't believe in God, or follow any religion, but I also don't believe in the Theory Evolution through Natural Selection or the other theories of evolution. These theories are an attempt at explaining and describing evolution and are a framework in which to make predictions. Nothing more. At the very most scientific theories should only be accepted as the best current explanation of the currently available evidence - whether one is a Christian, an atheist, a conservative, a liberal, or anything in between. Theories are not to be believed.

The other thing which is commonly misunderstood is that evolution IS a fact, and this you do address in your OP. The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is an attempt at explaining the fact of evolution. Not to insult you with this bit of pedantry, I just want to make that clear for the thread.

In direct response to your OP, I have a couple of questions:

1. How do explain Original Sin is there was no literal Adam and Eve?

2. If Global Climate Change is a theory that climatologists, biologists, and oceanographers use as a tool to explain the evidence, do you accept that being a conservative who loves Science? If not, why is it different from other scientific theories?

 

[PredFan]

As a conservative who has a love for science, it is a continual source of embarrassment the way that my fellow conservatives act with regards to evolution. We all know that the true idiots are on the left, and this one thing that we fight about drags us down.

My fellow conservatives, why is it so hard to accept that Evolution is how God created living things? What makes anyone think that evolution is an affront to God?

Charles Darwin discovered how God works woth respect to the living world. If you took the time to really look at the miracle of evolution, you would find God's hand there.

The evidence of evolution is there, there is no evidence for Creationism as it is currently defined. In my mind, evolution is how God created all living things. Evolution IS creation.

You don't really address this in your OP, but one of things that I think many people misunderstand about Science, specifically scientific theories, is that theories are not facts nor are they truth or beliefs. I don't believe in God, or follow any religion, but I also don't believe in the Theory Evolution through Natural Selection or the other theories of evolution. These theories are an attempt at explaining and describing evolution and are a framework in which to make predictions. Nothing more. At the very most scientific theories should only be accepted as the best current explanation of the currently available evidence - whether one is a Christian, an atheist, a conservative, a liberal, or anything in between. Theories are not to be believed.

The other thing which is commonly misunderstood is that evolution IS a fact, and this you do address in your OP. The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is an attempt at explaining the fact of evolution. Not to insult you with this bit of pedantry, I just want to make that clear for the thread.

In direct response to your OP, I have a couple of questions:

1. How do explain Original Sin is there was no literal Adam and Eve?

2. If Global Climate Change is a theory that climatologists, biologists, and oceanographers use as a tool to explain the evidence, do you accept that being a conservative who loves Science? If not, why is it different from other scientific theories?

Sorry both of those questions are irrelevant and off topic. I don't wish to get off track. This thread is asking believers in Creationism why they cannot accept evolution as an act of God. Maybe we can address your questions in an appropriate thread.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

As a conservative who has a love for science, it is a continual source of embarrassment the way that my fellow conservatives act with regards to evolution. We all know that the true idiots are on the left, and this one thing that we fight about drags us down.

My fellow conservatives, why is it so hard to accept that Evolution is how God created living things? What makes anyone think that evolution is an affront to God?

Charles Darwin discovered how God works woth respect to the living world. If you took the time to really look at the miracle of evolution, you would find God's hand there.

The evidence of evolution is there, there is no evidence for Creationism as it is currently defined. In my mind, evolution is how God created all living things. Evolution IS creation.

You don't really address this in your OP, but one of things that I think many people misunderstand about Science, specifically scientific theories, is that theories are not facts nor are they truth or beliefs. I don't believe in God, or follow any religion, but I also don't believe in the Theory Evolution through Natural Selection or the other theories of evolution. These theories are an attempt at explaining and describing evolution and are a framework in which to make predictions. Nothing more. At the very most scientific theories should only be accepted as the best current explanation of the currently available evidence - whether one is a Christian, an atheist, a conservative, a liberal, or anything in between. Theories are not to be believed.

The other thing which is commonly misunderstood is that evolution IS a fact, and this you do address in your OP. The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is an attempt at explaining the fact of evolution. Not to insult you with this bit of pedantry, I just want to make that clear for the thread.

In direct response to your OP, I have a couple of questions:

1. How do explain Original Sin is there was no literal Adam and Eve?

2. If Global Climate Change is a theory that climatologists, biologists, and oceanographers use as a tool to explain the evidence, do you accept that being a conservative who loves Science? If not, why is it different from other scientific theories?

Sorry both of those questions are irrelevant and off topic. I don't wish to get off track. This thread is asking believers in Creationism why they cannot accept evolution as an act of God. Maybe we can address your questions in an appropriate thread.

Yeah, of course.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

As a conservative who has a love for science, it is a continual source of embarrassment the way that my fellow conservatives act with regards to evolution. We all know that the true idiots are on the left, and this one thing that we fight about drags us down.

My fellow conservatives, why is it so hard to accept that Evolution is how God created living things? What makes anyone think that evolution is an affront to God?

Charles Darwin discovered how God works woth respect to the living world. If you took the time to really look at the miracle of evolution, you would find God's hand there.

The evidence of evolution is there, there is no evidence for Creationism as it is currently defined. In my mind, evolution is how God created all living things. Evolution IS creation.

You don't really address this in your OP, but one of things that I think many people misunderstand about Science, specifically scientific theories, is that theories are not facts nor are they truth or beliefs. I don't believe in God, or follow any religion, but I also don't believe in the Theory Evolution through Natural Selection or the other theories of evolution. These theories are an attempt at explaining and describing evolution and are a framework in which to make predictions. Nothing more. At the very most scientific theories should only be accepted as the best current explanation of the currently available evidence - whether one is a Christian, an atheist, a conservative, a liberal, or anything in between. Theories are not to be believed.

The other thing which is commonly misunderstood is that evolution IS a fact, and this you do address in your OP. The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is an attempt at explaining the fact of evolution. Not to insult you with this bit of pedantry, I just want to make that clear for the thread.

In direct response to your OP, I have a couple of questions:

1. How do explain Original Sin is there was no literal Adam and Eve?

2. If Global Climate Change is a theory that climatologists, biologists, and oceanographers use as a tool to explain the evidence, do you accept that being a conservative who loves Science? If not, why is it different from other scientific theories?

Evolution is a fact? LOL! How do you know that something never observed to have happened is a fact? We're here; therefore, evolution! Viola!

No. Coloradomtnman, what you're claiming to be a fact is the metaphysics of absolute naturalism or ontological naturalism. That's your religion. So now you're claiming that science has verified that either God does not exist or that God had absolutely no hand in the organization/development of the cosmological/biological order of things?

Got ?

You see, evolutionary theists. There's a certain degree of paradox/absurdity regarding the supposed fact of evolution.

 

[Hollie]

As a conservative who has a love for science, it is a continual source of embarrassment the way that my fellow conservatives act with regards to evolution. We all know that the true idiots are on the left, and this one thing that we fight about drags us down.

My fellow conservatives, why is it so hard to accept that Evolution is how God created living things? What makes anyone think that evolution is an affront to God?

Charles Darwin discovered how God works woth respect to the living world. If you took the time to really look at the miracle of evolution, you would find God's hand there.

The evidence of evolution is there, there is no evidence for Creationism as it is currently defined. In my mind, evolution is how God created all living things. Evolution IS creation.

You don't really address this in your OP, but one of things that I think many people misunderstand about Science, specifically scientific theories, is that theories are not facts nor are they truth or beliefs. I don't believe in God, or follow any religion, but I also don't believe in the Theory Evolution through Natural Selection or the other theories of evolution. These theories are an attempt at explaining and describing evolution and are a framework in which to make predictions. Nothing more. At the very most scientific theories should only be accepted as the best current explanation of the currently available evidence - whether one is a Christian, an atheist, a conservative, a liberal, or anything in between. Theories are not to be believed.

The other thing which is commonly misunderstood is that evolution IS a fact, and this you do address in your OP. The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is an attempt at explaining the fact of evolution. Not to insult you with this bit of pedantry, I just want to make that clear for the thread.

In direct response to your OP, I have a couple of questions:

1. How do explain Original Sin is there was no literal Adam and Eve?

2. If Global Climate Change is a theory that climatologists, biologists, and oceanographers use as a tool to explain the evidence, do you accept that being a conservative who loves Science? If not, why is it different from other scientific theories?

Evolution is a fact? LOL! How do you know that something never observed to have happened is a fact? We're here; therefore, evolution! Viola!

No. Coloradomtnman, what you're claiming to be a fact is the metaphysics of absolute naturalism or ontological naturalism. That's your religion. So now you're claiming that science has verified that either God does not exist or that God had absolutely no hand in the organization/development of the cosmological/biological order of things?

Got ?

You see, evolutionary theists. There's a certain degree of paradox/absurdity regarding the supposed fact of evolution.

LOL! Evolution actually has been observed.

I guess they didn't teach you that at the Harun Yahya madrassha.

As usual, you simply are ignorant regarding the science position.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Evolution is nonsense. Evolution makes no real predictions. It's irrational, based on the notion that the self-ordering properties of mere chemistry and the physical laws of nature managed to produce staggeringly complex biological systems and, thereafter, ever-increasingly complex and varied transitional forms light years above the infrastructural-level of ontology, something that has never been directly observed or known to be possible. Transitional speciation has never been observed, let alone life-producing, chemical evolution (abiogenesis). Hence, evolution is a rationally and empirically indemonstrable what if. It's mere philosophy predicated on the metaphysical, scientifically unfalsifiable presupposition that all of cosmological and biological history is an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect at best, or predicated on the metaphysical, scientifically unfalsifiable presupposition of ontological naturalism at worst. Illusion. Error. Falsehood.

Evolution isn't supposed to make predictions. It is the best explanation of how things got to be the way they are.

You do not think that evolution is an acceptable explanation of how God created living things?

Why is a biological history of speciation entailing a series of creative events and extinctions over time any less viable?

Who says it is?

Creationists, like myself, believe it's true. I think transitional macroevolutionary theory is bogus. That's all.

Hmm, this is new to me, but it sounds not a bit like creationism. At least not the creationism most of us are familiar with.

I don't know what you mean. Creationism holds that God in a series of creative events directly caused all of the various kinds of creatures that exist or have ever existed on the planet Earth to be; that is, the history of biology is not a series of branching transmutations arising from a common ancestry over time.

As I have written elsewhere:

The evolutionist assumes that the paleontological record necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation. Given the complexity of life and the fact that the paleontological record overwhelming reflects, not a gradual appearance of an ever-increasingly more abundant and varied collection of species, but a series of abrupt appearances and extinctions of fully formed biological systems, it's not unreasonable to argue that we are looking at a series of distinct, creative events orchestrated by an intelligent being over time.

. . . The arrows that evolutionists scratch on charts between illustrations of species that are alleged to be directly related are not found in the paleontological record. They're the gratuitous additions of a theoretical model. The arrows are not artifacts of observable empirical phenomena.

. . . At various points along the way, evolutionary theory entails a common ancestry of branching transmutations. [The evolutionist] imagines a biological history consisting of an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, mostly driven by the mechanism of natural selection, and believes that this scenario provides the best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth. I see a biological history consisting of a series of direct, creative events and episodic extinctions, and believe that this scenario provides the best explanation for the abundance and vast variety of life, and expect that all forms of terrestrial life would necessarily share certain genetic and morphological characteristics, including the inherent ability to affect adaptive variations within.​

In a nutshell: That is what creationism is, and that is the essential difference between creationism and evolutionary theory.

Simple.

 

[Taz]

It's not god's law, it's psychology's axiom!!!

 

[Hollie]

Evolution isn't supposed to make predictions. It is the best explanation of how things got to be the way they are.

You do not think that evolution is an acceptable explanation of how God created living things?

Why is a biological history of speciation entailing a series of creative events and extinctions over time any less viable?

Who says it is?

Creationists, like myself, believe it's true. I think transitional macroevolutionary theory is bogus. That's all.

Hmm, this is new to me, but it sounds not a bit like creationism. At least not the creationism most of us are familiar with.

I don't know what you mean. Creationism holds that God in a series of creative events directly caused all of the various kinds of creatures that exist or have ever existed on the planet Earth to be; that is, the history of biology is not a series of branching transmutations arising from a common ancestry over time.

As I have written elsewhere:

The evolutionist assumes that the paleontological record necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation. Given the complexity of life and the fact that the paleontological record overwhelming reflects, not a gradual appearance of an ever-increasingly more abundant and varied collection of species, but a series of abrupt appearances and extinctions of fully formed biological systems, it's not unreasonable to argue that we are looking at a series of distinct, creative events orchestrated by an intelligent being over time.

. . . The arrows that evolutionists scratch on charts between illustrations of species that are alleged to be directly related are not found in the paleontological record. They're the gratuitous additions of a theoretical model. The arrows are not artifacts of observable empirical phenomena.

. . . At various points along the way, evolutionary theory entails a common ancestry of branching transmutations. [The evolutionist] imagines a biological history consisting of an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, mostly driven by the mechanism of natural selection, and believes that this scenario provides the best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth. I see a biological history consisting of a series of direct, creative events and episodic extinctions, and believe that this scenario provides the best explanation for the abundance and vast variety of life, and expect that all forms of terrestrial life would necessarily share certain genetic and morphological characteristics, including the inherent ability to affect adaptive variations within.​

In a nutshell: That is what creationism is, and that is the essential difference between creationism and evolutionary theory.

Simple.

There's no imagining of biological history.

It's just remarkable that people like you still exist, but then again, you folks do spill out of Pakistani Madrassahs.