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

[rdean]

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're embarrassed at the ignorance of your party but it's the idiots on the left?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Religion and gods are creations of man, consequently there is no 'gods law,' there is natural law as perceived by man and religious law as written by men, where the latter is imbued with man's ignorance, fear, hate, faults, and failings, and consequently devoid of merit or authority outside the religious realm.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

Religion and gods are creations of man, consequently there is no 'gods law,' there is natural law as perceived by man and religious law as written by men, where the latter is imbued with man's ignorance, fear, hate, faults, and failings, and consequently devoid of merit or authority outside the religious realm.

Sociopath.

 

[Hollie]

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

Religion and gods are creations of man, consequently there is no 'gods law,' there is natural law as perceived by man and religious law as written by men, where the latter is imbued with man's ignorance, fear, hate, faults, and failings, and consequently devoid of merit or authority outside the religious realm.

Sociopath.

As pointless as your nonsensical claims to magic and supernaturalism for an existence that has no requirements for your man-made gawds.

Your phony claims to “miracles” or supernatural occurrences To explain existence are pointless and fraudulent. Provide testable evidence that any “supernatural” occurrence has ever, in fact happened. What you consistently fail to realize is that the assertion of “supernatural” suggests a different realm, that cannot be tested, cannot be accessed and cannot be quantified or qualified and is therefore no different from describing “nothing”.

I don’t explain how anyone could do miracles. An eccentric use of science is usually short lived. But the miracles of the bibles? Absurdities by definition else they wouldn't be considered "miracles".

Everything outside of logic is suspect -- but where you supernaturalists / religionists fail is: I apply the proper label of illogic to the illogical, and work to bring it into the realm of the logical, if it at all can be done – using the methods of science. Now you on the other hand assert an entire other realm to explain the illogical. But you cannot demonstrate this other realm, you admit not only that you do not know how this other realm operates, but you admit also that you cannot ever know how that realm operates, as its author is infinitely beyond you. Yet this undemonstrated, non-perceived, unsupported other realm is the causation of all logic. So in order to find your own answer, you accept what you already admit is an irrational non-answer as the answer.

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

Lunchbox!

I remember many years ago Stephen Jay Gould talking about how he wished most of the people promoting evolution would shut up because they are making things worse. Arguing for evolution when they really have no clue what they are talking about. I think he was talking about Hollie.

No where that I'm aware if does Evolution claim that one species can evolve into another completely different species, but hey, she's an illiterate moron so what can one expect?

PredFan: No where that I'm aware if does Evolution claim that one species can evolve into another completely different species, but hey, she's an illiterate moron so what can one expect?

.

well, there is an ordinary process Metamorphosis for a variety of beings that transform themselves from one form to another - it is only logical that the same process is employed for the transformation from one species to a new one.

.

 

[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?

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.

I think we agree that species adapt, right? Scientists have directly observed that, and I think we both acknowledge that. Science would define adaptation AS evolution. I think where you and I differ is in that species adapt over time so much so that eventually the descendants of the original species are no longer recognizable as the original species and therefore would be categorized as a new species. Granted, that's an inference, but it is a logical one - or so it would seem to me. I don't think it requires a great leap of faith to come to that conclusion.

I don't believe in what you call "metaphysics of absolute naturalism" or "ontological naturalism" - what I'm guessing would be termed materialism. I have no religion and believe in nothing. I trust science, but not absolutely, but more as Reagan put it: trust but verify. I think God is outside of the realm of scientific inquiry because science necessarily only works in a materialistic sense. God as a scientific theory can not be falsified. Perhaps a universal creator guides evolution and the cosmos. I don't know, and neither does anyone else. It can not be verified, proved, or even substantiated by the current best method of discovery: science.

By the rigorous standards of science there is a multitude of evidence supporting common descent, that doesn't mean it's True, and neither do I believe it. It's just simply the best current explanation of the currently available evidence. By the rigorous standards of science there is no definitive proof of creationism as such a notion is outside the purview of science and unfalsifiable.

 

[PostmodernProph]

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

???....Original sin is not a concept of a "first sin"......it is a concept of a sin of our origin or nature as human beings....."we are sinful because we are human beings", not "we are sinful because of something Adam and Eve did once".......

you didn't even know that, did you.....

 

[Hollie]

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

???....Original sin is not a concept of a "first sin"......it is a concept of a sin of our origin or nature as human beings....."we are sinful because we are human beings", not "we are sinful because of something Adam and Eve did once".......

you didn't even know that, did you.....

It's truly a sickness to accept such a worldview.

I would never raise a child by Instilling in him or her the presumption that they are evil or base or inherently sinful. That's psychologically and emotionally abusive. To promote such abuse speaks volumes about the fear, self-hate and hostility of the abuser.

Such abuse is a prescription for a maladjusted personality.

But then, you already knew that, didn't you?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

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

???....Original sin is not a concept of a "first sin"......it is a concept of a sin of our origin or nature as human beings....."we are sinful because we are human beings", not "we are sinful because of something Adam and Eve did once".......

you didn't even know that, did you.....

I didn't know that was your concept of original sin. Other Christians have told me differently, even on this forum, and the Bible says differently. Why do women have birthing pains?

[3:16] To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

Was it because God cursed Eve? Because that is exactly what the Bible says. Read Genesis Chapter 3.

You should already know that, shouldn't you?

Unless...

Do you not take the Bible literally? If not, why the problem with common descent? Couldn't God have guided the changes in all life over billions of years through a process of evolution?

 

[Taz]

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

???....Original sin is not a concept of a "first sin"......it is a concept of a sin of our origin or nature as human beings....."we are sinful because we are human beings", not "we are sinful because of something Adam and Eve did once".......

you didn't even know that, did you.....

I bet you read that in a book.

 

[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.

I think we agree that species adapt, right? Scientists have directly observed that, and I think we both acknowledge that. Science would define adaptation AS evolution. I think where you and I differ is in that species adapt over time so much so that eventually the descendants of the original species are no longer recognizable as the original species and therefore would be categorized as a new species. Granted, that's an inference, but it is a logical one - or so it would seem to me. I don't think it requires a great leap of faith to come to that conclusion.

I don't believe in what you call "metaphysics of absolute naturalism" or "ontological naturalism" - what I'm guessing would be termed materialism. I have no religion and believe in nothing. I trust science, but not absolutely, but more as Reagan put it: trust but verify. I think God is outside of the realm of scientific inquiry because science necessarily only works in a materialistic sense. God as a scientific theory can not be falsified. Perhaps a universal creator guides evolution and the cosmos. I don't know, and neither does anyone else. It can not be verified, proved, or even substantiated by the current best method of discovery: science.

By the rigorous standards of science there is a multitude of evidence supporting common descent, that doesn't mean it's True, and neither do I believe it. It's just simply the best current explanation of the currently available evidence. By the rigorous standards of science there is no definitive proof of creationism as such a notion is outside the purview of science and unfalsifiable.

Science does not prove or disprove things; it tentatively verifies or falsifies things. Science is severely limited in scope. Logic is used to prove or disprove things. Logic and the philosophy of science (agency) precede and have primacy over science (methodology). Science cannot directly address the metaphysics of ontology, let alone verify or falsify such things. Science is predicated on one metaphysical presupposition of naturalism or another. It is absurd to assert otherwise. Scientific methodology and the respective, underlying metaphysical model of naturalism that one presupposes are not synonymous.

Theology and philosophy via the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition deal with the exigencies of metaphysics. The Bible asserts a methodological naturalism; it utterly repudiates the materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism..

There's an avalanched of empirical evidence supporting the necessity of God's existence. There's an avalanche of empirical evidence supporting the conclusion that all of cosmological and biological history is a series of direct, creative events, not a grand evolutionary tale. And logic proves that God must be according to the three laws of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle.

The Seven Things™ stand! They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/.


Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God's Existence: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248541/.


The Rock Solid Transcendental Argument for God's Existence: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248552/.


The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248681/. ​

That an evolutionary paradigm is "the best current explanation of the currently available evidence" is merely your opinion, one that most certainly is predicated on the presupposition that all of cosmological and biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect: the metaphysics of an evolutionary naturalism of one kind or another. What else could it be based on? And most professional evolutionists are ontological/metaphysical naturalists.

 

[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.

I think we agree that species adapt, right? Scientists have directly observed that, and I think we both acknowledge that. Science would define adaptation AS evolution. I think where you and I differ is in that species adapt over time so much so that eventually the descendants of the original species are no longer recognizable as the original species and therefore would be categorized as a new species. Granted, that's an inference, but it is a logical one - or so it would seem to me. I don't think it requires a great leap of faith to come to that conclusion.

I don't believe in what you call "metaphysics of absolute naturalism" or "ontological naturalism" - what I'm guessing would be termed materialism. I have no religion and believe in nothing. I trust science, but not absolutely, but more as Reagan put it: trust but verify. I think God is outside of the realm of scientific inquiry because science necessarily only works in a materialistic sense. God as a scientific theory can not be falsified. Perhaps a universal creator guides evolution and the cosmos. I don't know, and neither does anyone else. It can not be verified, proved, or even substantiated by the current best method of discovery: science.

By the rigorous standards of science there is a multitude of evidence supporting common descent, that doesn't mean it's True, and neither do I believe it. It's just simply the best current explanation of the currently available evidence. By the rigorous standards of science there is no definitive proof of creationism as such a notion is outside the purview of science and unfalsifiable.

Science does not prove or disprove things; it tentatively verifies or falsifies things. Science is severely limited in scope. Logic is used to prove or disprove things. Logic and the philosophy of science (agency) precede and have primacy over science (methodology). Science cannot directly address the metaphysics of ontology, let alone verify or falsify such things. Science is predicated on one metaphysical presupposition of naturalism or another. It is absurd to assert otherwise. Scientific methodology and the respective, underlying metaphysical model of naturalism that one presupposes are not synonymous.

Theology and philosophy via the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition deal with the exigencies of metaphysics. The Bible asserts a methodological naturalism; it utterly repudiates the materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism..

There's an avalanched of empirical evidence supporting the necessity of God's existence. There's an avalanche of empirical evidence supporting the conclusion that all of cosmological and biological history is a series of direct, creative events, not a grand evolutionary tale. And logic proves that God must be according to the three laws of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle.

The Seven Things™ stand! They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/.


Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God's Existence: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248541/.


The Rock Solid Transcendental Argument for God's Existence: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248552/.


The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248681/. ​

That an evolutionary paradigm is "the best current explanation of the currently available evidence" is merely your opinion, one that most certainly is predicated on the presupposition that all of cosmological and biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect: the metaphysics of an evolutionary naturalism of one kind or another. What else could it be based on? And most professional evolutionists are ontological/metaphysical naturalists.

Oh good gawd. This is the same cut and paste nonsense that you have spammed multiple threads with on multiple occasions and all of it has been refuted as various appeals to fear and ignorance.

And most professional religious zealots / fundie Christians are ignorant regarding the science they hope to vilify.

 

[BreezeWood]

There's an avalanched of empirical evidence supporting the necessity of God's existence.

.
your post is meaningless without a practical application for whatever you are discussing ... not existence, your arbitrary and capricious statement of "God".

when you are referring to christianity just have the courage to say the existence of the christian god or if not whichever God you are referring to or as an open discussion for the Deities definition.


there is no "necessity" for the christian god ... than a self motivation for personal gratification.

.

 

[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're embarrassed at the ignorance of your party but it's the idiots on the left?

Yes you stupid stupid idiot. "Ignorance" is simply not knowing. All of us are ignorant of somethings. People like YOU are not only ignorant but STUPID. Stupid is when you can't or won't learn. You are the stupidest of all.

 

[PredFan]

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.

Lunchbox!

I remember many years ago Stephen Jay Gould talking about how he wished most of the people promoting evolution would shut up because they are making things worse. Arguing for evolution when they really have no clue what they are talking about. I think he was talking about Hollie.

No where that I'm aware if does Evolution claim that one species can evolve into another completely different species, but hey, she's an illiterate moron so what can one expect?

PredFan: No where that I'm aware if does Evolution claim that one species can evolve into another completely different species, but hey, she's an illiterate moron so what can one expect?

.

well, there is an ordinary process Metamorphosis for a variety of beings that transform themselves from one form to another - it is only logical that the same process is employed for the transformation from one species to a new one.

.

The caterpillar and the butterfly are not two different species.

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

Lunchbox!

I remember many years ago Stephen Jay Gould talking about how he wished most of the people promoting evolution would shut up because they are making things worse. Arguing for evolution when they really have no clue what they are talking about. I think he was talking about Hollie.

No where that I'm aware if does Evolution claim that one species can evolve into another completely different species, but hey, she's an illiterate moron so what can one expect?

PredFan: No where that I'm aware if does Evolution claim that one species can evolve into another completely different species, but hey, she's an illiterate moron so what can one expect?

.

well, there is an ordinary process Metamorphosis for a variety of beings that transform themselves from one form to another - it is only logical that the same process is employed for the transformation from one species to a new one.

.

The caterpillar and the butterfly are not two different species.

.

PredFan: The caterpillar and the butterfly are not two different species.

.

they are two distinct beings, what is the difference -

a simple imagination can invision the step in that process that would lead to an absolute change were it so desired.

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.

does mdr, et all refute Metamorphosis ... crossing the void from one to another ?

becoming the intelligent designer is the goal whether one exists or not, just do it the right way, the Triumph of Good over Evil for the one that does exist displays little to no mercy.





.

 

[PredFan]

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.

Lunchbox!

I remember many years ago Stephen Jay Gould talking about how he wished most of the people promoting evolution would shut up because they are making things worse. Arguing for evolution when they really have no clue what they are talking about. I think he was talking about Hollie.

No where that I'm aware if does Evolution claim that one species can evolve into another completely different species, but hey, she's an illiterate moron so what can one expect?

PredFan: No where that I'm aware if does Evolution claim that one species can evolve into another completely different species, but hey, she's an illiterate moron so what can one expect?

.

well, there is an ordinary process Metamorphosis for a variety of beings that transform themselves from one form to another - it is only logical that the same process is employed for the transformation from one species to a new one.

.

The caterpillar and the butterfly are not two different species.

.

PredFan: The caterpillar and the butterfly are not two different species.

.

they are two distinct beings, what is the difference -

a simple imagination can invision the step in that process that would lead to an absolute change were it so desired.

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.

does mdr, et all refute Metamorphosis ... crossing the void from one to another ?

becoming the intelligent designer is the goal whether one exists or not, just do it the right way, the Triumph of Good over Evil for the one that does exist displays little to no mercy.





.

No they aren't two distinct beings. A caterpillar and a butterfly are the same. They are at a difference stage of their life, but their DNA is exactly the same.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I didn't know that was your concept of original sin. Other Christians have told me differently, even on this forum, and the Bible says differently.

can you quote me a verse that says we are condemned to sin because of what A&E did and we have nothing to do with it?.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

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

???....Original sin is not a concept of a "first sin"......it is a concept of a sin of our origin or nature as human beings....."we are sinful because we are human beings", not "we are sinful because of something Adam and Eve did once".......

you didn't even know that, did you.....

I bet you read that in a book.

several.....and was taught it in a class.......

 

[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.

I think we agree that species adapt, right? Scientists have directly observed that, and I think we both acknowledge that. Science would define adaptation AS evolution. I think where you and I differ is in that species adapt over time so much so that eventually the descendants of the original species are no longer recognizable as the original species and therefore would be categorized as a new species. Granted, that's an inference, but it is a logical one - or so it would seem to me. I don't think it requires a great leap of faith to come to that conclusion.

I don't believe in what you call "metaphysics of absolute naturalism" or "ontological naturalism" - what I'm guessing would be termed materialism. I have no religion and believe in nothing. I trust science, but not absolutely, but more as Reagan put it: trust but verify. I think God is outside of the realm of scientific inquiry because science necessarily only works in a materialistic sense. God as a scientific theory can not be falsified. Perhaps a universal creator guides evolution and the cosmos. I don't know, and neither does anyone else. It can not be verified, proved, or even substantiated by the current best method of discovery: science.

By the rigorous standards of science there is a multitude of evidence supporting common descent, that doesn't mean it's True, and neither do I believe it. It's just simply the best current explanation of the currently available evidence. By the rigorous standards of science there is no definitive proof of creationism as such a notion is outside the purview of science and unfalsifiable.

Science does not prove or disprove things; it tentatively verifies or falsifies things. Science is severely limited in scope. Logic is used to prove or disprove things. Logic and the philosophy of science (agency) precede and have primacy over science (methodology). Science cannot directly address the metaphysics of ontology, let alone verify or falsify such things. Science is predicated on one metaphysical presupposition of naturalism or another. It is absurd to assert otherwise. Scientific methodology and the respective, underlying metaphysical model of naturalism that one presupposes are not synonymous.

Theology and philosophy via the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition deal with the exigencies of metaphysics. The Bible asserts a methodological naturalism; it utterly repudiates the materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism..

There's an avalanched of empirical evidence supporting the necessity of God's existence. There's an avalanche of empirical evidence supporting the conclusion that all of cosmological and biological history is a series of direct, creative events, not a grand evolutionary tale. And logic proves that God must be according to the three laws of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle.

The Seven Things™ stand! They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/.


Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God's Existence: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248541/.


The Rock Solid Transcendental Argument for God's Existence: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248552/.


The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248681/. ​

That an evolutionary paradigm is "the best current explanation of the currently available evidence" is merely your opinion, one that most certainly is predicated on the presupposition that all of cosmological and biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect: the metaphysics of an evolutionary naturalism of one kind or another. What else could it be based on? And most professional evolutionists are ontological/metaphysical naturalists.

That an evolutionary paradigm is "the best current explanation of the currently available evidence" is consistent with the relevant facts of natural history, paleo-biology, archeology, etc.

You science loathing religious extremists quite obviously are threatened by the methods of science and the consensus it brings because your biblical tales and fables are in direct contradiction to contingent, natural history.