Evolution? How?

I see "real life" still wants to obfuscate with a discussion of cosmic origins, but definitely does not want to answer the question.

Cosmic origins are not germane here, "real life," as has already been discussed. So, do you assert that a creation is a better alternative to a theory of evolution, or, if you do not claim that the diversity of life on this planet is a product of a creation, how do you account for it?

How very odd that you continue to feign ignorance of the terms you use. May I assist?

(emphasis mine)

Creation IS the origin of the cosmos, including this world.

---------------------------------

That being established once more--- without wasting the time to go back and count , this must be -- what, the 4th or 5th time you have asked a variation of this question while pretending you do not know the answer.

Interesting tactic. Does it have a purpose, other than buying you time?

Timber,

Did you post this for humorous effect? Or do you think that folks will be overwhelmed by your long posts and not see the disingenuous conclusions you wish to bring?

Is the Big Bang not a theory that deals with Origins, specifically that of the universe?

Is Abiogenesis not a theory that deals with Origins, specifically that of the origin of life?

Is Evolution not a theory that deals with Origins, specifically that of the Origin of Species? ( I seem to remember a book by that title, wait , it's coming to me.......let's see....first word ...starts with a C......what? burn? toast? char? ....Char......Charles....yes.....second word......antler? moose? deer? ..yes ...deer.....ok next..............computer? keyboard? use on a computer? Windows? ....ok Windows......deer Windows .....shorter? .....deer..wind.....deer win? ok ......Deer Win ..... Charles Deer Win.........OH! Charles Darwin ! )

I see that you are still busy dodging the question. Cosmic origins do not necessarily account for the diversity of life forms to be seen today on this planet. So . . .

Do you, then, assert that a creation is the best explanation for the diversity of life forms on this planet? If so, we are back to the original question--what is your circumstantial evidence that this so?

Frankly, I don't understand Creationists and IDers. What are you saying? That God is too stupid to be able to create a fully functioning system that allows animal species to improve themselves without having to lift a finger?

That's what it sounds like to me whenever you people argue against evolution.

There's evidence going out of the kazoo, so much that I can't put it all down here and I probably don't know all of it. You know, I haven't been taught proper evolution. It's not taught here in the UK like it is in the US, and yet no controversy. (On the contrary, we're taught Genesis yet the majority of the population do not believe in it as being literal, which I find very amusing).

Some people say that all this evidence for evolution is to test people's faith in God.

You sure all this evidence wasn't put there by God to test your brain instead of your faith?

Not at all - in discussions such as this upon which currently we are embarked I find the element of comic relief entirely satisfied in the absurd psuedointellectual maunderings of religionists, most particularly those of religionists having Fundamentalist Christian bent. While I have nothing against absurdity - in fact I confess a certain fondness for the absurd, I recognize it for what it is, and appreciate absurdity greatly when well executed (intentionally or otherwise) - absurdity by definition excludes itself from logical argument, being, incidentally, central to and eponymate of one of the primary logical fallacies.



One taking exception to the writings of another, at the most charitable, is ignorantly disingenuous, if not unambiguously perpetrating conscious, deliberate intellectual dishonesty and deception by means of misdirection when such a one frames that one's objections to those writings of another in the manner of a straw man argument, as exemplified in the passage quoted from your referrenced post. One wishing one's observations and commentary to be taken seriously should take care to permit, not preclude same. Evidencing some functional working familiarity with the subject at discussion reasonably may be assumed to be among the requirements of any statement of informed position.


It is established fact that the math and physics contingent upon and derived from the observable universe indicate to within a degree of probabilty very nearly approaching statistical certainty that such an event indeed took place. It is established fact that evolution, cosmologic, geologic, and biologic, is the observed order of things. Why or how either came to be is beyond the purvue of science, entering into the equation only in the specious and absurd maunderings of religionists.


One of many scientifically valid theories, hardly the only one extant, and in fact counter only to the absurdity of the teleologic argument, which argument proceeds from the illicit premise that there must be a creator, something established only within the argument that there must be a creator - Petitio Principii, no matter how favored by and vigorously prosecuted by the practitioner, predicates an invalid argument. This is not to say that there is or is not, may be or may not be a creator; simply that the manner of argument you have employed thus far in furtherance of your proposition is invalid.



Again - and for the convenience of any as might benefit thereby, I shall type largely and very slowly -

S-C-I-E-N-C-E

***

M-A-K-E-S

***

N-O

***

R-E-F-E-R-E-N-C-E

***

T-O

***

N-O-R

***

A-S-S-E-R-T-I-O-N

***

R-E-G-A-R-D-I-N-G

***

A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G

***

O-T-H-E-R

***

T-H-A-N

***

O-R

***

A-P-A-R-T

***

F-R-O-M

***

T-H-E

***

O-B-S-E-R-V-A-B-L-E

***

U-N-I-V-E-R-S-E

Only religionists presume to do so, and by evidence so far herein presented - as regards this and related discussion on these boards - religionists do so in forensically invalid, logically unsound, academically bankrupt manner. Science neither precludes nor demands a creator, science does not address the question, the question is in no way related to science.

Some might profit through careful examination and consideration of writings about science written by scientists, if not the actual science itself, as opposed to confining oneself to reference material sporting the imprimatur and nihil obstat of the fundamentalist fringe. To the end of facillitating the studies of any as may have interest or inclination, I would like to recommend the readilly accessible writings of Dr. Robert Hazen, Staff Scientist, Geophysical Laboratory Carnegie Institution of Washington, Robinson Professor of Earth Science George Mason University, B.S., S.M. (Geology) Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1971, Ph.D. (Earth Science) Harvard University 1975, NATO Postdoctoral Fellow Cambridge University England 1976-1980, author of more than 260 articles and 19 books on science, history, and music, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, recipient of the Mineralogical Society of America Award (1982), the American Chemical Society Ipatieff Prize (1986), the ASCAP Deems Taylor Award (1989), the Educational Press Association Award (1992), and the Elizabeth Wood Science Writing Award (1998), previous Distinguished Lecturer for the Mineralogical Society of America and current MSA President, member of the National Science Education Steering Committee, the American Association for the Advancement of Science Committee on Public Understanding of Science, and the advisory boards of Public Television's NOVA (WGBH Boston), Earth & Sky Magazine, the Enyclopedia Americana the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, and the Carnegie Council, among numerous other achievements, qualifications, credentials, accredidations, and bona fides.

Dr. Hazen's most recent mass-market offering, the very engagingly written, provocatively titled, widely acclaimed Genisis
(ISBN 0309653819, Joseph Henry Press / National Academy Press Washington DC 2005),
should be available through any reputable publication retailer, major library, or library in association with any major library system.
I quote from the conclusion of that book:


What does that mean? That means we (Science) don't know, freely admit same, and dilligently endeavor to close the gaps in our knowledge - that, just that, nothing more, nothing less; "We don't know, but we're working on it. Please stay tuned for further developments"

And, please understand I in no way wish or intend for you to be disuaded or discouraged from demonstrating on these boards the depth of your knowledge and the breadth of your understanding; your efforts in such regard are not in dispute, nor are they under challenge. Do carry on.

timber, the title of Hazen's book is gen-e-sis, i'm pretty sure, but thanks for the pointer. it looks like good reading. right now i have an over-abundance of books i want to read, but it's on my radar.

Hey, one of my more salient attributes is an undeniable propensity for typos.

Huh?

I don't get it . . . typo would imply you knew the correct spelling but simply failed to use it . . .

Prove otherwise or keep your scurrilous allegations to yourself, you fuzzy little yapper.

The burden of proof is upon those making the extraordinary claim, you feather-brained flapper . . .

Pardon my French, but I unclog my nose towards you, you son of a window dresser! I wave my private parts at your aunties, you brightly coloured, mealy-templed, cranberry-smelling, electric donkey bottom biter!

For additional details and instructions, please see This.

maybe your typing is mutating into something more evolved.

Maybe it is your reading glasses...

timber-

Okay-you're working on it.How long are you gonna be.We need answers NOW!.We have lives to live.

Thank you for contacting us. We value our loyal customers and regret this interuption. Our technicians are aware of the problem and are taking all available measures to resolve it and restore normal service quickly as possible. Your patience and understanding are appreciated.





Please hang up now, or press "1" to hear this recording again.

I see you found it necessary to alter your previous statement, but say "Again.........." as if this is what you had said the first time. It was not.

Why couldn't you just say 'ok my conclusion was hastily and incorrectly phrased' and leave it at that?

The essence of the creator is as a unifier not a divider...

Scientists and theists are both in the same pool. They are both struggling to know the creator or secret of creation.

Scientists make their observations of the natural world (though not always exclusively). While theists (likewise) observe the spiritual world.

Yet they both desire to unlock the secrets of the "TRUE" nature and image within all things.

God has unified science and theism in that same purpose. So it does not matter how many scientists believe that God is involved in creation or how many theists believe God was involved in creation, but the truth is essential... because our acknowledgement of God does not facilitate God's actual existence... Is God right on the other side of the scientists microscope? Always illuding them. Always one step ahead or aside. That it may take many years of study to ever find the most rudimentary elements of the universe.

So science is continuously in a quandary. It is like a big black hole that the scientists stand in front of and try to ignore the fact that it's there... Science takes you on this joy ride so far out and then they take you down this long winding dirt road somewhere in the cosmos and open the car door and say, "get out"! They leave you stranded on the highway of some physical temporal plane that has no solution. Science does have many happy endings but that is the thing, all good things come to an end in science... Someday our world will roll over on it's side and everything will turn upside down. Then the sun will red dwarf and explode into a supernova and the universe will implode then bye bye to the human race. This sounds like it is right out of the book of revelations...

Yet the theists is more often careful to not trust science completely. After all science is a multi-billion dollar corporation that injects rats with everything under the sun and performs partial birth abortions.... remember? "Researchers" observe and say, "Hmm... that injection immediately killed the rat, how curious"??? Yet the essence of "life" itself is something that will again take many years to fully understand.

The theist steps beyond the scientific wall... The scientists says, "If I cannot observe it it does not "scientifically" exist!" Yet the theist is not so rash to trust only their eyes but they believe that there are "spirits" within, that envelope life and the physical world... A ghost that it is by nature unseen within the mechanistic fabric of all things ... the intangible to science.. The very presence of the corporeal air that has the capacity to shape and change into most all creation.

Science sets these boundaries and says, "if you step beyond this point you are not a scientist but a quack!" One of these boundaries. That nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Nothing can be zero mass and exist. So if scientists plug up the hole the dam won't break... That means that the physical world is the only "reality" and there is not a layer outside of our physical onion shell that contains the spiritual world. Well what about protons? What about quarks and neutrinos?

After all how can thoughts just travel through billions of light years of space in an instant? The theists says maybe the same way that thoughts travel in a split second from the brain to the fingernail through billions of cells... and God is a computer...

Science can only go so far... then they stop confounded in total awe of life.. Faith bridges the gap...

It may take thousands of years before "science" has a definitive answer as to if there is a spiritual world that is outside (and within) our "physical" world.

Until then it takes soul searching, wrestling with the conscience and looking to the eternal. Something that science cannot even grasp as of yet...

Thus again, God is a uniter.

Science chooses to take the universe, earth and society and hold it's measurement ruler up against it and say, "To the best of our ability, this is "reality"."

But the the theist does not trust the earth, air etc... the universe and the image of self as a "standard" to measure the inner spirit. They believe the inner spirit has an image that is not "measurable" and "observable" in the "natural" world. Though the natural world is divinely created it does not necessarily contain the image of God...

The theists does not trust the five senses. These five senses are the ONLY means that the scientist has to ascertain data... The theists opens the soul and the heart to the "unknown". Searching for another "sense".

The purist scientist purposefully blocks off this sixth sense. Thus their data and conclusions are nearly always devoid of any spiritual considerations... Is that objective?

The "five senses" physical world lures and entices the unenlightened into spiritual deprivation, ultimately death and finality. Metals rust, things decay and corrode this is the nature of their world...

It is the spirit world that is like a dove and flys down within, re-energizes and liberates the soul, cleanses the mind from it's static isolation and the stagnation of a godless physical existence.

A true theist does not deny reality, proper science and good technology. They only augment the theist's life through medical breakthroughs, scientific understanding etc... It is the theist that believes that when the scientist is done their million year observation of the universe they will finally have their perfect picture of creation... The theists will know one thing... there will be something missing from the scientists picture. That is the star of the show... God... God created human (spirit) in his own image not the image of the universe... They continually see the physical image around them, that thus obscures and invalidates the true dynamic perfect "image" of God within. Not all of nature is natural...

Life has happened the way it has continually untouched by God for billions of years because when A equals B then automatically the sum is always C.

This over time has caused the universe to evolve. When there is unity peace exists.

But when after billions of years of A and B producing C suddenly the theist comes along and A no longer is equal to B and the result is D... This changes the core of creation.

This is the sign of the spirit... It is not disagreeing for disagreement sake... But it is an age of spiritual enlightenment. What is the spirit? Though we may see the spirit in operation at some point in our lifetime what actually is this spirit? That when every last particle and ash of our universe has faded lost beyond the last memory that spirit will remain alive and pristine because spirit endures beyond the end of time and space...

One of the interesting things about evolutionists is how often they invoke catastrophism ( which they otherwise deplore) when they need it.

Features of some of the planets, for instance, that do not fit the evolutionary model? No problem. A huge collision must have taken place and that's why the data don't fit the evolutionary model. (Never mind that there is no actual evidence for the magnitude of the collision which would be required.)

A case in point is the rotation of all nine planets on their axes are not in the same direction. If all nine planets were spun out into their orbits as supposed, then why do they not all spin the same direction?

RL, your vague nonspecific style of debate cant be taken seriously. Youve just posted a fuzzy question which contain many possible areas of specificity, yet you just try to breeze through with only the vaguest of references. BTW Youre mixing and Matching concepts and terms.
Try to be specific about what youre asking. What specific question do you wish to ask about catastrophism, (since you appear to want to avoid the previous posts from set).
Whats your question about the evolution"ist' view of catastrophist insertions into a cosmological question? Im sorta lost here.

Are you strewing herrings again? Or are you serious. If youre serious, try to frame a question in adetail that doesnt allow anyone to weasel out of a specific answer.