Evolution? How?

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

I'm the other one wrote:

I didn't use the word "since" I appeared in this thread.

This is a meaningless sentence. You had written, and i quote you directly: "Well then...that canges things."--which was written after you had quoted my response to Aperson's speculation on a concordance of a theory of evolution and theism. Therefore, i simply pointed out that nothing about my understanding of or attitude toward either a theory of evolution or imaginary friend supersitions has changed since you appeared in this thread. From that, it would not be unreasonable to infer, and i thought (apparently, without good reason) that you'd prove sufficiently intelligent to understand that the only thing which could have changed would be your understanding.

Furthermore, as your changed understanding lead you to question me about what might have been created and under what circumstances--it is reasonable for me to infer that your changed understanding lead you into an erroneous assumption that what i had described in my response to Aperson described my personal understanding of a theory of evolution and my personal belief about putative deities--it does not.

Quote:

I've done nothing to even try and change you, so why would you even use that?

See above--you were the one who alleged that "things" had changed.

Quote:

Then, leave out the word "created" and put in "appear" and please answer the question.

Are you familiar with the conundrum of a presumptive question? It is most commonly referred to as the "have you stopped beating your wife" conundrum. Whether someone answers yes or no to such a question, the simple act of responding constitutes a tacit acceptance of an illicit premise--in that case, that the party question is or in the past has been in the habit of beating his wife.

Here is your question, directly quoted:

So...do you think it possible that when things were created such as flowers, the sun, etc...it was done thousands of years in between?

That question falls into the presumptive conundrum category, because no matter the response, it accepts a premise that such things were "done"--that implies agency, rather than random causation. Simply changing the verb from to be created to appear does not change the implication of agency. As i have no good reason to assume a deity, i do not have any reason to assume agency, and therefore, will not answer the question as posed.

I'm the other one wrote:

You mean your drivel?

Obviously not--of course, i refer to drivel such as you seem intent on posting.

Not to denigrate the discovery of the Tiktaalik Roseae, but doesn't the (both living) Mudskipper and the Coelacanth make the transition evidence pretty plain already as per the fallacy of Creationism?

Chumly wrote:

Not to denigrate the discovery of the Tiktaalik Roseae, but doesn't the (both living) Mudskipper and the Coelacanth make the transition evidence pretty plain already as per the fallacy of Creationism?

Somebody with some brains answer my damn question or I'll invoke the powers of the Tooth Fairy and you'll all be verrrrry sorry.

LW quoted-

Quote:

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

So are we arguing about who should get paid to lead them to safety?

real life wrote:

Lightwizard wrote:

Yes, that's why there are so many creatures today that live in the mountains but not in the valleys.
You really are clueless.

Most evolutionists would agree that the Himalayas have not always been there. The area was once under water. Notice there is coral and sedimentary rock at the very top of Everest, the world's tallest mountain.

Correct. Plate tectonics, a process which takes millions of years.

real life wrote:

So are you going to tell me that the creatures who live on mountains DID NOT EXIST until there were mountains with scarce food, extreme weather conditions and rugged terrain for them to live in?

Yes. They evolved to survive in the habitat available to them. They exist because the environment exists.

real life wrote:

And how do you propose to prove they did not exist? (this should be fun)

Simple, nothing can exist before the conditions necessary for its survival exist. Wasn't that fun.

But once again, you're missing THE POINT, which is that the fairy story of noah's flood is impossible without invoking magic to make it all work. So why not go ahead and just say "God can do anything and he made it happen and that's that", you win, nobody can defeat that argument. Why do you insist on trying to support the fantasy with science instead of simple theological imperative? You seem enamored with the power of science as a tool for assessing reality, and yet you are clearly afraid to play by its rules. Your entire stance is irrational.

Seems rather arbitrary to assign causality to a changing habitat when it is obvious that the habitat has changed, and assign causality to something else if it is evident that the habitat has not changed.

The answer to this topic seems simple to me. How come, even when stacks of evidence are piled up infront of them, some stubborn people still refuse to believe. Like I said earlier, you can believe in God and evolution. Is it possible that Genesis' description of the creation of Earth is metaphorical?

rl

Quote:

Seems rather arbitrary to assign causality to a changing habitat when it is obvious that the habitat has changed, and assign causality to something else if it is evident that the habitat has not changed.

Why arbitrary? Remember that an environment is only a temporary illusion. We draft causality by inference and compelling evidence. What's in your wallet?


ALSO, noone has said that evolution is only driven by environmental change.......

Yes. They evolved to survive in the habitat available to them. They exist because the environment exists.

Environment, as in the climate/ecology of a habitat, is but one factor in evolution - a major factor, but one among others.Predation, for instance, or lack thereof would be another, as would be, in the same regard, competition of one sort or another, and as would be the encroachment upon and eventual predominance of a new variety of vegetation, replacing an earlier variety, impacting much of the food chain, just as would the overconsumption of a preferred food source, or the evolution, introduction, or expansion of a hitherto unknown or unprevalent pest, parasite, or disease - likewise the coverse, the disappearance of same. The interconnections of the biosphere are myriad, entwined, and broadly interdependent. ... think butterfly effect.



If, that is, there is any inclination toward thought.

rl, observing that such changes take place contemporaneously, it may be concluded only that always has such been so.

Is it possible that Genesis' description of the creation of Earth is metaphorical?