Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What i can't understand about evolution....
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 446 of 493 (494570)
01-16-2009 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 443 by Peg
01-16-2009 9:52 PM


Re: Starting from the Root
Peg writes:
i has been said by others that it is a separate issue.
abiogenesis and evolution have nothing to do with each other, evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life etc etc
but its one thing to say that evolution is how species evolved from other species then not back up where the species began in the first place
thats why they are very much linked together
Peg, I heartily agree. It's like creationists advocating creationism and exempting Genesis from creationism in apologetics for creationism.
Similarly, it's like Biblicalists exempting Genesis from apologetics for the Biblical record.
Are you any relation to Ann Coulter?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by Peg, posted 01-16-2009 9:52 PM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by fallacycop, posted 01-16-2009 10:23 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 452 of 493 (494576)
01-16-2009 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 444 by subbie
01-16-2009 10:04 PM


Re: arrogance and ignorance
subbie writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peg writes:
believe it or not, its only been in the last day or two that i've come to realize you all mean when you use the term 'creationist'. I thought i was a creationist, but now i realise that term is reserved for those who adhere to the young earth theories.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, you are incorrect. Anyone who attempts to invoke anything other than natural means to explain the development of life on this planet because they believe the ToE is insufficient is a creationist.
You're both wrong. I'm an example of a creationist who applies ToE to creationism and rejects YEC as Biblical as well. Creationism simply means that Goddidit one way or atother.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by subbie, posted 01-16-2009 10:04 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 453 by subbie, posted 01-16-2009 10:32 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 454 of 493 (494578)
01-16-2009 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 451 by fallacycop
01-16-2009 10:23 PM


Re: Why Genesis?
falacy cop writes:
What's the problem with that?........
It's nothing like that. Genesis is achapter of the Bible. Biogenesis is not a chapter of evolution.
Falacy Cop, Genesis is a whole book of the beginnings of creationism, regardless of which way one interprets it. It is the most significant and important book in the Bible in that it not only records the genesis/beginning/birth/etc of creationism, but the genesis of all that's integral to the Biblical record; things like the genesis of the nation of Israel, and the genesis of Jehovah's kingdom on earth, i.e. the messianic era which is emerging into fruition.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by fallacycop, posted 01-16-2009 10:23 PM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by fallacycop, posted 01-16-2009 10:49 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 456 of 493 (494581)
01-16-2009 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 453 by subbie
01-16-2009 10:32 PM


Re: arrogance and ignorance
subbie writes:
One question, Buz. Do you believe the ToE adequately explains the development of life on Earth? If not, why not?
Okay, I guess that's two questions.
I see nothing in the ToE which violates my version of creationism. I've debated this fairly extensively over the years, beginning with member Jar in EvC's first Great Debate (Abe: and the lengthy peanut gallery thread following it open to all.) This stuff is in the archives somewhere. To go into it would lead off topic here.
The most debatable might be 3LoT in that I see the uniqueness of the eternal universe managed by an eternal designer as a perpetual machine of sorts.
I've fine tuned some aspects of my version in some areas over the years.
Edited by Buzsaw, : addition as noted

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by subbie, posted 01-16-2009 10:32 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 458 by subbie, posted 01-16-2009 11:07 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 457 of 493 (494582)
01-16-2009 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 455 by fallacycop
01-16-2009 10:49 PM


Re: Why Genesis?
falacycop writes:
Buz, you may be unaware of the fact that not all creationists are christians.
Yes, Falacycop, I'm well aware of that and should have addressed the fact. I believe all secularist creos are OEC as I am. Correct me if mistaken. My comments were relative to Biblicalists. Thanks.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by fallacycop, posted 01-16-2009 10:49 PM fallacycop has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 464 of 493 (494669)
01-17-2009 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 458 by subbie
01-16-2009 11:07 PM


Re: Evolutionary Creationists
I'm aware that some, Jar included, use the term "creationist" to refer to the concept that a supreme being created life on Earth through the mechanism of evolution. It's my position that to use the term in that way is to create confusion. The generally accepted usage of "creationist" is someone who disputes the the ability of the ToE to explain the diversity of life on Earth. While I acknowledge that some others may have different meanings attached to the term, that fact does not mean that my usage is wrong.
Over the years in these debates with evolutionist members I have observed that, for the most part, evolutionists who call themselves creationists do so to establish a degree of legitimacy in both camps for sole purpose of using that role as leverage when needed at given areas of debate. I have come to this conclusion because people like Jar, for example regard a large majority of the Biblical record as myth. Well the majority of the record involves miracle/supernatural to some degree, so how can they claim the Biblical god as real, all the while denying most of what the book says that describes and informs about the god which they mouth.
Having said the above, likely that is not the case with some folks like Mike the Whiz or Phat who, imo, just don't apply enough logic to the implications of how evolution would lower the non-designing god they envision to the level of accomplishing about as much in the universe as the Buddha man made statues of Buddhism which are subject to whatever reverence and/or punishment men who constructed them chooses to effect upon them.
Most likely evolutionist creationists such as Jar should more accurately categorize themselves like Percy who has referred to himself as an agnostic.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by subbie, posted 01-16-2009 11:07 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 466 by AdminNosy, posted 01-17-2009 5:37 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 467 of 493 (494673)
01-17-2009 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 463 by Kapyong
01-17-2009 4:39 PM


Re: Starting from the Root
kapyong writes:
Peg writes:
but its one thing to say that evolution is how species evolved from other species then not back up where the species began in the first place
thats why they are very much linked together
Yes, they are linked - one follows the other.
But so what?
They are DIFFERENT things, one following the other.
That would make them essentially dispensational, but no; dispensations end with some significant event, somewhat like the linkage of a chain where one link observably ends and a different link observably begins. What observable event dispensated/categorized one event (abiogenesis) from the other (evolution)?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by Kapyong, posted 01-17-2009 4:39 PM Kapyong has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by Capt Stormfield, posted 01-17-2009 7:05 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 471 of 493 (494699)
01-17-2009 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 468 by Capt Stormfield
01-17-2009 7:05 PM


Re: Starting from the Root
Capt Stormfield writes:
Buzsaw writes:
"What observable event dispensated/categorized one event (abiogenesis) from the other (evolution)? "
The appearance of an imperfect replicator.
Hi Capt. A hearty welcome to EvC. I'm happy to be your first respondent.
Would you mind elaborating on the difference in the imperfect replicator and the perfect replicator relative to the abiogenesis of life, and relative to how the transition event from abiogenesis to biogenesis is observed? Is abiogenesis just an assumption relative to the oldest observed acclaimed evidenced event of biogenesis which effects evolution?
Am I making any sense?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by Capt Stormfield, posted 01-17-2009 7:05 PM Capt Stormfield has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 472 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2009 10:14 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 474 of 493 (494716)
01-17-2009 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 472 by RAZD
01-17-2009 10:14 PM


Re: Starting from the Root
Thanks RAZD. I'll need to mull this all over before thinking of attempting a response.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2009 10:14 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 477 of 493 (494764)
01-18-2009 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 476 by ICANT
01-18-2009 8:16 AM


Re: Evolution and Abiogenesis
You pretty much nailed it, ICANT. The two camps question and debate the tennants of one another's positions. Both camps get converts due to the debates, research, etc. Genesis literalist creationists who once believed in evolution have been convinced otherwise. The same goes for former Genesis creationists who have come to embrace evolution.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by ICANT, posted 01-18-2009 8:16 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 488 by fallacycop, posted 01-18-2009 7:00 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024