It's Always Sunny - evolution versus Christianity

[Huggy Bear]

Again, you should be addressing the OP not me. I thought I made it very clear that they were different.

You most certainly are not saying that evolution and abiogenesis are different.  You said that evolution and creationism are different, which is correct.  You followed that up with saying that evolution doesn't explain how life came to exist, which is also correct.

So again you looked like Dr. Chuck "I have a PhD* so let me talk to you about evolution and quantum mechanics" Missler.


*In mechanical engineering.

*emphasis mine*

huh?

If I was right on both accounts, what exactly is the problem?

First of all, where did I mention abiogenisis?

You never did, and that's the problem.  From what I can tell, you seem to think that abiogenesis is a subfield of evolution,

What?

You clearly acknowledge that I never mentioned abiogenisis, yet you figure that I think abiogenesis is a subfield of evolution. How is this possible, especially after I clearly stated that evolution doesn't explain how life came to exist?

which is why you seem to think you had your bases covered by saying that evolution doesn't explain how life came to exist.

I don't even get the point you're trying to make.

Secondly there is a reason I used ellipses in my post, and in case you don't know what ellipses are:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis#cite_note-1

Being condescending when you are wrong in every aspect.  LOL.

I don't know how you figure I'm being condescending since you clearly didn't know what ellipses meant.

I put the ellipses there to show that I could go further into explanation, but the main point was that presenting creationism and evolution as if it's one side or the other is inaccurate, bringing up abiogenisis doesn't change that fact.

When did I say the two are mutually exclusive?

 
That's referring to the OP, read the thread title.

I said evolution is not about the origin of life.

No, I said that.

If you want to further explain how wrong you are, by all means, indulge us.

That's ok, I'm not about to go in anymore circles with you.

You do realize that whale fossils have been found on top of mountain ranges right?

But of course science will put their own spin on it and say the mountain must of rose up really, really fast from the sea instead of admitting that the bible may have been correct on the earth being covered by water because of their system of peer pressu... uh peer review.

I just don't understand how you believe in evolution and the flood.  But I'll give it a try.  Tell me if this accurately represents your model:

In the beginning God created the universe, and this was necessary because there must have been a first cause, except it wasn't necessary for there to be a first cause to create God.  Nine billion years later the earth formed, and about a billion years after that God created the initial self-replicating molecule which would gradually phase into a living colony after a series of chain reactions.  God's interaction was necessary here because such a self-replicating molecule cannot spontaneously spawn in nature.  Then the process of evolution followed, and while Adam and Eve therefore did not exist in any literal sense, the same narrative which is figurative becomes at some point literally true without any indication (in text, tone, or otherwise) that such a shift has occurred.  In this literal narrative we see that there was a man who lived for 600+ years, constructed an ark, and summoned two/seven of each creature from all over the planet (including the ones that couldn't swim and had to cross oceans).  Then enough water to flood the earth up to the highest mountains came from nowhere in particular (to which it would later return), and somehow the freshwater fish survived despite their environments being poisonously contaminated with brine.  Later, men constructed the Tower of Babel, and God, feeling encroached by the tower, confused their language (even though language continued to evolve from there).

Is there anything that I left out or misrepresented?

Actually, if you took out God, Adam and Eve, the flood (substitute with meteor) and the tower of babel, you'd be closer to the scientific version.

You're thinking of the modern definition of species, I made it clear the bible defines a species as one that can produce fertile offspring.

That is the modern definition of a species.

Not necessarily, tigers and lions are different species, yet they are able to produce fertile offspring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigon

Guggisberg wrote that ligers and tigons were long thought to be sterile; in 1943, however, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an "Island" tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, although of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.[2]

At the Alipore Zoo in India, a female tigon named Rudhrani, born in 1971, was successfully mated to an Asiatic lion named Debabrata. The rare, second generation hybrid was called a litigon /ˌlaɪˈtaɪɡən/. Rudhrani produced seven litigons in her lifetime. Some of these reached impressive sizes—a litigon named Cubanacan weighed at least 363 kilograms (800 lb), stood 1.32 metres (4.3 ft) at the shoulder, and was 3.5 metres (11 ft) in total length.

Reports also exist of the similar titigon /ˌtaɪˈtaɪɡən/, resulting from the cross between a female tigon and a male tiger. Titigons resemble golden tigers but with less contrast in their markings. A female tigon born in 1978, named Noelle, shared an enclosure in the Shambala Preserve with a male Siberian tiger called Anton, due to the keepers' belief that she was sterile. In 1983 Noelle produced a titigon named Nathaniel. As Nathaniel was three-quarters tiger, he had darker stripes than Noelle and vocalized more like a tiger, rather than with the mix of sounds used by his mother. Being only about quarter-lion, Nathaniel did not grow a mane. Nathaniel died of cancer at the age of eight or nine years. Noelle also developed cancer and died soon after.

A genus would probably be closer to the biblical definition of what the bible means a species to be.

My only curiosity at this point is if you have the backbone and humility to admit you're wrong, or if you are similar to Drich in that regard.  My money is on the latter since you came at me with that condescending tone as if I didn't know what ellipses were.

I just gave you an example of a lion and tiger (same Genus, different species) having fertile offspring. so in what way am I wrong?

Not to mention the animals we're talking about would be the ANCESTORS of the current animals we have today.



As you can see, all cats have a common cat ancestor, now picture that ancestor being saved from the flood, then you get what I'm trying to say.