It's Always Sunny - evolution versus Christianity

[Nihilist Virus]

huh?

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

I showed you the picture of Dr. Chuck Missler's strawman argument with the peanut butter. In the clip he says that "if evolution were true, we'd expect to find, on occasion, new life in these peanut butter jar since there is matter and energy." See, evolution does not discuss the origin of life anymore more than geology does (hence the first thing I said to you on the matter). So when you say, "Evolution doesn't explain how life came to exist...." (using four dots for an ellipses which is incorrect, followed up of course by you trying to school me on what the symbol means) it is a fact that you sound exactly like Dr. Missler.

Perhaps your intention was to correctly say that evolution is irrelevant to creationism, or that creationism and evolution are irrelevant fields. I took your comment to be, "Evolution fails to account for the origin of life" but perhaps you meant it as, "Evolution does not intend to account for the origin of life." But you have not clarified yourself on the matter despite several back-and-forths between us.

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?

If your understanding of evolution is actually correct, then I apologize for assuming that you did not. However, for you to pretend like I don't know what ellipses are - a much simpler concept - after you had already applied them incorrectly is rude and moronic.

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

Don't worry about it. I was assuming your understanding of evolution was flawed. I don't regret having made that decision, though, given your belief in the flood story.

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

Drop the act, dipshit.

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.

OK so judging from that remark you seem to think the flood wiped out the dinosaurs and you are a young-earther. Yet you believe in evolution. Which clearly now is some modified version of evolution.

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?

If you saw the thing I quoted, it said that most of the time members of a different genus cannot mate, and when they do, most often the offspring is not fertile. They specifically said "most of the time" and "most often" because there are exceptions. You are not proving the definition wrong by pointing out the example.

Now how were you wrong? Because you said that the Bible defines species as things that can interbreed, then you said that their definition of species correlates mostly with our current definition of genus. You are WRONG.

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

Yeah. Ancestors from 4000 years ago? Exactly how fast do you think evolution occurs? Do you really, honestly believe that humanity started with one race and then the rest of them evolved in 4000 years? Being extremely generous, that is only 400 generations. Granted, we've caused speciation in fruit flies in 23 generations, but that was through means of artificial selection. Natural selection is extremely slow.

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.

All you've done is snipped the evolutionary tree at the point that you stop agreeing with it. Also you completely ignored the fatal flaws in the flood story that I threw at you.

Once again, HOW did the freshwater fish survive?