It's Always Sunny - evolution versus Christianity

[LadyForCamus]

You guys never seem to realize that creationism/evolution aren't mutually exclusive.

Evolution doesn't explain how life came to exist....

No, but if you believe in directed evolution then you really aren't okay with evolution. Directed evolution isn't evolution.

That's a really good point. And if you don't believe that evolution was directed, then you don't really believe in the Judeo-Christian God. But of course, that doesn't stop Christians from inventing their own connecting bridge between the two, strung up by science that is not actually science.

[Esquilax]

You guys never seem to realize that creationism/evolution aren't mutually exclusive.

Evolution doesn't explain how life came to exist....

In my experience talking to Christians it is more often your side which conflates evolution with the origins of life.  

Hell, the term "creationism" was specifically coined to denote those christians that conflated evolution with the origins of life and petulantly demanded that only biblically literal life origins were valid. The whole reason there's even a debate over the two concepts is due to a specifically religious conflation of evolution with abiogenesis; Huggy would have to be (unsurprisingly) completely ignorant of the history of this "debate" to lay the blame for that conflation at the feet of atheists.

[Nihilist Virus]

Neither does geology or cosmology.  The field you're looking for is abiogenesis.

Are you trying to make yourself look smart by taking my quote out of context?

You guys never seem to realize that creationism/evolution aren't mutually exclusive.

Evolution doesn't explain how life came to exist....

The point I was making to the op is that creationism and evolution are totally different things.

apparently that was a little too subtle for you and minimalist.....

And you actually have the temerity to call another member stupid.

And the point I was trying to make is that if you talk about evolution and the origin of life, as if they are somehow related fields, then you look like this guy:

---

---

I wasn't taking your quote out of context because the part I redacted does not change the fact that you seem to want to include abiogenesis in the field of evolution when in fact it is much more properly classified in chemistry. I am of course aware of many Christians who believe in evolution, although honestly you are probably the first one I've seen who also believes in a literal, worldwide flood. Are you one of those micro-evolutionists? Also I am confused on these comments of yours:

Everyone is familiar with the story of Noah's ark. The problem is everyone ASSUMES Noah had to fit 2 (or seven depending on if the animal was clean or unclean, but for the purposes of this example i'll just say 2) of every single animal on the planet in the ark.

In the bible Noah is explicitly instructed to take two of every "sort" of animal.

...

The words "sort", "kind" and "species" are synonomous.

...

How the bible determines what belongs to a species is whether or not they can produce fertile offspring.

Well if you are saying that he had to accomodate 2 or 7 of every sort, and you are saying that this means he had to accomodate 2 or 7 of every species, then how is he not fitting 2 or 7 of every single animal on the planet into the ark?

There are more absurdities in the flood story than in any other story in the entire Bible, and that's saying something.

Anyway... from what I have seen of you, you are nowhere near the piss poor representation of Christianity that Drich (vulgar moron), athrock (intellectually dishonest), and Godschild (self-righteous moron) are, but that status merely makes you respectable, not commendable. Or am I presuming too much? Are you a Jew (converted or otherwise) and not a Christian?

[Huggy Bear]

And the point I was trying to make is that if you talk about evolution and the origin of life, as if they are somehow related fields, then you look like this guy:

---

---

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

I wasn't taking your quote out of context because the part I redacted does not change the fact that you seem to want to include abiogenesis in the field of evolution when in fact it is much more properly classified in chemistry.

First of all, where did I mention abiogenisis? 

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

Ellipsis (plural ellipses; from the Ancient Greek: ἔλλειψις, élleipsis, "omission" or "falling short") is a series of dots (typically three, such as "…") that usually indicates an intentional omission of a word, sentence, or whole section from a text without altering its original meaning.

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.

 I am of course aware of many Christians who believe in evolution, although honestly you are probably the first one I've seen who also believes in a literal, worldwide flood.  Are you one of those micro-evolutionists?

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.

Also I am confused on these comments of yours:

Everyone is familiar with the story of Noah's ark. The problem is everyone ASSUMES Noah had to fit 2 (or seven depending on if the animal was clean or unclean, but for the purposes of this example i'll just say 2) of every single animal on the planet in the ark.

In the bible Noah is explicitly instructed to take two of every "sort" of animal.

...

The words "sort", "kind" and "species" are synonomous.

...

How the bible determines what belongs to a species is whether or not they can produce fertile offspring.

Well if you are saying that he had to accomodate 2 or 7 of every sort, and you are saying that this means he had to accomodate 2 or 7 of every species, then how is he not fitting 2 or 7 of every single animal on the planet into the ark?

There are more absurdities in the flood story than in any other story in the entire Bible, and that's saying something.

Anyway... from what I have seen of you, you are nowhere near the piss poor representation of Christianity that Drich (vulgar moron), athrock (intellectually dishonest), and Godschild (self-righteous moron) are, but that status merely makes you respectable, not commendable.  Or am I presuming too much?  Are you a Jew (converted or otherwise) and not a Christian?

*emphasis mine*

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. A genus would probably be closer to the biblical definition of what the bible means a species to be. So if Noah were to take 2 animals from each genus, you get the picture.

[Nihilist Virus]

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.

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

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 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?  I said evolution is not about the origin of life.  If you want to further explain how wrong you are, by all means, indulge us.

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?

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.

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.

So if Noah were to take 2 animals from each genus, you get the picture.

Yeah I get the picture.  One of the eight people on board drew the short straw and had to be the carrier for all human-infectious diseases on earth (except HIV because God made that one later to punish them homosexuals), even though they did not know such things existed.  So this person, being contagious, had to be quarantined yet somehow kept alive (I'm picturing a Silence of the Lambs type of thing where the person is kept in a pit and they lower stuff down in a bucket) and then when they were back on dry land they had to split up into a healthy group that would interbreed and a less healthy group that would also incestuously interbreed but had the additional task of ensuring the survival of the diseases that they didn't even know existed.

[abaris]

You guys never seem to realize that creationism/evolution aren't mutually exclusive.

Evolution doesn't explain how life came to exist....

Correct, they aren't. But what's out of the window is a humanocentric deity and a 6000 years old world, as described in Genesis. Given the time of the dinosaurs roaming earth, humanity is nothing but a chicken fart.

That's why it still reads agnostic in my profile. I can't rule out a total neutral deity, not caring one way or the other. I find even that highly unlikely, but I can't rule it out. 6000 years old earth and Adam and Eve play in a different league however. In the junior idiot league, to make myself perfectly clear.

[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.

[Huggy Bear]

Correct, they aren't. But what's out of the window is a humanocentric deity and a 6000 years old world, as described in Genesis.

Nowhere in Genesis does it describe the earth as being 6000 years old.

[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?

[Nihilist Virus]

Correct, they aren't. But what's out of the window is a humanocentric deity and a 6000 years old world, as described in Genesis.

Nowhere in Genesis does it describe the earth as being 6000 years old.

So now you are not a young earther but yet you seem to indicate that the flood killed the dinosaurs, which is to suggest that you believe man and dinosaur once co-existed.  May I ask how the hell humans and dinosaurs coexisted when we humans cannot even coexis†?

But yeah in all seriousness, your views make no sense at all.