Creation vs Evolution

Originally posted by FeceMan
To be fair, when talking in a creation vs. evolution debate, the participants are talking about the change of single-celled organisms to multicellular creatures.

Thats not true at all. Anyone who is discussing solely on these terms is ignorant of what those terms mean.

You cannot arbitrarily define an issue.

Originally posted by Alliance
Thats not true at all. Anyone who is discussing solely on these terms is ignorant of what those terms mean.

You cannot arbitrarily define an issue.

You're right, one can't arbitrarily define an issue, but it's the evolutionary idea of creation that creationists oppose.

Before I respond, what do you mean by "the evolutionary idea of creation that creationists oppose."

I'm pretty sure that it means that the definition of "evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population over time" is not what creationists generally argue against because by that definition evolution is fact. Evolution at one point involved descent with modification which is what most creationist argue against, along with abiogenesis. The definition of evolution changes faster than public knowledge does, so people still argue against the former theory in ignorance. This does not make their argument incorrect. I'm assuming that the thread creator meant to include descent with modification and abiogensis in the argument when he created this Creation vs. Evolution thread because otherwise there is no real argument.

WTFH.

The definition of evolution hasn't changed significantly since the 60s. Is that moving too fast?

Can you MAKE UP definition s for evolution just to say its wrong? What kind of bullshit is that? Evolution is face because thats exactly what the FACTS provide.

"Descent with modification" is still in use, but not in the way Darwin imagined it...however, if I remember correctly he didn't come up with the phrase.

There IS no argument between creationism (in a realisitic sense) and evolution. Why should we entertain people who think there is one?

Apparently it is too fast because the current model isn't taught in most high schools yet.

What I'm suggesting can be done is that you argue with what people perceive to be evolution, not the true definition.
Simply said, it is counter-productive to argue that something isn't, in fact evolution, but just to argue against the points being made.

Perhaps, but first and foremost peopls should be informed of what the hell evolution is.

We shouldn't tolerate and continue ignorance just because they already think they know what evolution is.

They are NOT arguing evolution, they are arguing something else which is NOT evolution.

Evolution🙁according to collins cobuild's english dictionary)
1.n-uncount. Evolution is a process of gradual change that takes place over many generations, during which species of animals, plants, or insects slowly change some of their physical characteristics. ...the evolution of plants and animals. ...the theory of evolution by natural selection. ...human evolution.
2.- n-var.Evolution is a process of gradual and uninterrupted development in a particular situation or thing over a period of time; a formal use. ...a crucial period in the evolution of modern physics. ...an accurate account of his country's evolution... his long life comprised a series of evolutions.

obviously, this thread is about the first definition 🤣 💃 🤣

Obviously, popular dictionaries have no place in arguments.

no place? Ó_ò i kinda don't follow
surely to discuss something you have to know what it means, am i wrong?

Originally posted by Alliance
Perhaps, but first and foremost peopls should be informed of what the hell evolution is.

We shouldn't tolerate and continue ignorance just because they already think they know what evolution is.

They are NOT arguing evolution, they are arguing something else which is NOT evolution.

Really what we have here is a problem with the public school system, not the people themselves.

Originally posted by Alliance
Before I respond, what do you mean by "the evolutionary idea of creation that creationists oppose."

Originally posted by FeceMan
That single-celled organisms could change over time into multicellular organisms (without divine intervention).

"Divine intervention" could only accure if the universe opperated independant of god.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
"Divine intervention" could only accure if the universe opperated independant of god.

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
Sorry if this has been done, but which do you beleive in and why?

I personally beleive in the Evolution theory, because it has basically been scientifically proven. Especially by the Hard-Weinberg Principle.

I like how Urizen mocks fundamental Christianity yet he knows almost nothing about the young Earth creationist theory of how the world began and the science--gasp! science?! IMPOSSIBLE!--that they use to support their beliefs.

(roflcopter pseudoscience amirite folks or amirite)

I doubt you know anything about science.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I like how Urizen mocks fundamental Christianity yet he knows almost nothing about the young Earth creationist theory of how the world began and the science--gasp! science?! IMPOSSIBLE!--that they use to support their beliefs.

(roflcopter pseudoscience amirite folks or amirite)

Then put him on ignore and spare us more stupid ones.

Originally posted by FeceMan
To be fair, when talking in a creation vs. evolution debate, the participants are talking about the change of single-celled organisms to multicellular creatures.

Srry but I had to cry "bullshit" on that statement. That is merely a single argument out of many that are had between creationists and scientists who study evolutionary theory.

Carry on.