Notre Dame priest: Creationism debate unique to U.S.

The Bozeman Daily Chronicle ^ | 2003-05-11 | Walt Williams

[whattajoke]

Awesome. It took you 9 posts and roughly 6 minutes to re-post your idea that evolution somehow has something to do with the origin of the universe. You're the best yet, Congrats.

I have no conspiracy theories about ID and its tactics. It's hardly a conspiracy, it's just a wolf in sheep's clothing; a lie; bullshit. However you wish to call it. Why do so many in the "movement" (your word, I believe) feel the need to attach "PhD" to their credentials when in fact their "PhD" is from a diploma mill that is not accredited? Why do so many insist over and over it's not based on christianity, and yet, when one takes about 3 minutes to research it, one comes to the conclusion it is indeed christian creationism inspired?

Subterfuge is not good for a supposedly honest movement.

[whattajoke]

Feeding the effdot just makes him stronger.

yeah, but come on... it was still funny.

[PatrickHenry]

Oooops. I said: the scriptural heliocentric model. I meant scriptural geocentric model, of course.

[f.Christian]

Dr whattajoke ... amputate the Truth and pass out rubber crutches // wheel chairs --- evolution !

[Ten Megaton Solution]

Evolution has nothing to do with cosmology. I am quite sure I know what I'm talking about.

Oh, I don't know about that. The cosmos has changed from being a nearly homogenous low complexity and low entropy region to being a heterogenous region of increasing complexity with increasing entropy, and life has similarly increased in complexity as it has done it's share of contributing to the universal entropy.

But I don't think that's what the Creation types are trying to say when they babble about the Second Law, Cosmology, or Evolution.

[Last Visible Dog]

There you go again, we have explained this to you MANY times already, and yet you continue to use it as an argument. Evolution does NOT claim that something came from NOTHING. It claims that something made this something change into this something, not that this NOTHING became this something. That is abiogenesis, a totally different theory and scientific endeavor.

So you just assume that matter always existed (how unscientific). To quote The Church Lady “How convenient!!!” So you just ignore the tough questions and laugh at other theories that try to address them.

Evolution as cosmology does not get off that easily. If you believe Evolution is what created the universe – ignoring the origin of matter does not mean you don’t have to deal with it. The first principle you have to deal with in cosmology is what created matter. Ignoring it does not mean you got a free pass. As a Darwinist you get three possible starting points: 1. something came from nothing. 2. matter always existed (despite the big band). 3. a miracle happened. All three starting points are illogical and unscientific. That means evolution as an explanation of the origin of the universe starts on a very faulty foundation - Orthodox Darwinists are people that don’t understand this.

Evolution takes that which was ALREADY there, and tries to explain how this came about from that.

So you don't worry your pretty little head about how the stuff that was already there got there in the first place.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution as cosmology does not get off that easily.

No, it doesn't. It may take electroshock therapy to cure you.

[Aric2000]

You are finally getting a clue, nice to see that.

[Dimensio]

If you believe Evolution is what created the universe

I'm not aware of any hypothesis of universe origins that involves alelle frequencies changing over time. Could you provide a source for this "evolution created the universe" hypothesis?

[Last Visible Dog]

Geez, the big bang and the beginning of life HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION!!

You are half correct. I was talking about evolution as a cosmological theory. I guess you don't understand cosmology. Evolution as biological theory does not address the big band or beginning of life - but is also does not address the origin of the universe and that is the subject of this thread (to quote you "Hello, Mcfly, anyone home")

If your position is evolution is not an explaination of the origin of the universe - why the HECK are you on this thread?

If you don't understand what we are talking about - please don't jump in the thread

[js1138]

So you don't worry your pretty little head about how the stuff that was already there got there in the first place.

You're beginning to get it.

[f.Christian]

The evocentric model of the Earth -- science ... assteroids --- maniacs !

[The Bard]

PThus to the creationist, while the creation story may not be essential to the salvation doctrine, if it is not true, then it leads to one questioning the entire salvation doctrine.

I had no idea thae Pope had such doubts.

I'm not Catholoc, although I know some who have also taken issue with the Pope on this area. I personally believe that the Pope is one of the key players in picking and choosing what doctrines fit the agenda.

[Dimensio]

If your position is evolution is not an explaination of the origin of the universe - why the HECK are you on this thread?

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but one of the reasons that I'm here is to correct anyone who ignorantly (or, after they've been told enough times to know better, dishonestly) asserts that evolution has anything to do with the origins of life or the universe or that it has any bearing on cosmology.

[f.Christian]

The evo hindu blind men descibing the Truth --- "what elephant" ?

[GOP_Thug_Mom]

Just for discussion (as that is what FR is for :) ), There is a scripture that says, "A day is as a thousand years to God, and a thousand years as a single day". This could help explain that in the beginning, before God created man, time was not necessary to record. Perhaps he did take 1000 or more days for each day...maybe to test the faith of His people?

Another question: you must believe that the Bible is to be taken literally in every single part. Do you believe and accept John 6:44 through 6:66??? Jesus lost many followers (John 6:66) because they refused to take Him literally.

[Ten Megaton Solution]

So you don't worry your pretty little head about how the stuff that was already there got there in the first place.

Perhaps, oh, just maybe, the theories about where the stuff came from in the first place isn't part of the Theory of Evolution?

I mean, when reading Romeo and Juliet, we don't require Shakespeare to go to the Night of Conception for the two principals, we sort of assume something of the sort happened and let the play proceed from there, secure in the knowledge that a theory exists to cover the presences of R and J without the gritty details.

For Evolution, we asusme that matter exists to interact with itself, without worrying our heads too much about where it came from, for the purposes of that theory, anyway. Evolution is a theory about how the organization of matter changes, it is not a theory about where the stuff came from.

[Aric2000]

Evolution,NEVER asks the question, because that question is not answerable through evolution.

There are totally different scientific endeavors that are trying to find those answers.

Evolution has a enough on it's plate already, without delving into those questions that are not necessary to the basic theory anyway.

[Last Visible Dog]

Among the clueless, you are truly supreme. I repeat (not for you, but for the lurkers), creationism is *not* a scientific theory. Read my tagline.

My point was evolution as cosmology does *not* fit your personal definition of a scientific theory.

If insults were intellectual statements – you would be an intellectual giant among men. Notice the only support you can provide for your position is to insult me – and you have the elephant-sized balls to attempt to insult my intelligence.