Darwinian Conservatism: How Darwinian science refutes the Left’s most sacred beliefs.

The American Thinker ^ | 23 July 2006 | Jamie Glazov and Larry Arnhart

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I don't blame you for dodging..."

I didn't dodge anything. I refused to get sucked in by an irrelevant question.

Hint: Adam never existed.

My point was correct; those who say that God made the world to APPEAR 15 billion years old but that it is actually only 6,000 years old believe in a lying trickster God.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

I am not sure what I (in post 432) did that was any worse than he did to me. I said the question was stupid; I did not say the poster was stupid.

Are we not able to say a question is dumb?

At any rate, I won't say it again.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Then you do not object the removal of cosmology from public courses of education. Seeing as you seem to want to disassociate the field from evolution when they are taught hand in hand."

They are not taught hand in hand. They have nothing to do with each other, at all. If the Big Bang theory were disproved tomorrow, the ToE would not be altered. In fact, the competing model (steady state) that the BB overturned was actually BETTER for evolution, in that it postulated a universe with no beginning. The BB puts a constraint on time for evolution, though that constraint is still extremely long. In either case though the earth would still be 4.6 billion years old.

[Dimensio]

Then you do not object the removal of cosmology from public courses of education

I have never advocated such a position.

Seeing as you seem to want to disassociate the field from evolution when they are taught hand in hand.

I have not observed that evolution has been taught "hand in hand" with cosmology. I am aware of no aspect of the theory of evolution that depends upon a theory regarding the cosmos being true nor am I aware of an aspect of cosmology that is dependent upon the theory of evolution.

It was accepted that cosmology was a major part in "evolution".

By whom and when? Please provide references.

[b_sharp]

"How old was Adam exactly one half second after he was created?"

A fictional character can be any age the author(s) deems appropriate.

However, according to the story Adam would have been .5 seconds old exactly .5 seconds after creation.

This is really irrelevant to the question of a universe created with the appearance of old age. Even if the 'true' age of the universe is ~6,000 - ~10,000 years old, it appears to all of science to be from 12 to 16 billion years old. Fossils are found in a chronological order dating from roughly ~600 million years ago, carefully sorted by phylum and class, complete with over 20 extinction events. If God created the evidence to appear the age we find it to be - old, questions need to be asked about his/her/its intentions.

Whether Adam was .5 second old, 25 years old, or 1000 years old .5 sec. after his creation, his existence left no physical evidence that can be included in the very physical evidence of old age under consideration.

[b_sharp]

"Another philosophical addendum for everyone here. Is God even necessary for said universe to have taken shape?"

No.

I have a better question: What is necessary for the existence of God?

[tallhappy]

Wow. You've evolved to the level of actually attempting sarcasm. My little primate is growing up.

[tallhappy]

How is correcting a false claim demonstrative of irrationality and fatanicism? ?

Your "correcting" (as you call it) was false). It was irrational and representative of non-iquiry.

[b_sharp]

"Amazing... I almost laughed."

I explained the absence of a link between Evolution and the start of the universe more than once. Why do you persist in this nonsensical idea?

It appears to me that you are labeling a mindset rather than the biological science of Evolution as 'evolution'. That is an incorrect use of the term 'evolution'.

The term evolution is not synonymous with atheism. The majority of atheists accept evolution but the concept of evolution as science spans the range of religious beliefs and nonreligious beliefs.

The study of universal origins is Cosmology. The study of Earthly life origins is Abiogenesis. The study of Earthly life's differentiation into discrete species is Evolution.

[Dimensio]

Your "correcting" (as you call it) was false). It was irrational and representative of non-iquiry.

In what way do you believe that I was mistaken?

[b_sharp]

"Amazing. Talkorigins describing the nature and origins of the early universe."

LOL. Did you even examine the page you linked to?

The link you presented was a list of creationist arguments and their refutations.

Talk Origins is a site dedicated to refuting the hundreds of creationist misapprehensions regarding biological evolution. Your claim that evolution includes the beginnings of the universe is one of those creationist canards refuted by the scientists at TalkOrigins. The existence of that refutation on T.O. does not in any way validate your version of Evolution. Quite the opposite.

[b_sharp]

"Here you go, one of the first definitions I web-searched,

"http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evoldef.htm

That is a creationist website. You have been told earlier in this thread that the only group to include Cosmology and Abiogenesis in evolution are creationists.

Even that site differentiated between 'common' usage of the term and 'scientific' usage of the term. When discussing the scientific evidence for Evolution we precisely use the scientific definition.

You are expanding the definition to include the BB and the origin of life to enable you to claim atheism as the base for evolution. You a dissembling.

[b_sharp]

Where in there does it include Cosmology and Abiogenesis in Evolution?

I remind you that this is taken from a creationist website.

Cosmology has never been included in Evolution. Abiogensis is not included in the SToE.

I posted a link to the 'Modern Synthesis' a number of post back. Why have you not pointed out the reference to the origin of life in that list of Evolutionary tenets?

[dmz]

Okly dokly. As long as you've got a reliable scientific source.
_____________

LOL. You can quote me on this. I just wrote in my notebook, admittedly while here at work, an article suggesting that there are 65 million reasons to believe in evolution.

It's in writing, therefore it is true.

[RunningWolf]

They yet again confirm what they deny

Julian Huxley as follows below, Sagan said essentially the same thing in different ways. That is is how the theories and their zealous adherents are connected. It is by the core beliefs and values of those whom become ideologues of the cult that they are connected.

"Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion. Darwin pointed out that no Supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any new form of life, there is no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution." —*Julian Huxley, "At Random, A Television Preview," in Evolution after Darwin, (1960) p. 41.

W.

[RunningWolf]

talk origins does not refute squat except in the mind of an evo cultist.

I know, I have read the website every time it is linked here.

Wolf

[LibertarianSchmoe]

What purpose is a Superior Being, if life doesn't require Him?

I find it interesting that you think a "Superior Being"'s purpose is to be required by life. So, it's not just the Sun and stars that revolve around us...

[Senator Bedfellow]

You should see it from the outside, the amusement value inherent in someone who dials in solely for the purpose of abusing those he perceives to be abusers, whose posts decry the supposed lack of substance without ever managing to post anything substantive himself.

I suppose you imagine that you're doing some service on these threads with your predictable routine - let me assure you that you are. Everyone needs a good laugh now and then, and it's good of you to provide that, so I really hope you won't let this meta-commentary slow you down. Carry on! :)

[PatrickHenry]

Soon ...

[PatrickHenry]

500