Questions for "Evolutionists" part 3

I stumbled upon a question on Yahoo Answers today, its related to a bit of confusion creationists have with evolution. The same sort of confusion you can see in my original questions for "evolutionists" post.

Soldier for Salvation asks "Why do evolutionists always try to separate the Big Bang from their other ideas?"

Where to start, as always I object to the term evolutionist, like Darwinist, its used to discredit people who accept evolution. Are you a gravitationist? No, because The Theory of Gravity is not a belief system, or a political system, or an ideology, or what somebody does, etc. It's a scientific theory explaining why matter is attracted to other matter.

Somebody who studies evolution is a biologist. They study the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, because it explains the diversity of life on Earth and how that life is related to each other.

Using the word evolutionist, is a cheap shot. But then, being in the position they're in they've got little else. Anyway moving on.

Whenever someone mentions the Big Bang, or anything occuring anywhere in the universe besides here on Earth when they challenge Evolutionism, Evolutionists always roundly tell that person that evolution only deals with things here on Earth. Why is this?

It's because you're getting the terms mixed up. Evolution was a word before Charles Darwin came along. There's the original meaning of it in English which Collins defines as:

Evolution "a process of gradual development in a particular situation or thing over a period of time."

And in biology nowadays it is short for the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, and explains the origin of species - it doesn't explain the beginning of the universe, or how life started, it deals with how life evolves.

When an astronomer uses the term stellar evolution, or planetary formation or whatever, and not all scientists do use the word evolution in this context, they're referring to "a process of gradual development in a particular situation or thing over a period of time" they're not referring to the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. They're talking about how the universe is aging, or developing. Not how stars are reproducing, undergoing mutations and how nature is selecting them - that would be silly.

Are you clear on that?

If you study astronomy you'll see the world "evolution" mentioned a LOT. there's talk of steller evolution, evolution of planets, evolution of galaxies, and many other mentions of it.

So how can you do this, Evolutionists?

/facepalm. Again two definitions, read above. One refers to change over time. A galaxy evolving, is just how it changes over time, not how or why it is, just that it is, or a person evolves from a child into an adult, it is used the same in this context as aging or growing up.

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection explains why and how species change from one thing into another.

One is a word describing change over time, and one is a scientific theory explaining how and why species evolve into other species.

It is rather comical watching creationists try and argue against Darwin, and Evolution by Natural Selection and seeing them extending that argument to the word evolution in general, I guess the city of London hasn't been evolving over the last 2000 years, because Darwin is wrong and things can't evolve!

2 comments

Comment from: ellisdanby [Visitor]
ellisdanby

Lets examine the "corrections" that were posited to "Soldier for Salvation",

"Where to start, as always I object to the term evolutionist, like Darwinist, its used to discredit people who accept evolution. Are you a gravitationist? No, because The Theory of Gravity is not a belief system, or a political system, or an ideology, or what somebody does, etc. It's a scientific theory explaining why matter is attracted to other matter."

Really? And what IS this theory explaining why matter is attracted to other matter"? In fact, while there is a Law of Gravity and in harmony with repeatable science it can be expressed in hard, mathematical terms, yet Gravity itself remains a mystery. Notice, too, how believers in evolutionism will constantly blunder in seeking to parallel Natural Selection to hard science concepts as Gravity. Tell us: does gravity operate on Venus and Jupiter? Yes. Now does "Natural
Selection" operate on Venus and Jupiter? No. In fact, Natural Selection is an antiquated Victorian concept and an embarrassment to persons of scientific mindset.

"Somebody who studies evolution is a biologist."

No. Someone who studies evolution is a true believer.

21st August 2009 @ 03:17
Comment from: Ishmael [Visitor]
Ishmael
5 stars

Paul,

I really appreciate how you patiently (as well as with great clarity)explain things to creationists who clearly try your patience. I have not seen you flame anyone of them. You come across as caring teacher who simply wants people to get the facts. Ironically, you come across more "christian" than many of them.

Finally, you really should think about being a teacher if you aren't. You certainly have the skill sets and talent to be one.

4th October 2010 @ 17:03


Form is loading...