How do creationists explain away flu/viral evolution?

Undesired Walrus · 13th September 2009, 04:23 PM

With Flu viruses evolving every year, how do creationists maintain their belief that evolution is a myth? Is it because we say that they 'mutate' rather than 'evolve'?

Does viral evolution work in the same way as animal evolution, with natural selection and all?

Cainkane1 · 13th September 2009, 04:31 PM

They call it adaption. Adaption to them is not evolution but something different altogether.

MysteryMammal · 13th September 2009, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

They call it adaption. Adaption to them is not evolution but something different altogether.

Something different altogether... that's exactly like evolution.

paximperium · 13th September 2009, 06:11 PM

The microevolution vs macroevolution nonsense

Denver · 13th September 2009, 06:14 PM

One distinction I've heard is regarding the starting point of evolution. Science says that's how life started and continues. Some creationists say that's not how it started, but that's how it continues.

paximperium · 13th September 2009, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by Denver

One distinction I've heard is regarding the starting point of evolution. Science says that's how life started and continues. Some creationists say that's not how it started, but that's how it continues.

Creationism is not one catch all, all encompassing group. There are a huge variation of Creationists.

They range from Fundamentalist Bible Literalism Young Earth Creationism to Old Earth Creationism(which is basically Intelligent Design). Some Creationist accept evolution but believe it is guided by god while others believe that it is contradictory and impossible.

Wolfman · 13th September 2009, 08:14 PM

There are two different arguments that can be used.

One, as mentioned, is micro vs. macro evolution. I don't really know of many creationists who deny micro evolution...the idea that a particular species can adapt or change. What they deny is macro evolution, where one species changes so much that it becomes an entirely different species from the original. Its the difference between having a common ancestor for two different breeds of dog (which no creationists deny, so far as I'm aware); and having a common ancestor for a cat and a dog (which pretty much all creationists would deny).

The other way creationists can deal with this is simply that the new flu strains are appearing because God created them...not because of any kind of evolution. I've heard lots of Christians claiming that AIDS was created by God, for example (to punish homosexuality, of course).

Skeptic Ginger · 13th September 2009, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by paximperium

Creationism is not one catch all, all encompassing group. There are a huge variation of Creationists....
....

...with all sorts of apologies explaining why their beliefs are logical and evolution evidence is irrelevant.

arthwollipot · 13th September 2009, 09:27 PM

But it's still the flu virus. The flu virus has never been observed to give birth to a cat.

!Kaggen · 14th September 2009, 01:01 AM

Anybody read this book on the subject of virus evolution?
"Virolution"
http://www.google.co.za/search?hl=en...n&start=0&sa=N

browsed through it yesterday and not sure what to make of it.
Looks interesting though.

Cuddles · 14th September 2009, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by Denver

One distinction I've heard is regarding the starting point of evolution. Science says that's how life started and continues.

No it doesn't. In fact, that's exactly the misinterpretation of evolutionary science that creationists love to promote. Evolution says nothing at all about how life started, it simply looks at how life changed once it already existed. The really silly thing is that evolution is actually entirely compatible with creationism - all you need to do is say that god created life and let it run from there. The fact that a lot of creationists still argue with reality despite this huge out provided for them says an awful lot about their mentality.

Paulhoff · 14th September 2009, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Cuddles

No it doesn't. In fact, that's exactly the misinterpretation of evolutionary science that creationists love to promote. Evolution says nothing at all about how life started, it simply looks at how life changed once it already existed. The really silly thing is that evolution is actually entirely compatible with creationism - all you need to do is say that god created life and let it run from there. The fact that a lot of creationists still argue with reality despite this huge out provided for them says an awful lot about their mentality.

These people only what to come from a so-called god, not an ape, that is the real bottom-line to their thinking.

Paul

But they act worse then apes all the time.

Dave Rogers · 14th September 2009, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by Wolfman

One, as mentioned, is micro vs. macro evolution. I don't really know of many creationists who deny micro evolution...the idea that a particular species can adapt or change. What they deny is macro evolution, where one species changes so much that it becomes an entirely different species from the original.

Ah, I see the distinction now. I always thought the definitions were more along the lines that microevolution was the bits of evolutionary theory that even a pathological liar knows he can't get away with denying, whereas macroevolution was the bits that aren't so widely known that you can't fool some of the people some of the time. Thanks for clearing that up.

Dave

paximperium · 14th September 2009, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Ah, I see the distinction now. I always thought the definitions were more along the lines that microevolution was the bits of evolutionary theory that even a pathological liar knows he can't get away with denying, whereas macroevolution was the bits that aren't so widely known that you can't fool some of the people some of the time. Thanks for clearing that up.

Bingo. Here's a gold star.

Beerina · 14th September 2009, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Anybody read this book on the subject of virus evolution?
"Virolution"
http://www.google.co.za/search?hl=en...n&start=0&sa=N

Great. As if there's a precedence for making up words that have to do with virii.

Raze · 14th September 2009, 12:16 PM

You can ask them how many flu vaccines came from their theory of life... that's about all you can do.

blutoski · 14th September 2009, 12:24 PM

Yes, I've noticed that most creationists consider evolution to be a change in 'kinds'. They're not terribly impressed with a virus 'evolving' into a slightly different virus.

What they're looking for is convincing evidence (they can set the goalpoasts wherever they like for the meaning of 'convincing') of the evolutionary claim that a microbial ancestor evolved into - say - fish, dinosaurs, and ultimately birds.

godless dave · 14th September 2009, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Great. As if there's a precedence for making up words that have to do with virii.

Like the word "virii" itself.

(The correct plural is "viruses", as there was no plural form of the word in Latin)

arthwollipot · 14th September 2009, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by godless dave

Like the word "virii" itself.

(The correct plural is "viruses", as there was no plural form of the word in Latin)

And even if it did take a Latin plural, it would be "viri" not "virii".
[/pedant]

Hindmost · 14th September 2009, 08:15 PM

I would think an intelligent designer would have skipped making the flu virus in the first place.

glenn

Kritikos · 14th September 2009, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

They call it adaption. Adaption to them is not evolution but something different altogether.

"Adaption"? Is that what you get when you put an adaptation up for adoption?

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

But it's still the flu virus. The flu virus has never been observed to give birth to a cat.

Oh, crap! You're right! Evolution is a crock!

Originally Posted by Hindmost

I would think an intelligent designer would have skipped making the flu virus in the first place.

Oh, crap! You're right! Creationism is a crock!

Mashuna · 15th September 2009, 03:59 AM

Originally Posted by Kritikos

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

They call it adaption. Adaption to them is not evolution but something different altogether.

"Adaption"? Is that what you get when you put an adaptation up for adoption?

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

But it's still the flu virus. The flu virus has never been observed to give birth to a cat.

Oh, crap! You're right! Evolution is a crock!

Originally Posted by Hindmost

I would think an intelligent designer would have skipped making the flu virus in the first place.

Oh, crap! You're right! Creationism is a crock!

So now you've discovered that both evolution and intelligent design are impossible, you will be forced to agree with my new theory. Stupid Design. The is a designer who guides the evolutionary process. Unfortuantely, it's a halfwit designer who keeps getting things wrong. Imagine a seven-year-old with an 500 piece airfix kit. The Stupid Designer is (metaphorically) covered in glue, modelling paint and surrounded by bits of broken plastic.

Mark6 · 15th September 2009, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by blutoski

Yes, I've noticed that most creationists consider evolution to be a change in 'kinds'. They're not terribly impressed with a virus 'evolving' into a slightly different virus.

What they're looking for is convincing evidence (they can set the goalpoasts wherever they like for the meaning of 'convincing') of the evolutionary claim that a microbial ancestor evolved into - say - fish, dinosaurs, and ultimately birds.

How about this: Canine sexually transmitted cancer

Dog evolving into single-celled parasite.

Kritikos · 15th September 2009, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by Mashuna

So now you've discovered that both evolution and intelligent design are impossible, you will be forced to agree with my new theory. Stupid Design. The is a designer who guides the evolutionary process. Unfortuantely, it's a halfwit designer who keeps getting things wrong. Imagine a seven-year-old with an 500 piece airfix kit. The Stupid Designer is (metaphorically) covered in glue, modelling paint and surrounded by bits of broken plastic.

Hmm. Sounds plausible, but why doesn't the Bible say, "And God saw everything that he had made, and God said, 'D'OH!!'"?

Denver · 15th September 2009, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by Cuddles

No it doesn't. In fact, that's exactly the misinterpretation of evolutionary science that creationists love to promote. Evolution says nothing at all about how life started, it simply looks at how life changed once it already existed. The really silly thing is that evolution is actually entirely compatible with creationism - all you need to do is say that god created life and let it run from there. The fact that a lot of creationists still argue with reality despite this huge out provided for them says an awful lot about their mentality.

It depends on how you use the word 'evolution'. It is also commonly used to discuss the evolution of, for example, the solar system. In that sense, the start of life here (assuming life started here) is valid to refer to as an evolution. And that is the sense in which I meant it. I think, in these kinds of discussions, the various meanings can shift around.

Cainkane1 · 15th September 2009, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by paximperium

Creationism is not one catch all, all encompassing group. There are a huge variation of Creationists.

They range from Fundamentalist Bible Literalism Young Earth Creationism to Old Earth Creationism(which is basically Intelligent Design). Some Creationist accept evolution but believe it is guided by god while others believe that it is contradictory and impossible.

Before I dropped religion altogether I was a so called "theistic evolutionist". However I was wrong. If the human body ar the body of any living creature had been intelligently designed it the creator would have done a better job and there would be genetic markers along the way. I was wrong and after a while my woo woo disappeared.

13th September 2009, 04:23 PM	#1
Undesired Walrus Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 7,139	How do creationists explain away flu/viral evolution? With Flu viruses evolving every year, how do creationists maintain their belief that evolution is a myth? Is it because we say that they 'mutate' rather than 'evolve'? Does viral evolution work in the same way as animal evolution, with natural selection and all?
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, Prime Minister of Britain, 1945

13th September 2009, 04:31 PM	#2
Cainkane1 Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The great American southeast Posts: 2,566	They call it adaption. Adaption to them is not evolution but something different altogether.
	__________________ If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.

13th September 2009, 06:11 PM	#4
paximperium Philosopher Join Date: May 2008 Location: Silicon Valley-Stuck between Google and Apple Posts: 7,800	The microevolution vs macroevolution nonsense
	__________________ "The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan "They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett

13th September 2009, 06:19 PM	#6
paximperium Philosopher Join Date: May 2008 Location: Silicon Valley-Stuck between Google and Apple Posts: 7,800	Originally Posted by Denver One distinction I've heard is regarding the starting point of evolution. Science says that's how life started and continues. Some creationists say that's not how it started, but that's how it continues. Creationism is not one catch all, all encompassing group. There are a huge variation of Creationists. They range from Fundamentalist Bible Literalism Young Earth Creationism to Old Earth Creationism(which is basically Intelligent Design). Some Creationist accept evolution but believe it is guided by god while others believe that it is contradictory and impossible.
	__________________ "The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan "They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett

13th September 2009, 08:14 PM	#7
Wolfman Chief Solipsistic Autosycophant Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Beijing, China Posts: 7,954	There are two different arguments that can be used. One, as mentioned, is micro vs. macro evolution. I don't really know of many creationists who deny micro evolution...the idea that a particular species can adapt or change. What they deny is macro evolution, where one species changes so much that it becomes an entirely different species from the original. Its the difference between having a common ancestor for two different breeds of dog (which no creationists deny, so far as I'm aware); and having a common ancestor for a cat and a dog (which pretty much all creationists would deny). The other way creationists can deal with this is simply that the new flu strains are appearing because God created them...not because of any kind of evolution. I've heard lots of Christians claiming that AIDS was created by God, for example (to punish homosexuality, of course).
	__________________ Click here to learn about a unique culture where the women are in charge, and there is no marriage. Learn more about the Mosuo, one of China's least known minorities. And click here to read my blog.

13th September 2009, 05:59 PM	#3
MysteryMammal Thinker Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: In the woods, scaring campers Posts: 245	Originally Posted by Cainkane1 They call it adaption. Adaption to them is not evolution but something different altogether. Something different altogether... that's exactly like evolution.

13th September 2009, 06:14 PM	#5
Denver Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 2,739	One distinction I've heard is regarding the starting point of evolution. Science says that's how life started and continues. Some creationists say that's not how it started, but that's how it continues.

13th September 2009, 09:22 PM	#8
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: headed back to that dark dark house in the dark dark woods Posts: 19,317	Originally Posted by paximperium Creationism is not one catch all, all encompassing group. There are a huge variation of Creationists.... .... ...with all sorts of apologies explaining why their beliefs are logical and evolution evidence is irrelevant.
	__________________ Sk'p' 'el (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Republic Party, in response.) (*Tired of the current Republican talking point of naming everything after Pelosi, Reid &/or Obama, I've decided to start adding Republican names to their fault fiascos.)

13th September 2009, 09:27 PM	#9
arthwollipot The Accidental Podcaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: On the other side of your screen. Posts: 28,320	But it's still the flu virus. The flu virus has never been observed to give birth to a cat.
	__________________ The Nonsense Podcast Episode 17: Coming Mid-February. We welcome Lexi Hameister into the world at 1830 on 29 January! What's an "arthwollipot"?

14th September 2009, 01:01 AM	#10
!Kaggen Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Home Posts: 1,182	Anybody read this book on the subject of virus evolution? "Virolution" http://www.google.co.za/search?hl=en...n&start=0&sa=N browsed through it yesterday and not sure what to make of it. Looks interesting though.
	__________________ the source

14th September 2009, 09:46 AM	#11
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 10,322	Originally Posted by Denver One distinction I've heard is regarding the starting point of evolution. Science says that's how life started and continues. No it doesn't. In fact, that's exactly the misinterpretation of evolutionary science that creationists love to promote. Evolution says nothing at all about how life started, it simply looks at how life changed once it already existed. The really silly thing is that evolution is actually entirely compatible with creationism - all you need to do is say that god created life and let it run from there. The fact that a lot of creationists still argue with reality despite this huge out provided for them says an awful lot about their mentality.
	__________________ This space not left unintentionally blank.

14th September 2009, 09:54 AM	#12
Paulhoff You can't expect perfection. Join Date: May 2005 Location: South Florida Posts: 8,366	Originally Posted by Cuddles No it doesn't. In fact, that's exactly the misinterpretation of evolutionary science that creationists love to promote. Evolution says nothing at all about how life started, it simply looks at how life changed once it already existed. The really silly thing is that evolution is actually entirely compatible with creationism - all you need to do is say that god created life and let it run from there. The fact that a lot of creationists still argue with reality despite this huge out provided for them says an awful lot about their mentality. These people only what to come from a so-called god, not an ape, that is the real bottom-line to their thinking. Paul But they act worse then apes all the time.
	__________________ "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given. Mine "Still looking for that honest person." besides you Randi Never in the history of humankind, have so many, known so little, about so much. Christianity, Years of fear. - mine I'm so old I remember when dirt came to life

14th September 2009, 10:03 AM	#13
Dave Rogers The Unbanned Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Notlob Posts: 8,013	Originally Posted by Wolfman One, as mentioned, is micro vs. macro evolution. I don't really know of many creationists who deny micro evolution...the idea that a particular species can adapt or change. What they deny is macro evolution, where one species changes so much that it becomes an entirely different species from the original. Ah, I see the distinction now. I always thought the definitions were more along the lines that microevolution was the bits of evolutionary theory that even a pathological liar knows he can't get away with denying, whereas macroevolution was the bits that aren't so widely known that you can't fool some of the people some of the time. Thanks for clearing that up. Dave
	__________________ "I guess for Truthers the great thing about Google is that it abolishes context automatically, thus saving your precious reserves of stupid for more important tasks." - Dr. Adequate GENERATION 6: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

14th September 2009, 10:09 AM	#14
paximperium Philosopher Join Date: May 2008 Location: Silicon Valley-Stuck between Google and Apple Posts: 7,800	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers Ah, I see the distinction now. I always thought the definitions were more along the lines that microevolution was the bits of evolutionary theory that even a pathological liar knows he can't get away with denying, whereas macroevolution was the bits that aren't so widely known that you can't fool some of the people some of the time. Thanks for clearing that up. Bingo. Here's a gold star.
	__________________ "The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan "They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett

14th September 2009, 12:13 PM	#15
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 14,373	Originally Posted by !Kaggen Anybody read this book on the subject of virus evolution? "Virolution" http://www.google.co.za/search?hl=en...n&start=0&sa=N Great. As if there's a precedence for making up words that have to do with virii.
	__________________ Reid Fleming, World's Toughest Milkman, in *A Day Like Any Other* The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

14th September 2009, 12:16 PM	#16
Raze Thinker Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 133	You can ask them how many flu vaccines came from their theory of life... that's about all you can do.
Raze Thinker Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 133

14th September 2009, 12:24 PM	#17
blutoski Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 4,409	Yes, I've noticed that most creationists consider evolution to be a change in 'kinds'. They're not terribly impressed with a virus 'evolving' into a slightly different virus. What they're looking for is convincing evidence (they can set the goalpoasts wherever they like for the meaning of 'convincing') of the evolutionary claim that a microbial ancestor evolved into - say - fish, dinosaurs, and ultimately birds.
blutoski Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 4,409	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

14th September 2009, 12:32 PM	#18
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 3,728	Originally Posted by Beerina Great. As if there's a precedence for making up words that have to do with virii. Like the word "virii" itself. (The correct plural is "viruses", as there was no plural form of the word in Latin)
	__________________ Genesis 9:3

14th September 2009, 07:57 PM	#19
arthwollipot The Accidental Podcaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: On the other side of your screen. Posts: 28,320	Originally Posted by godless dave Like the word "virii" itself. (The correct plural is "viruses", as there was no plural form of the word in Latin) And even if it did take a Latin plural, it would be "viri" not "virii". [/pedant]
	__________________ The Nonsense Podcast Episode 17: Coming Mid-February. We welcome Lexi Hameister into the world at 1830 on 29 January! What's an "arthwollipot"?

14th September 2009, 08:15 PM	#20
Hindmost Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Draco Tavern Posts: 2,666	I would think an intelligent designer would have skipped making the flu virus in the first place. glenn
	__________________ Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong. Carl Sagan

14th September 2009, 09:11 PM	#21
Kritikos Thinker Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cambridge, Mass. Posts: 126	Originally Posted by Cainkane1 They call it adaption. Adaption to them is not evolution but something different altogether. "Adaption"? Is that what you get when you put an adaptation up for adoption? Originally Posted by arthwollipot But it's still the flu virus. The flu virus has never been observed to give birth to a cat. Oh, crap! You're right! Evolution is a crock! Originally Posted by Hindmost I would think an intelligent designer would have skipped making the flu virus in the first place. Oh, crap! You're right! Creationism is a crock!

15th September 2009, 03:59 AM	#22
Mashuna Ovis ex Machina Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Welsh Wales Posts: 4,122	Originally Posted by Kritikos Originally Posted by Cainkane1 They call it adaption. Adaption to them is not evolution but something different altogether. "Adaption"? Is that what you get when you put an adaptation up for adoption? Originally Posted by arthwollipot But it's still the flu virus. The flu virus has never been observed to give birth to a cat. Oh, crap! You're right! Evolution is a crock! Originally Posted by Hindmost I would think an intelligent designer would have skipped making the flu virus in the first place. Oh, crap! You're right! Creationism is a crock! So now you've discovered that both evolution and intelligent design are impossible, you will be forced to agree with my new theory. Stupid Design. The is a designer who guides the evolutionary process. Unfortuantely, it's a halfwit designer who keeps getting things wrong. Imagine a seven-year-old with an 500 piece airfix kit. The Stupid Designer is (metaphorically) covered in glue, modelling paint and surrounded by bits of broken plastic.
	__________________ By the time I was 14 I was too smart for my own God. - Terry Pratchett Mashuna, you are the king of all awesomosity - Hokulele

15th September 2009, 05:59 AM	#23
Mark6 Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 718	Originally Posted by blutoski Yes, I've noticed that most creationists consider evolution to be a change in 'kinds'. They're not terribly impressed with a virus 'evolving' into a slightly different virus. What they're looking for is convincing evidence (they can set the goalpoasts wherever they like for the meaning of 'convincing') of the evolutionary claim that a microbial ancestor evolved into - say - fish, dinosaurs, and ultimately birds. How about this: Canine sexually transmitted cancer Dog evolving into single-celled parasite.
Mark6 Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 718	__________________ Looking for a man to put on a pedestal. E-mail: Medusa@Hades.gr

15th September 2009, 09:49 AM	#24
Kritikos Thinker Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cambridge, Mass. Posts: 126	Originally Posted by Mashuna So now you've discovered that both evolution and intelligent design are impossible, you will be forced to agree with my new theory. Stupid Design. The is a designer who guides the evolutionary process. Unfortuantely, it's a halfwit designer who keeps getting things wrong. Imagine a seven-year-old with an 500 piece airfix kit. The Stupid Designer is (metaphorically) covered in glue, modelling paint and surrounded by bits of broken plastic. Hmm. Sounds plausible, but why doesn't the Bible say, "And God saw everything that he had made, and God said, 'D'OH!!'"?

15th September 2009, 11:21 AM	#25
Denver Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 2,739	Originally Posted by Cuddles No it doesn't. In fact, that's exactly the misinterpretation of evolutionary science that creationists love to promote. Evolution says nothing at all about how life started, it simply looks at how life changed once it already existed. The really silly thing is that evolution is actually entirely compatible with creationism - all you need to do is say that god created life and let it run from there. The fact that a lot of creationists still argue with reality despite this huge out provided for them says an awful lot about their mentality. It depends on how you use the word 'evolution'. It is also commonly used to discuss the evolution of, for example, the solar system. In that sense, the start of life here (assuming life started here) is valid to refer to as an evolution. And that is the sense in which I meant it. I think, in these kinds of discussions, the various meanings can shift around.

15th September 2009, 12:24 PM	#26
Cainkane1 Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The great American southeast Posts: 2,566	Originally Posted by paximperium Creationism is not one catch all, all encompassing group. There are a huge variation of Creationists. They range from Fundamentalist Bible Literalism Young Earth Creationism to Old Earth Creationism(which is basically Intelligent Design). Some Creationist accept evolution but believe it is guided by god while others believe that it is contradictory and impossible. Before I dropped religion altogether I was a so called "theistic evolutionist". However I was wrong. If the human body ar the body of any living creature had been intelligently designed it the creator would have done a better job and there would be genetic markers along the way. I was wrong and after a while my woo woo disappeared.
	__________________ If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.