[_ Old Earth _] Evolutionism and Evolution; some essential differences

[calvin]

calvin here.
Say, are you an Ozzie?
I see your point and concede that you might very well be correct.
Even just naming kinds could be a bit of a tight squeeze though.
How many different kinds are there?
and remember that Adam was not created at the beginning of the day, maybe more like late afternoon. That wouldn't leave Adam much time to name all that was brought before him., even if they all came on the same bus.

 

[Cygnus]

calvin here.
Say, are you an Ozzie?
I see your point and concede that you might very well be correct.
Even just naming kinds could be a bit of a tight squeeze though.
How many different kinds are there?
and remember that Adam was not created at the beginning of the day, maybe more like late afternoon. That wouldn't leave Adam much time to name all that was brought before him., even if they all came on the same bus.

Considering I wasn't there I really can't say how Adam named the animals.
John Woodmoraoppe in his feasibility book mentioned apps. 16,000 animal kind pairs on the ark.....which was about 8,000 different kinds.
Genesis says....The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. I don't think that brief list may have include all of the 8,000 different kinds.

Am I an Ozzie? No.

 

[Barbarian]

Considering I wasn't there I really can't say how Adam named the animals.
John Woodmoraoppe in his feasibility book mentioned apps. 16,000 animal kind pairs on the ark.....which was about 8,000 different kinds.

I asked Woodmorappe about that (Woodmorappe is not his real name) and he told me that he thought new species, genera, and families of organisms evolve, but it stops there.

That would put monkeys, apes, and humans in the same "kind." You sure you want to endorse that?

BTW, consider how busy 8 people would have been on an Ark feeding, watering, and cleaning the cages of well over 100,000 animals on the Ark (seven pairs for each clean kind, remember)

If they were working 16-hour shifts, they'd have to feed, water, and clean up after about 781 animals per hour, or about 13 per minute. With no lunch break or toilet breaks.

Does that suggest something to you?

And since most of the animals were below the waterline, they'd have to carry waste up stairs in order to dispose of it.

It looks pretty hopeless, doesn't it? Some creationists were thinking about actually building an Ark and launching it for a year to make their point. Then they started thinking about the logistics...

 

[Cygnus]

I asked Woodmorappe about that (Woodmorappe is not his real name) and he told me that he thought new species, genera, and families of organisms evolve, but it stops there.

That would put monkeys, apes, and humans in the same "kind." You sure you want to endorse that?

BTW, consider how busy 8 people would have been on an Ark feeding, watering, and cleaning the cages of well over 100,000 animals on the Ark (seven pairs for each clean kind, remember)

If they were working 16-hour shifts, they'd have to feed, water, and clean up after about 781 animals per hour, or about 13 per minute. With no lunch break or toilet breaks.

Does that suggest something to you?

And since most of the animals were below the waterline, they'd have to carry waste up stairs in order to dispose of it.

It looks pretty hopeless, doesn't it? Some creationists were thinking about actually building an Ark and launching it for a year to make their point. Then they started thinking about the logistics...

Barbarian, please feel to repost your last post when you can actually back it up with some sort of facts.
First...100,000 animals....That number seems to have come from some sort of cut and paste web site. That alone null and voids your remaining post.

So, as long as you are allowed to make up facts...so can I. My ark had a moon pool. It helped for stability....and the below water level waste was thrown not it. problem solved.

Barbarian....you really need to do better

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, please feel to repost your last post when you can actually back it up with some sort of facts.

I'm just telling you what Woodmorappe told me. He thinks evolution works up to the level of "family." As I said, that idea would put monkeys, apes, and humans in the same "kind."

First...100,000 animals....That number seems to have come from some sort of cut and paste web site.

Nope. And 100,000 is my estimate, a conservative one. Woodmorappe suggested 16,000 kinds. Let's say as many as half of them are "unclean." That means 8,000 times 14 plus 8,000 times one pair. So 128,000 animals.

So, as long as you are allowed to make up facts...so can I. My ark had a moon pool.

Sorry, that won't work. A moon pool has the same water level as the level on the outside of the vessel. So Noah and his family would still have to climb stairs to get to the pool. And of course, much of the waste would float and contaminate the interior of the Ark. If on the other hand, if the pool was in a pressurized chamber below sea level, then as soon as someone opened the chamber, water would rush in and sink the Ark.

Instead of solving a problem, your new idea just caused a host of new ones.

 

[calvin]

Am I an Ozzie? No.

calvin here
Ohh Okay it was just the way you named snakes, because that is just what they are called up here in OZ
Talking about the Ark's passenger list, there would have been a lot of food required too...unless the Lord put them all to sleep......problem solved not an impossible amount of food needed and no waste bucket brigade, they just had to hang over the sides throwing up burley.

 

[Cygnus]

calvin here
Ohh Okay it was just the way you named snakes, because that is just what they are called up here in OZ
Talking about the Ark's passenger list, there would have been a lot of food required too...unless the Lord put them all to sleep......problem solved not an impossible amount of food needed and no waste bucket brigade, they just had to hang over the sides throwing up burley.

I don't have the info wth me as I'm currently in the middle of the Utah desert...but I once showed how 1/2 the ark could have been used for storing food.
If you can check out this book

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

The Creationist-invented ideology of evolutionism is very different from evolution. To help the discussion, here are a few differences:

Evolutionism:
Evolutionism is a random process.
Evolutionism about the origin of life.
Evolutionism says individuals evolve.
Evolutionism says that if there are humans, there shouldn’t be any apes left.
Evolutionism says organisms try to adapt.
Evolutionism has no evidence.
Many scientists doubt evolutionism.
Evolutionism leads to immoral behavior.
Evolutionism says scientists should want humans to have lots of mutations.
Evolutionism is contrary to the Bible

Evolution
Evolution is a non-random process.
Evolution is not about the origin of life.
Populations evolve, not individuals.
Apes and humans have a common ancestor. Humans did not evolve from apes living today.
Adaptation are happen through random mutation and natural selection.
There are many, many different sources of evidence for evolution.
The vast majority of scientists accept evolution.
Evolution does not say anything about morals or ethics.
More mutations will not make evolution go faster. A high rate of mutations is generally harmful.
Evolution is consistent with the Bible.

I know this is a little late to bring back the topic of evolution verses evolutionism. But bare with me, I think it here is merrit in the word evolutionism. Not too long ago I opened a magizine (Discover magizine I think) and it had an article about how we evolved from water creatures to land creatures. The study of Evolution is an umbrella of evolution related theories. From where our origins came from, theories that are rational in origin not evidance in origin, theories that go towards society and psychology instead of biology (which by your discription evolution is strictly a biology related term). If evolution is the theory of biological changes to a population. Evolutionism is everything else in the umbrella of evolution theories. It has become a rampant umbrella theory to cut and paste into any other theory.

For a comparison, consider Newton's laws of physics. Those laws have a very select range of application. They aren't used in biology, in social developement, in psychology, or in navigation. They apply to physics and physics only. Where as evolution is not just biology, it's Astrophysics (how stars and planets evolved); it's psychology and social development(survival reasons for developing love and fear, having a family instead of leaving the children after they are born and almost any other attribute of how people act); it's validated science fiction until it's proven wrong (numerous explainations for where we come from why we have the attributes we do with little to no evidance to back it up but still be published and held as valid.

The aspects of evolution that has merrit (if there are) are swamped by bogus ideas, and ideas that just inserted evolve into it somewhere. Therefore I'd consider evolutionism a valid term.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Seems like a good fit......
evolutionism

Also found in: Thesaurus, Wikipedia.
Related to evolutionism: Cultural evolutionism, Social evolutionism
ev·o·lu·tion·ism
(ĕv′ə-lo͞o′shə-nĭz′əm, ē′və-)
n.
1. A theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin.
2. Advocacy of or belief in biological evolution.

I know this is a little late to bring back the topic of evolution verses evolutionism. But bare with me, I think it here is merrit in the word evolutionism. Not too long ago I opened a magizine (Discover magizine I think) and it had an article about how we evolved from water creatures to land creatures. The study of Evolution is an umbrella of evolution related theories. From where our origins came from, theories that are rational in origin not evidance in origin, theories that go towards society and psychology instead of biology (which by your discription evolution is strictly a biology related term). If evolution is the theory of biological changes to a population. Evolutionism is everything else in the umbrella of evolution theories. It has become a rampant umbrella theory to cut and paste into any other theory.

For a comparison, consider Newton's laws of physics. Those laws have a very select range of application. They aren't used in biology, in social developement, in psychology, or in navigation. They apply to physics and physics only. Where as evolution is not just biology, it's Astrophysics (how stars and planets evolved); it's psychology and social development(survival reasons for developing love and fear, having a family instead of leaving the children after they are born and almost any other attribute of how people act); it's validated science fiction until it's proven wrong (numerous explainations for where we come from why we have the attributes we do with little to no evidance to back it up but still be published and held as valid.

The aspects of evolution that has merrit (if there are) are swamped by bogus ideas, and ideas that just inserted evolve into it somewhere. Therefore I'd consider evolutionism a valid term.

 

[Barbarian]

Evolutionism is everything else in the umbrella of evolution theories. It has become a rampant umbrella theory to cut and paste into any other theory.

I should have put that in my comparison. Evolutionary theory is about the way allele frequencies in a population change over time. In the creationist doctrine of "evolutionism", it's about the big bang, and the origin of life, and the way the Earth formed, and so on.

Point well made. I'll make a correction.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

I should have put that in my comparison. Evolutionary theory is about the way allele frequencies in a population change over time. In the creationist doctrine of "evolutionism", it's about the big bang, and the origin of life, and the way the Earth formed, and so on.

Point well made. I'll make a correction.

It has merrit outside of creationism reasoning. Evolution has become a mainstream idea and has been cut and paste into too many theories that are outside it's scope of understanding.

Hence "evolutionism" makes sense as a term.

 

[civilwarbuff]

It has merrit outside of creationism reasoning. Evolution has become a mainstream idea and has been cut and paste into too many theories that are outside it's scope of understanding.

Hence "evolutionism" makes sense as a term.

The term evolutionist/evolutionism should be seen in the same vein as 'physician' describing many facets of belief and practice under one term without abscribing any particular belief or practice to an individual.

 

[Barbarian]

It has merrit outside of creationism reasoning. Evolution has become a mainstream idea and has been cut and paste into too many theories that are outside it's scope of understanding.

Hence "evolutionism" makes sense as a term.

When astronomers speak of "stellar evolution", they are not speaking of anything remotely like a change in allele frequency. Personally, I wish we had kept Darwin's preferred term "descent with modification." "Evolution" in the general sense, means "gradual change." Hence, it's another of those terms often used by some to conflate meanings where that should not be.

There were certainly those who tried to take Darwin's insight and apply it where it did not work. "Social Darwinism" is an example. Racists tried to show a "scala natura" of humans in order of fitness, something completely contrary to Darwinian theory, which overturned the old idea of a scale of organisms.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Sucks to believe in evolutionism, doesn't it?

 

[Barbarian]

The term evolutionist/evolutionism should be seen in the same vein as 'physician' describing many facets of belief and practice under one term without abscribing any particular belief or practice to an individual.

We're discussing it in the most commonly used form, that of the many,many misconceptions that creationists have about evolution.

 

[civilwarbuff]

We're discussing it in the most commonly used form, that of the many,many misconceptions that creationists have about evolution.

Then evolutionism is absolutely the correct word.......sucks that you don't like it, huh?

 

[Barbarian]

Sucks to believe in evolutionism, doesn't it?

It certainly doesn't seem to make you very happy. That's another difference I didn't mention. Creationists "believe in" evolutionism. Scientists accept evolutionary theory is correct.

Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory, and "evolutionism" is a creationist doctrine.

There's a way out for you. Just recognize that the belief in "evolutionism" is wrong. You don't have to accept evolutionary theory, even if you recognize that "evolutionism" is false. It's not an either/or choice.

There are YE creationists who aren't ensnared in the error of "evolutionism", who still don't accept evolutionary theory. In spite of everything, I think you truly do want to know the truth. Why not do a little research on those YE creationists who reject the creationist doctrine of "evolutionism", but still don't accept evolutionary theory?

Then it wouldn't suck any more for you.

 

[civilwarbuff]

It certainly doesn't seem to make you very happy.

Since I don't believe in it.....back at'cha.....
Major plagerising here:
There's a way out for you. Just recognize that your belief in "evolutionism" is wrong. You don't have to accept evolutionary theory, even if you recognize that "evolutionism" is false. It's not an either/or choice. Then it wouldn't suck any more for you.
Just believe in God's word and you will be OK.

 

[Barbarian]

You don't have to accept evolutionary theory, even if you recognize that "evolutionism" is false. It's not an either/or choice. Then it wouldn't suck any more for you.
Just believe in God's word and you will be OK.

There ya go. Let go of "evolutionism." It's dragging you down. There are lots of creationists who don't need a strawman like evolutionism to reject evoltutionary theory.

 

[civilwarbuff]

There ya go. Let go of "evolutionism." It's dragging you down. There are lots of creationists who don't need a strawman like evolutionism to reject evoltutionary theory.

I am so glad to see you are accepting the word of God instead of all the evolutionism crap that has been floating around this forum.....I have high hopes for you....