Theistic Evolution

[AV1611VET]

Your vivid imagination is noted. Enjoy your eggs.

Nothing beats a Big Breakfast at McDonald's or a Sunshine Skillet at Bob Evans.

Them eggs is munchaliciouscrumptalectable!

 

[TLK Valentine]

Nothing beats a Big Breakfast at McDonald's or a Sunshine Skillet at Bob Evans.

Them eggs is munchaliciouscrumptalectable!

I'm pretty sure what they serve at McDonald's (or any other fast food place) only loosely fits the definition of "eggs."

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm pretty sure what they serve at McDonald's (or any other fast food place) only loosely fits the definition of "eggs."

-- Let's not go there, eh?

 

[TLK Valentine]

-- Let's not go there, eh?

Indeed -- my approach to fast food is not unlike your approach to theology... best not to think too hard on it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I would certainly hope so.

They created the link in the first place.

The problem is that you reject science, so why do you even think that thalidomide causes birth defects to begin with?

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem is that you reject science,

Really?

Since when?

 

[Loudmouth]

Really?

Since when?

Since you told it to take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since you told it to take a hike.

I'm sorry you can't understand my position then.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm sorry you can't understand my position then.

I understand it just fine. You reject science. You have said so yourself.

 

[AV1611VET]

I understand it just fine. You reject science. You have said so yourself.

All science?

 

[Loudmouth]

All science?

Yes, all science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, all science.

I have a feeling you're the only one here who believes this.

I could be wrong though.

Just a gut feeling.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have a feeling you're the only one here who believes this.

You rejected all of science when you told it to take a hike.

 

[PsychoSarah]

All science?

You can't selectively reject "some science" any more than you can reject peanut butter, but also accept peanut butter. Science is a process, and it is done the same way with every topic it is used to study. If you think it doesn't work with one aspect that it studies, there is no flaw you can see with it that won't indicate that it doesn't work with all that it studies. You are attempting to have your cake, and also not have your cake.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can't selectively reject "some science" any more than you can reject peanut butter, but also accept peanut butter. Science is a process, and it is done the same way with every topic it is used to study. If you think it doesn't work with one aspect that it studies, there is no flaw you can see with it that won't indicate that it doesn't work with all that it studies. You are attempting to have your cake, and also not have your cake.

Do you agree will all of science?

If so, do you agree with Phlogiston theory?

You say science is a process ... okay ... do you agree with the rigged vote that demoted Pluto?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Do you agree will all of science?

If so, do you agree with Phlogiston theory?

You say science is a process ... okay ... do you agree with the rigged vote that demoted Pluto?

-_- not agreeing with a theory is not the same as saying that science cannot touch a subject at all. There are subjects science doesn't cover, but in the realm of the measurable and observable, if something that has those two qualities cannot be evaluated scientifically, it compromises the entire system.

on an unrelated note, is this the chant you use to practice your unholy thread necromancy?

 

[AV1611VET]

There are subjects science doesn't cover, but in the realm of the measurable and observable, if something that has those two qualities cannot be evaluated scientifically, it compromises the entire system.

It's this simple:

If science agrees with the Bible, I agree with science.

If science disagrees with the Bible, science can take a hike.

I can't make it any plainer, and if you think that I'm saying I disagree with all of science, then you're wrong.

on an unrelated note, is this the chant you use to practice your unholy thread necromancy?

I don't believe threads die.

I believe they go dormant -- like a volcano.

If you want to believe they die, that's your prerogative; but don't expect me to accept the charge of "necromancy."

I find it ... ironic to see someone quote something someone said 150 years ago, then arc & spark when someone quotes something someone said 150 days ago.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You rejected all of science when you told it to take a hike.

But then he forgets that when he finds a way to use it for his own purposes... not unlike how he treats the Bible, and, one would suspect, God.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It's this simple:

If science agrees with the Bible, I agree with science.

If science disagrees with the Bible, science can take a hike.

I can't make it any plainer, and if you think that I'm saying I disagree with all of science, then you're wrong.
I don't believe threads die.

I believe they go dormant -- like a volcano.

If you want to believe they die, that's your prerogative; but don't expect me to accept the charge of "necromancy."

I find it ... ironic to see someone quote something someone said 150 years ago, then arc & spark when someone quotes something someone said 150 days ago.

You know I bring up your thread revival in jest. And you have to admit, that little poem is pretty darn funny and creative.

I do find it interesting that you make your motto "science can take a hike" and then go and say you do support some science.

I know, the thread revival chant can be your new motto.
"Oh forgotten thread
lost to the ages
Arise and return
to the frontmost pages!"

 

[AV1611VET]

You know I bring up your thread revival in jest.

Yes, I figured that.

And you have to admit, that little poem is pretty darn funny and creative.

Yes ... I admit ... it gave me a chuckle!

I do find it interesting that you make your motto "science can take a hike" and then go and say you do support some science.

I've always claimed I support 95% of what science concludes.

Here's an example from years ago.