Evidence for macro-evolution

[AV1611VET]

I wouldn't know. I'm not the writer.

At least it's good when you admit that you're quote mining.

Would you like me to copy-and-paste the entire article?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Would you like me to copy-and-paste the entire article?

At the most, providing a link, since doing so would be inline with the forum's statement of purpose:

Remember to quote sources if applicable. When copying a portion of an article or informational piece, remember the copyright limits outlined by CF as well as the copyright stipulations of the article publisher.

 

[AV1611VET]

This person, that being me, totally rejects what I see as the hocus pocus explanation for not only life on this earth but also the whole of the cosmos.

So do I.

I'm not a scientist.

So I'm not obligated to refer to creatio ex nihilo as "hocus pocus".

Or "false" ... or "myth" ... or a "non-event" ... or "lacking evidence" ... or anything else negative.

Scientists created their own set of standards before they take something seriously enough.

Then call us Christians out when we don't accept those standards.

Science can take a hike.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So do I.

I'm not a scientist.

So I'm not obligated to refer to creatio ex nihilo as "hocus pocus".

Or "false" ... or "myth" ... or a "non-event" ... or "lacking evidence" ... or anything else negative.

Scientists created their own set of standards before they take something seriously enough.

Then call us Christians out when we don't accept their standards.

Science can take a hike.

Your persecution complex is showing again...

 

[Hans Blaster]

Would you even know what to look for?

First we find some nothing, then we look for something to happen. So far we don't have any "nothing".

 

[AV1611VET]

At the most, providing a link, since doing so would be inline with the forum's statement of purpose:

Will do:

They cannot know but pretend to know better than God. This smells like blind hubris.

Stephen Hawking was the most influential know-it-all. In his 1988 mega-bestseller A Brief History of Time, Hawking predicted that physicists would soon find an “ultimate theory” that would explain how our cosmos came into being. He compared this achievement to knowing “the mind of God.” This statement was ironic. Hawking, an atheist, wanted science to eliminate the need for a divine creator.

SOURCE

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Will do:

It just makes things a lot clearer. Good job.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your persecution complex is showing again...

Oh, sorry.

They call the Jews out as "ancient, goat herding, desert nomads".

But they conveniently leave out how those Jews got into the desert in the first place, don't they?

 

[AV1611VET]

First we find some nothing, then we look for something to happen. So far we don't have any "nothing".

Looks like you're SOL then.

* Short On Luck

 

[AV1611VET]

It just makes things a lot clearer. Good job.

I'm glad you're happy now.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Oh, sorry.

They call the Jews out as "ancient, goat herding, desert nomads".

But they conveniently leave out how those Jews got into the desert in the first place, don't they?

Again, your persecution complex is showing so much now.

Also, it's historians who would say that, not scientists. Though anyone who criticises the idea of a literal Bible is fair game for your 'SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE' commentary.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm glad you're happy now.

In light of the last thread that got shut down because the OP repeatedly refused to provide sources when asked, thought it best to bring it up in case the mods get... twitchy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Also, it's historians who would say that, not scientists.

So any scientist who says it is saying it off the record?

And this site must have a lot of historians then, eh?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So any scientist who says it is saying it off the record?

And this site must have a lot of historians then, eh?

Now we're getting a rewrite of Don Quixote where anyone who has commentary different to yours is a 'scientist' now.

 

[AV1611VET]

In light of the last thread that got shut down because the OP repeatedly refused to provide sources when asked, thought it best to bring it up in case the mods get... twitchy.

Thank you.

For the record, I copy-and-pasted the source into my Bible software for future reference.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now we're getting a rewrite of Don Quixote where anyone who has commentary different to yours is a 'scientist' now.

I'm not going to go back in this site and dig up the many non-historians that have used that phrase.

You said it was historians who would say that.

I say anyone can (and has) said it.

Maybe some historian originated it; but now it seems to be a favorite for many.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm not going to go back in this site and dig up the many non-historians that have used that phrase.

You said it was historians who would say that.

I say anyone can (and has) said it.

Maybe some historian originated it; but now it seems to be a favorite for many.

And?

 

[AV1611VET]

And?

And so I'll take any "persecution complex" remarks with a grain of salt.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And so I'll take any "persecution complex" remarks with a grain of salt.

But it is a classic example of a persecution complex.

But you do you.

 

[Astrid]

The theory of evolution is biology. Nothing about physics, chemistry, geology, etc., would be compromised in the slightest if it was "disproven".

Are you so sure? Think about it.