Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[Larniavc]

Enlil is my favorite. He wanted to destroy the humans because they were making too much noise. There are alot of loud cars, motorcycles and loud music being played that I wish there was a way too destroy those objects (without harming the humans who owns them ).

Enki was the was one who saved humanity from Enil and taught them all kinds of interesting things. He was also the god of the ‘water of life’. Which never not makes me snort in adolescent laughter.

Funny how you like Enil and I like Enki when Enlil is associated with authority and judgment and Enki is the god of water, wisdom, creative energy, compassion and cleverness.

 

[Larniavc]

The theory of evolution makes God out to be a liar.

But to be fair so does your extra biblical (version KJV1611) idea that God tidies up the evidence the Noachian Flood left.

 

[AV1611VET]

But to be fair so does your extra biblical (version KJV1611) idea that God tidies up the evidence the Noachian Flood left.

Let's see it then.

If He left it behind, let's see it.

Which is more "extra Biblical":

1. No evidence due to divine clean-up?
2. No Flood due to no evidence?

Think about it ...

... the earth is one big ball of muck and mud, and a dove brings back an olive leaf???

How would you reconcile the two, without filling in the blanks?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Let's see it then.

If He left it behind, let's see it.

Which is more "extra Biblical":

1. No evidence due to divine clean-up?
2. No Flood due to no evidence?

Think about it ...

... the earth is one big ball of muck and mud, and a dove brings back an olive leaf???

How would you reconcile the two, without filling in the blanks?

They're pretty irreconcilable. BUT only if you're approaching it from the black and white mindset that 'the Flood didn't happen' or 'the Flood did happen'.

Now as an allegory on other hand...

 

[AV1611VET]

Now as an allegory on other hand...

So you're saying there was no real flood?

LOL -- and I'm the one being extra Biblical?

If I'm adding to the Scriptures, what are you taking out?

 

[BCP1928]

So you're saying there was no real flood?

LOL -- and I'm the one being extra Biblical?

If I'm adding to the Scriptures, what are you taking out?

Nothing, if there was not a real flood in there to begin with.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So you're saying there was no real flood?

LOL -- and I'm the one being extra Biblical?

If I'm adding to the Scriptures, what are you taking out?

Taking away any problems that are created when you take the Flood as 100% literal fact. The spirit of the Bible is kept intact: God's power to correct and punish but also to save and redeem, while the problems of the letter are removed.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

You DO know that Catholics aren’t required to believe as you do, correct?

As long as a Catholic believes God is the Prime Mover and Architect of life on Earth, how it came about is up to the believing individual.

 

[AV1611VET]

Taking away any problems that are created when you take the Flood as 100% literal fact. The spirit of the Bible is kept intact: God's power to correct and punish but also to save and redeem, while the problems of the letter are removed.

Wow.

You feel you have to remove Noah and the Flood in order to substitute it with your own made-up interpretation?

You can't have both?

 

[Hvizsgyak]

And then you, Hvisgyak (which sounds like me when I blow my nose) et al would run the same spiel again about them not getting the right tools for the job either.

Close, it means whistle in Old Slavonic from what I'm told.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Wow.

You feel you have to remove Noah and the Flood in order to substitute it with your own made-up interpretation?

You can't have both?

It's not 'my own made up interpretation' though. It's pretty much the standard view of the Noahic Flood in Christian theology outside of people like you.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

That's not the science we're talking about. We're specifically talking about your claim that scientists, astronomers specifically, studying the stars and saying they're millions of light years away is linked to the liberal media. And we can even lump the theory of evolution into that mess too since that's what started this whole thing in the first place.

Stay on topic, please.

Yes, but the theory of evolution was the big thing (but the same as Gender Studies today) back 150 some years ago pushing the same stuff and here we are today still debating major parts of it. How many souls have been lost to it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And then you, Hvisgyak (which sounds like me when I blow my nose) et al would run the same spiel again about them not getting the right tools for the job either.

Close, it means whistle in Old Slavonic from what I'm told.

Interesting but not something I can find to say if it's right or not, so I'm still saying it sounds like me blowing my nose.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, but the theory of evolution was the big thing (but the same as Gender Studies today) back 150 some years ago pushing the same stuff and here we are today still debating major parts of it. How many souls have been lost to it?

Your interpretation of history is just as bad as your interpretation of science so let's take a step back again to my original question: in what way at all does the 'liberal media' have anything to do with the millions of light years that astronomers can see, let along the theory of evolution being actual science?

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Meteorologists make the same kind of measurements of the temperature, winds, moisture of the atmosphere from satelites in orbit.

And that is why they give the weather in % chances. Science should do the same, "there is a 30% chance that this is a species that was the connection between these other to species". It just sounds more professional.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And that is why they give the weather in % chances. Science should do the same, "there is a 30% chance that this is a species that was the connection between these other to species". It just sounds more professional.

Which is why science doesn't say anything in a definitive manner. If you actually look at the scientific literature around anything, especially when it comes to evolution, it's always speculative; 'maybe', 'might have', 'possibly been', 'evidence suggests'.

If you actually took the time to look and learn, you would see that you are arguing from a strawman position; you are arguing from nothing.

 

[Hans Blaster]

W

And that is why they give the weather in % chances. Science should do the same, "there is a 30% chance that this is a species that was the connection between these other to species". It just sounds more professional.

what do you think error bars are?

 

[Hvizsgyak]

I actually thought that was a good comeback .

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is why science doesn't say anything in a definitive manner.

I'm getting the impression that one can say anything on a science final and get away with it.

That's probably why so many mistakes are made.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Which is why science doesn't say anything in a definitive manner. If you actually look at the scientific literature around anything, especially when it comes to evolution, it's always speculative; 'maybe', 'might have', 'possibly been', 'evidence suggests'.

If you actually took the time to look and learn, you would see that you are arguing from a strawman position; you are arguing from nothing.

So, since it is so speculative, why can't one not get behind the science fully or even not believe it?