Evolution is just a theory!

[DogmaHunter]

Evolution is disquieting and creepy.
Creation is sensible and comforting.

Your emotional and psychological objections to reality are irrelevant.

 

[ecco]

Evolution is disquieting and creepy.
Creation is sensible and comforting.

God's Creation lead to God's Great Flood.
God's Great Flood brutally killed all but a few people, including young children and even embryos.

That probably wasn't very comforting to the mothers who saw their daughters buried alive in a mud slide.

 

[AV1611VET]

God's Creation lead to God's Great Flood.

And the manufacture of matches leads to arson, doesn't it?

God's Great Flood brutally killed all but a few people,

Noah preached righteousness to them beforehand; which leads me to wonder how many of them died and well to Hell.

I would assume very few.

There's a principle that states that there are no atheists in foxholes, and while there are exceptions to that rule, I would assume they are few and far between.

Remember what Peter said, when he started to drown?

Matthew 14:30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.

It's the shortest prayer in the Bible.

including young children ...

Parents and children meeting on the "other side."

Gives ya goosebumps, doesn't it?

... and even embryos.

Embryos aren't "children in the womb"?

That probably wasn't very comforting to the mothers who saw their daughters buried alive in a mud slide.

I would imagine they were afraid of dying.

After all, God put the fear of death in our hearts.

But I can also imagine some waving goodbye and saying, "See you in a few!"

I know that sounds anathema to unbelievers, but hey ... that's reality.

 

[Cearbhall]

It only looks top-notch because it is the only theory in town.

It's the only theory in town because it has showed that all other ideas are hooey. For the third time, what idea do you have that you believe shows evolution to be an inadequate explanation? There's no point in having this discussion if you can't offer any superior alternative.

 

[[serious]]

When scientists think the Bible says the earth is flat, they are just as wrong as those who thought the earth was flat.

In fact, they're wronger ... since they:

1. Aren't using Boolean standards.
2. Ignoring general relativity.

Interpretations of the bible could likewise fall into such a system of degrees of wrong. The trouble is it's harder to figure out which is more wrong without putting the bible to the standards of science. I'm fine doing that, but you still have some resistance.

In the case of geocentrism, we agree. Science has demonstrated the earth is roughly an oblate spheroid, verses that seem to be at odds with that should be read figuratively. Where we differ is applying that same logic to evolution, geology, cosmology, etc. You invoke extrabiblical miracles to explain the departure from scientific observation, I do not. By the standards above, since my interpretation of the bible better matches observation, mine would be the more right interpretation.

If, instead, the bible is treated like works of mythology, the most correct interpretation would be that which best reflects the interpretation of the time. The writing of the bible spans periods during which different cultures had different views of the world. Early hebrew writing indicate better support for the geocentric interpretation than yours and mine.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is evidence that systems are designed and
only allow for a limited amount of variation.

Such a statement is usually followed by that evidence. Where is it?

 

[Loudmouth]

It's also a game of connect-the-dots [witchcraft edition].

Whereas creationism is a game of ignore-the-dots.

 

[AV1611VET]

Whereas creationism is a game of ignore-the-dots.

When it comes to those dots that are considered "human" or "humanoid," I believe I've explained them according to Biblical doctrine, backed up with Scripture.

If you want to call that "ignoring the dots," that's your prerogative.

Just don't expect me to agree with that.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Your emotional and psychological objections to reality are irrelevant.

There's more to reality than the ToE.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There's more to reality than the ToE.

Obviously.

Which is completely irrelevant to the point I raised in response to your statement.

I can only repeat myself:
Your emotional and psychological objections to reality are irrelevant.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Obviously.

Which is completely irrelevant to the point I raised in response to your statement.

I can only repeat myself:
Your emotional and psychological objections to reality are irrelevant.

I don't object to the reality of the theory of evolution, I just think it's a disturbing concept. I have no objection if others believe it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't object to the reality of the theory of evolution, I just think it's a disturbing concept. I have no objection if others believe it.

And again, I can only say that your psychological / emotional objections to the theory of evolution (lol @ the juvenile emphasis of the word "theory" btw) are irrelevant to its explanatory power and validity.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And again, I can only say that your psychological / emotional objections to the theory of evolution (lol @ the juvenile emphasis of the word "theory" btw) are irrelevant to its explanatory power and validity.

I think humanity needs to progress beyond the bounds of 'survival of the fittest'. There's too much of that going around.

 

[justlookinla]

I think humanity needs to progress beyond the bounds of 'survival of the fittest'. There's too much of that going around.

Humanity progressed beyond 'survival of the fittest' long long ago. Life is much more than the Darwinist worldview of 'survival of the fittest'.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Humanity progressed beyond 'survival of the fittest' long long ago. Life is much more than the Darwinist worldview of 'survival of the fittest'.

For humans, maybe.
The rest of the animal kingdom? Yeah, not so much.

 

[Loudmouth]

When it comes to those dots that are considered "human" or "humanoid," I believe I've explained them according to Biblical doctrine, backed up with Scripture.

If you want to call that "ignoring the dots," that's your prerogative.

Just don't expect me to agree with that.

Magic is not an explanation.

 

[Loudmouth]

There's more to reality than the ToE.

Where did anyone say that the ToE explained all of reality?

 

[justlookinla]

Magic is not an explanation.

Neither is willy-nilly 'creation' (Darwinism).

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think humanity needs to progress beyond the bounds of 'survival of the fittest'. There's too much of that going around.

"fittest". It doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[clemdawg]

How do you account for humans existing on the earth today?

Great question. I'd like an answer for that one.