Is evolution even a theory?

[Astrid]

In distinction from posts approving of the inappropriate application of Bible verses ...

I believe AV was fully responsive and on topic in the above post. In speaking of the validity of evolution as a theory, he accepts that there is such a theory. Moreover, he notes, correctly, that the theory of evolution has many sub-theories, making the validity of "the" theory of evolution ill-defined.

He further suggests that he is open to all of the meaningful mechanisms that make up the theory with the exception of time to allow microevolution to become macroevolution, so long as a caveat is inserted to make room for the divine spark or two or however many trillions are necessary to guide the process in order to prevent the conclusion that we are all contingent beings.

I don't know about anyone else, but I, for one, am always willing to take yes for an answer, and go from there.

Odd take

 

[driewerf]

Evil ution lol

So funny I forgot to laugh...

Creationists have incredible compelling arguments. So well articulated, so well founded and substantiated. With sense for nuance and eloquence. Knowledge scholarship and sense for inquiry are emmanent from this kind of posts.
Let's burn all the textbooks, shred all manuals, delete all science documentaries. 260 years of research, of digging for fossils, sequencing genes, mapping ERV's, comparative anatomy; all has been shown wrong and can be forgotten. Psalm 27 has posted "Evil ution lol". There is no coming back from that.
Science lies in tatters.

 

[driewerf]

I have admit you have a good start, since the sin nature resides in the flesh.

Not ye encountered anything about a sin nature. It must be in the last chapter.
I will let you know when I reading the last chapter.

 

[Astrid]

Creationists have incredible compelling arguments. So well articulated, so well founded and substantiated. With sense for nuance and eloquence. Knowledge scholarship and sense for inquiry are emmanent from this kind of posts.
Let's burn all the textbooks, shred all manuals, delete all science documentaries. 260 years of research, of digging for fossils, sequencing genes, mapping ERV's, comparative anatomy; all has been shown wrong and can be forgotten. Psalm 27 has posted "Evil ution lol". There is no coming back from that.
Science lies in tatters.

No need to get snarky in response to
childish behaviour, or respond at all,
it discredits itself.

 

[Ophiolite]

No need to get snarky in response to
childish behaviour, or respond at all,
it discredits itself.

Not when it is done with elegance. Rhetoric powered by irony is an effective means of refuting an argument devoid of reason or evidence.

 

[Juvenal]

Odd take

On rare occasions, approaching none, I encounter someone so adamantly averse to the theory of evolution that no conversation is possible beyond, "Thank you for your thoughts."

But in the vast majority of cases, they readily agree with all of the major mechanisms.

They agree that different offspring have better or worse odds of procreating. They agree those odds are affected by the environment. They agree those odds are affected by genetic inheritance. They agree that genetic inheritance is subject to random variation. They agree that evolution occurs, and that it can be described and constrained by theory.

And frankly, it's not even macroevolution that's a concern. No one really cares if tetrapods evolved from fish or if birds evolved from dinosaurs. It's when evolution includes us, and especially when the evolution that includes us excludes their conception of a God who planned for their individual existence.

Gould was wrong, by the way. The magisteria are indeed overlapping.

I don't expect any scientific conclusion to overcome a vested interest in eternal life in paradise.

 

[AV1611VET]

She'll be asking you to renounce your faith next lol

It wouldn't surprise me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evil ution lol

Yup -- or Devilution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yup -- or Devilution.

Now that one's lame.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now that one's lame.

You no lika!?

 

[Kylie]

She'll be asking you to renounce your faith next lol

Why would I do that?

You seem to have some pretty serious misconceptions about atheists...

 

[Psalm 27]

Why would I do that?

You seem to have some pretty serious misconceptions about atheists...

Mistrust the reason that I say that, is, I have been so deceived in my life, that i've learned to not trust anybody-even my own kin. Its not personal, I just have to be careful these days.
I can, up to a point, respect atheists' because at least they're honest. I dont have to agree, but it is their choice at the end of the day.
Evolution was revealed as a lie to me, after I searched for my own answers years ago. I can't prove my summary, I just know what I know. God bless

 

[Astrophile]

Yup -- or Devilution.

'Evolution' is an anagram of 'I love u not'.
'Creation' is an anagram of 'I care not'.
This argument will probably continue for a long time.

 

[Astrid]

'Evolution' is an anagram of 'I love u not'.
'Creation' is an anagram of 'I care not'.
This argument will probably continue for a long time.

Please refrain

 

[AV1611VET]

'Evolution' is an anagram of 'I love u not'.
'Creation' is an anagram of 'I care not'.
This argument will probably continue for a long time.

Wait until you anagram "atheists!"

 

[AV1611VET]

Please refrain

Asian prefer El?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Wait until you anagram "atheists!"

Hastiest
Staithes

 

[Aaron112]

Mistrust the reason that I say that, is, I have been so deceived in my life, that i've learned to not trust anybody-even my own kin. Its not personal, I just have to be careful these days.
I can, up to a point, respect atheists' because at least they're honest. I dont have to agree, but it is their choice at the end of the day.
Evolution was revealed as a lie to me, after I searched for my own answers years ago. I can't prove my summary, I just know what I know. God bless

It seems indeed that some atheists or other non-christian types are more honest in what they post than christians in general. Nothing to be accepted though by anyone, without being first proven truth.

 

[AV1611VET]

It seems indeed that some atheists or other non-christian types are more honest in what they post than christians in general. Nothing to be accepted though by anyone, without being first proven truth.

So "some atheists" are more honest than "Christians in general"?

Are "some Christians" more honest than "atheists in general"?

 

[Aaron112]

So "some atheists" are more honest than "Christians in general"?

Are "some Christians" more honest than "atheists in general"?

It seems indeed that some atheists or other non-christian types are more honest in what they post than christians in general. Nothing to be accepted though by anyone, without being first proven truth.

Note "in what they post".

Especially when a post is .... as if from a little child, someone basically 'innocent' in an area, but observing and speaking on things that are clearly deceptive in society, etc.

Some Christians are honest. No biggie there , is it ? Don't expect anyone to be honest, actually, until 'proven' , but the ideas "what they post" can be 'honest', or ? true ?, without the speaker being honest.
Like the high priest when he said "it is better for one man to die, for the many/nation, instead of for many to die"... parapharased from somewhere in history/Scripture.
That high priest as far as I remember was opposed to Jesus, yet spoke prophetically without , or with?, knowing it.