Let's say hypothetically, evolution is wrong...

[juvenissun]

Can it be formulated in a fashion which fits the scientific method?
You cannot say that evolution or even abiogenesis excludes a creator any more than you can say a chemical reaction excludes a chemist. It might, but it doesn't necessarily do so.

Partially, so far.

Yeah. But your argument is outside the scope of OP. TE is a strange hybrid. The OP assumed that evolution is wrong. So, it assume TE is wrong.

 

[juvenissun]

And how does that challenge God's existence?

It does not.

 

[TheReasoner]

Partially, so far.

Yeah. But your argument is outside the scope of OP. TE is a strange hybrid. The OP assumed that evolution is wrong. So, it assume TE is wrong.

True. Within the scope of the OP sure. But within the scope of the OP we have no paradigm to work from. We have no theory no viable options to seek out. There is no theory to replace ToE. Creationism doesn't cut the bill, ID doesn't either. So we're left with the field of biology and related fields without a standing paradigm. What would take evolution's role? I don't know. I see nothing that is currently around that could replace it.

 

[TheReasoner]

It does not.

Agreed.

 

[juvenissun]

True. Within the scope of the OP sure. But within the scope of the OP we have no paradigm to work from. We have no theory no viable options to seek out. There is no theory to replace ToE. Creationism doesn't cut the bill, ID doesn't either. So we're left with the field of biology and related fields without a standing paradigm. What would take evolution's role? I don't know. I see nothing that is currently around that could replace it.

Yes. I understand. I do not think a Chiwawa is a different creation from a pug. The OP did not present a thorough consideration. However, I am not going to argue about TE in this thread.

 

[TheReasoner]

Yes. I understand. I do not think a Chiwawa is a different creation from a pug. The OP did not present a thorough consideration. However, I am not going to argue about TE in this thread.

The OP did open up a door to capable creationists to present a case they might have. So far nothing halfway decent has been proposed and the consensus appears to be there is no viable scientifically valid alternative.

 

[Upisoft]

Summarily-- just like you're rejecting I making it perfectly clear that we're dealing with Day One, not 'billions of years'.

Define what is "day".

 

[AV1611VET]

Define what is "day".

Just to show you it doesn't matter in this case, I'll define it as 1 billion years.

Now -- make a point.

 

[Greg1234]

It is

Nope

 

[Upisoft]

Just to show you it doesn't matter in this case, I'll define it as 1 billion years.

Now -- make a point.

You haven't read the Bible then.

 

[AV1611VET]

You haven't read the Bible then.

Notice that, whether it's one day or one billion years, Genesis 1 still pwns evolution back to the jungle, as it cannot explain how the earth came to be without the stars -- including our sun -- first.

The longer you make 'day' out to be in Genesis 1, the worse you make it for yourselves.

My suggestion is: if you believe in evolution, stay away from Genesis 1 altogether.

 

[Upisoft]

stay away from Genesis 1 altogether.

Said like a true Christian.

 

[AV1611VET]

Said like a true Christian.

Said like a true Christian, or said as a true Christian? --

 

[Upisoft]

Said like a true Christian, or said as a true Christian? --

You better know how to "spread" the word... "stay away form genesis 1" sounds like good way.

 

[AV1611VET]

You better know how to "spread" the word... "stay away form genesis 1" sounds like good way.

When we "spread the Word", we spread all of It --

 

[Tiberius]

As Chuck Swindoll is fond of saying: "If there's a mist in the pulpit, there will be a fog in the congregation."

Rabbits in the preCambrian would tie scientists up in peer review for years and years -- since they can't agree on whether or not it would falsify the theory of evolution.

So, back to my original point: Since nothing specific falsifies the theory of evolution, it's not scientific -- in my opinion.

You're wrong, AV.

If rabbits were found in the precambrian, then it would be investigated.

If it somehow managed to withstand that investigation, then yes, it would falsify evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're wrong, AV.

If rabbits were found in the precambrian, then it would be investigated.

If it somehow managed to withstand that investigation, then yes, it would require a change in our opinion of the validity of evolution.

I said falsify evolution -- not 'change your opinions'.

Phlogiston theory was falsified, not opinion-changed.

 

[Upisoft]

When we "spread the Word", we spread all of It --

So, what it shall be? Stay away from the Bible?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, what it shall be? Stay away from the Bible?

Just the opposite -- I believe Bulgaria is in the 10/40 Window, is it not?

 

[Upisoft]

Just the opposite -- I believe Bulgaria is in the 10/40 Window, is it not?

Oh, had to google that, thanks.
So, I shall stay away from Genesis 1. I promise.

You did good work.