Noah way?

[MarkT]

What do you think a theory is, exactly?

According to science, a theory is a proven hypothesis. A theory has to be proven.

At least you have to have observation.

I can see the same order in the fossil record as you can, but I can't observe anything. I can compare Genesis to what I can see in the fossil record. I can see a variety of animals and put it down to breeding. I can see the distribution patterns and put it down to human intervention.

But I can't observe anything which proves evolution. There's no experiment. There's no application.

 

[TLK Valentine]

We've experienced a personal relationship with the Creator.
That's even better.

And in this relationship, did He personally tell you about creation, or did you read it in a book somewhere?

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to science, a theory is a proven hypothesis. A theory has to be proven.

At least you have to have observation.

I can see the same order in the fossil record as you can, but I can't observe anything. I can compare Genesis to what I can see in the fossil record. I can see a variety of animals and put it down to breeding. I can see the distribution patterns and put it down to human intervention.

But I can't observe anything which proves evolution. There's no experiment. There's no application.

That is because you are closing your eyes and going "Nyah, nyah, nyah." Hardly conducive to learning. How can humans intervene when we did not appear until only the last 200,000 years? And the fossil record is just the least of evidence for evolution. There are numerous independent nested hierarchies in biology that all support evolution.

Face it, we have all of the scientific evidence. There is no scientific evidence that supports creationism.

And as far as the theory of evolution goes consilience is considered "proof of evolution" in the scientific world:

Consilience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dizredux]

We've experienced a personal relationship with the Creator.
That's even better.

You do realize that there are many who have a personal relationship with God who accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth?

Keep in mind that around 60 percent of the people in the United States accept evolution. About a third reject evolution. You clearly fit in the latter group and that's OK but most don't agree with you and that's OK too (or should be IMO).

Dizredux

 

[KWCrazy]

You do realize that there are many who have a personal relationship with God who accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth?

Based on what?
Why can't they come up with Biblical justification for their beliefs? if they are Christian, surely they understand that Christ revered the Scriptures as the absolute word of God. There must be SOMETHING in the Scriptures that says we evolved from the same ancestor as the daffodil, with which we share 25% of the same DNA.

Perhaps they don't post any passages of Scripture because there are none. Their belief in evolution is based in their REJECTION of Scripture, not their faith.

I wonder; do evolution believing Christians honor the Sabbath? They shouldn't, if the Exodus 20:11 was allegory.

If they believe evolution offers them a better explanation for life than their Bible, how does than make them like Christ?

 

[Dizredux]

Originally Posted by Dizredux View Post

You do realize that there are many who have a personal relationship with God who accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth?

Posted by KWCrazy

Based on what?

Surveys

The latest Pew survey (2013) shows about 60% of the US population accepts evolution and about 33% do not. Also most mainline Christian denominations accept evolution.

I suspect that many of these have a personal relationship with God as do I.


Dizredux

 

[TLK Valentine]

Based on what?
Why can't they come up with Biblical justification for their beliefs?

They have a personal relationship with the Creator -- who needs the book anymore?

if they are Christian, surely they understand that Christ revered the Scriptures as the absolute word of God.

If they are Christian, surely they understand that Christ IS God and doesn't need to revere anything.

There must be SOMETHING in the Scriptures that says we evolved from the same ancestor as the daffodil, with which we share 25% of the same DNA.

It's right there in the chapter next to indoor plumbing -- MacGuffin 3:16

Perhaps they don't post any passages of Scripture because there are none. Their belief in evolution is based in their REJECTION of Scripture, not their faith.

Or their faith in God over their rejection of Biblotatry.

I wonder; do evolution believing Christians honor the Sabbath? They shouldn't, if the Exodus 20:11 was allegory.

They shouldn't have to, if they believe in Jesus.

Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath

Those who revere the book over the Man might not understand.

If they believe evolution offers them a better explanation for life than their Bible, how does than make them like Christ?

Because literalism is not very Christ-like.

Being like Christ is actually quite simple:

John 13:34-35 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

See? Simple.

 

[MarkT]

That is because you are closing your eyes and going "Nyah, nyah, nyah." Hardly conducive to learning. How can humans intervene when we did not appear until only the last 200,000 years? And the fossil record is just the least of evidence for evolution. There are numerous independent nested hierarchies in biology that all support evolution.

Face it, we have all of the scientific evidence. There is no scientific evidence that supports creationism.

And as far as the theory of evolution goes consilience is considered "proof of evolution" in the scientific world:

Consilience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well that's not the scientific method, is it? I protest. hehe

Why is it that science ignores the human element? Human intervention or interference makes sense to me as a Creationist.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Apparently there are marsupial mice and marsupial dogs (Tasmanian Tiger) and marsupial cats (Tiger quoll; though the cat doesn't look like a cat to me.)

Mice and kangaroos are related how?

Is that based on your observation?

Tasmanian tigers are also not from Australia (and sadly, extinct, as of the 1930s).

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well that's not the scientific method, is it? I protest. hehe

Why is it that science ignores the human element? Human intervention or interference makes sense to me as a Creationist.

Well, human intervention has produced pretty much every domesticated animal and many of our food crops. But the mechanisms by which we could do such things are the same ones by which evolution occurs; we just sped up the process in a direction favorable to us.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well, human intervention has produced pretty much every domesticated animal and many of our food crops. But the mechanisms by which we could do such things are the same ones by which evolution occurs; we just sped up the process in a direction favorable to us.

Indeed -- it's "artificial selection" when we do it, and "natural selection" when we don't.

 

[Dizredux]

So when you talk to God, do you tell him there was no flood? Tell Jesus there was no flood. In your opinion of course.

I'm not angry with you. Don't be listening to Satan. I don't get angry with anyone who does not believe as I do, unless they are trying to suppress the truth.

But the impression I get is that you are the one who decides what is the truth. So if anyone disagrees with you they then are trying to "suppress the truth" and you can get angry at them.

Doesn't compute very well but as you wish.

Dizredux

 

[PsychoSarah]

But the impression I get is that you are the one who decides what is the truth. So if anyone disagrees with you they then are trying to "suppress the truth" and you can get angry at them.

Doesn't compute very well but as you wish.

Dizredux

I wonder how Mark would react if god directly told him the bible was wrong and that belief doesn't matter?

 

[MarkT]

But the impression I get is that you are the one who decides what is the truth. So if anyone disagrees with you they then are trying to "suppress the truth" and you can get angry at them.

Doesn't compute very well but as you wish.

Dizredux

I was referring to my exchange with Elendur post 206. Do you not understand what 'suppress' means?

If I have something to say and it gets deleted, that's suppressing the truth in my book. You might not consider it true, but I do, and I think other readers should have the right to judge for themselves. If I get banned or blocked for some reason, it hurts. Ask Sarah. When someone threatens to report me for breaking the rules, especially an agnostic, I get angry.

Why doesn't this make sense to you?

 

[Elendur]

I was referring to my exchange with Elendur post 206. Do you not understand what 'suppress' means?

If I have something to say and it gets deleted, that's suppressing the truth in my book. You might not consider it true, but I do, and I think other readers should have the right to judge for themselves. If I get banned or blocked for some reason, it hurts. Ask Sarah. When someone threatens to report me for breaking the rules, especially an agnostic, I get angry.

Why doesn't this make sense to you?

I did not "threaten to report you". I was just informing you of that what you were doing was against the rules.
If you're participating in a forum you're adhering to the rules they've set up.

I'll provide a link to the post you referred to, for others so that they'll have an easier time looking it up.

I'm not suppressing the truth, I hope you'll back up that claim with hard evidence or back down.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I did not "threaten to report you". I was just informing you of that what you were doing was against the rules.
If you're participating in a forum you're adhering to the rules they've set up.

I'll provide a link to the post you referred to, for others so that they'll have an easier time looking it up.

I'm not suppressing the truth, I hope you'll back up that claim with hard evidence or back down.

Seeing someone back down in one of these threads is rare. And it is usually me, because when I fudge up, I am not going to keep beating a dead horse for too long after I have realized I made an error. I think I have grown as an individual because of that; probably the most I have gained from being on here is more patience.

 

[Dizredux]

I was referring to my exchange with Elendur post 206.

No, you were responding to me in post 306 where you asked about my area of expertise.

Do you not understand what 'suppress' means?

Yes I do but I am not sure what you mean by it.

If I have something to say and it gets deleted, that's suppressing the truth in my book. You might not consider it true, but I do, and I think other readers should have the right to judge for themselves. If I get banned or blocked for some reason, it hurts. Ask Sarah. When someone threatens to report me for breaking the rules, especially an agnostic, I get angry.

Mark, I did not delete anything said so how did I "suppress" the truth? I also did not threaten to report you and I am not an agnostic.

You do have to follow the forum rules and the "No True Christian" bit is not allowed here. If you do so, you are subject to getting your hand slapped by the staff.

Why doesn't this make sense to you?

Mostly because you seem to be confused on what was said and I frankly have no real idea of what your are talking about.

Relevant posts 306 and 356.


Dizredux

 

[lasthero]

If I have something to say and it gets deleted, that's suppressing the truth in my book.

Not really, no. If you say something that's against the rules, it can be deleted. When you signed up for this forum, you agreed to abide by the rules.

When someone threatens to report me for breaking the rules, especially an agnostic, I get angry.

Why 'especially an agnostic'?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Not really, no. If you say something that's against the rules, it can be deleted. When you signed up for this forum, you agreed to abide by the rules.



Why 'especially an agnostic'?

Weird, usually agnostics aren't viewed more negatively than atheists.

 

[lasthero]

I am not going to keep beating a dead horse for too long after I have realized I made an error.

http://awesomegifs.com/wp-content/uploads/dead-horse.gif