• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Promise me, that if Evolution doesn't work out, you will come back to considering "Creation"?

If what you theorize fails, what do you turn to next...?

  • Patience

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Hope

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • God

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • Creation

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • Popper's deduction

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • Freud's sensationalism

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Darwin's Evolution

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Compromise

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Many universes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 6 60.0%

  • Total voters
    10

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,651
16,345
55
USA
✟411,114.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Evolution may not be a religion but why do you not want to learn from one?

Religion has nothing to offer, that's why. But that's irrelevant to the discussion of evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,383
704
46
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
The problem is, that without a philosophical definition, you won't know how to develop "character"; without developing character, you won't ever be able to justify "faith".

No faith, disinterest; disinterest, powerlessness; powerlessness, incredulity; incredulity, disfavour; disfavour, dislike; dislike, disdain; disdain, desertion. Without colour, without connection, without response, without remark.

If I give you a way out, give me one! Evolution is still better, than believing faith but not doing the works of faith: so tell me, in what case is Creation still better? Better than believing theory that has an unattainable object?

An unattainable object is not a liability, if you work around the faith that goes with it (the difficulty is separating the lesser faith, from the greater reach (above it)).
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,651
16,345
55
USA
✟411,114.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
The problem is, that without a philosophical definition, you won't know how to develop "character"; without developing character, you won't ever be able to justify "faith".

No faith, disinterest; disinterest, powerlessness; powerlessness, incredulity; incredulity, disfavour; disfavour, dislike; dislike, disdain; disdain, desertion. Without colour, without connection, without response, without remark.

Nope. That just isn't the case. Your biases are showing again.
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,383
704
46
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
Sin is knowing what to do, and not doing it.

You know to call "Evolution" 'theory', but you don't apply it.

If you applied it, you would see one change or another (as is reversible, in most cases).

I mean you don't even acknowledge that post-Evolution you theorize more or less, when if it was the truth: you would clearly theorize less.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,038
7,403
31
Wales
✟424,666.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
That's so unforthcoming!

The issue here, is that you think "religion" is something you can rule in or out, completely - religion in a small degree has a welcome effect on most belief (you don't start ruling it out, before you know what that is).

For you to say "religion has no effect on Evolution" without giving a reason, is extremely naive.

Oh, I 100% think that you can rule out religion, because when it comes to science and scientific facts, you cannot use religion because religion is not testable.

Evolution is the name given to a descriptor of fact of biological science. The only naïve person here is you.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,038
7,403
31
Wales
✟424,666.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Sin is knowing what to do, and not doing it.

You know to call "Evolution" 'theory', but you don't apply it.

If you applied it, you would see one change or another (as is reversible, in most cases).

I mean you don't even acknowledge that post-Evolution you theorize more or less, when if it was the truth: you would clearly theorize less.

You're not making any sense.
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,458
3,994
47
✟1,113,708.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Sin is knowing what to do, and not doing it.

You know to call "Evolution" 'theory', but you don't apply it.

If you applied it, you would see one change or another (as is reversible, in most cases).

I mean you don't even acknowledge that post-Evolution you theorize more or less, when if it was the truth: you would clearly theorize less.
False.

Evolution is not a choice.
Evolution is not a theology or philosophy.
Evolution does not even apply on the scale of a single individual or a single lifetime.

You need to stop lying about evolution, it's shameful and you should know better.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,218
10,104
✟282,759.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
You need to stop lying about evolution, it's shameful and you should know better.
I wonder occassionally if the shame may not lie elsewhere. There are those who have a duty of care for members, to protect them from themselves when necessary. I am not sure that duty of care is always properly discharged. Since we are not allowed to question that, I merely express a moment of wondering.
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,458
3,994
47
✟1,113,708.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
I wonder occassionally if the shame may not lie elsewhere. There are those who have a duty of care for members, to protect them from themselves when necessary. I am not sure that duty of care is always properly discharged. Since we are not allowed to question that, I merely express a moment of wondering.

Gottservant has serious issues with their own thoughts and mind working against them, for which I have nothing by sympathy.

But they are coherent enough to communicate and absorb the content of a message board so they are obliged to attempt to respond to the messages there not just to the imagined rants and opinions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0