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

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But will that evidence lead to CREATION?

If CREATION is found in the evidence overwhelmingly, it would. If not, then it'd lead to something else.
Simples.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm going to disagree.

This thread speaks more about creation/evolution than you can imagine.

It exposes the fact that, if you hypothetically take away such a strong theory, people are caught off-guard with not having a viable backup.

In addition, I think the only viable backup is CREATION, and I get a very, very strong impression that CREATION is anathema to evolutionists.

So anathema, that they can't stomach having to vote in favor of it.

You can disagree all you want, but that just QEDs what I'm saying.

Wow.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's nice.


Until the new evidence is provided, the current theory stands.

You don't know what a hypothetical is?

Look at the first paragraph:

So just a thought for what our priorities, are, here. You have decided one way or the other, to give Evolution a try... you have decided that the weight of evidence favours species that change over time, one can only assume in a way that is deistic, if it is to prove better than the selection pressures that shape it. But I put it to you, that you do not know everything.

Notice he gives you credit for accepting evolution and "giving it a try"?

But you can't respect his hypothetical and assume evolution turned out wrong?

Suit yourself, I guess.

 

[AV1611VET]

And it doesn't surprise me that you think this nonsense is worth praising.

Evolutionists are some of the most disrespectful people on earth, in my opinion. So it doesn't surprise me you would think it's "nonsense."

 

[pgp_protector]

But will that evidence lead to CREATION?

And that's where you have it backwards.
Your looking

You don't know what a hypothetical is?

Look at the first paragraph:Notice he gives you credit for accepting evolution and "giving it a try"?

But you can't respect his hypothetical and assume evolution turned out wrong?

Suit yourself, I guess.

I understand what hypothetical is, and I provided my answer in the thread.

You take the New Evidence that disproves the existing theory, and use it to form a new scientific theory that explains all the evidence.

Now if you can't provide the New Evidence that overturns the current working theory, we can't come up with a alternative to the theory.

So what's this new Hypothetical evidence?

 

[AV1611VET]

If CREATION is found in the evidence overwhelmingly, it would. If not, then it'd lead to something else.
Simples.

Okay.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Evolutionists are some of the most disrespectful people on earth, in my opinion. So it doesn't surprise me you would think it's "nonsense."

... Have you been reading Gottservant's threads, or do you just filter read only the stuff you like? None of Gottservant's threads have ever made sense to anyone, and this is 'evolutionists' and Christians alike on this forum.

 

[AV1611VET]

And that's where you have it backwards.
Your looking

I understand what hypothetical is, and I provided my answer in the thread.

You take the New Evidence that disproves the existing theory, and use it to form a new scientific theory that explains all the evidence.

Now if you can't provide the New Evidence that overturns the current working theory, we can't come up with a alternative to the theory.

So what's this new Hypothetical evidence?

Okay.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Okay.

Do you understand that concept?

 

[AV1611VET]

... Have you been reading Gottservant's threads, or do you just filter read only the stuff you like? None of Gottservant's threads have ever made sense to anyone, and this is 'evolutionists' and Christians alike on this forum.

Okay.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you understand that concept?

/thread

 

[pgp_protector]

/thread

Not surprised.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm going to disagree.

This thread speaks more about creation/evolution than you can imagine.

It exposes the fact that, if you hypothetically take away such a strong theory, people are caught off-guard with not having a viable backup.

In addition, I think the only viable backup is CREATION, and I get a very, very strong impression that CREATION is anathema to evolutionists.

So anathema, that they can't stomach having to vote in favor of it.

You can disagree all you want, but that just QEDs what I'm saying.

You may have a very strong impression about what evolutionists think, but as an evolutionist I might just have a shade better insight into that matter.

It is my understanding that the concept of Creation is an important part of your religious beliefs and thus in the way in which you conduct your life. You seem to think that evolutionary theory holds a similar status in the life of evolutionists. This is generally not the case, though doubtless exceptions exist.

Take the related concept of the Big Bang Theory. I accept the BBT as the best current explanation for the emergence of the universe in its present state. If the theory were overturned tomorrow I would be out celebrating since I've never like it and have resented the fact that nothing better is on offer.

And that brings us back to the notion of the overthrow of evolutionary theory. In most cases theories are overthrown and replaced simultaneously (or as near as makes no difference). So in the unlikely event evolutionary theory were shown to be false that falsification would be achieved through the presentation of a better alternative. That's not going to present any difficulty of acceptance.

So the counter challenge is clear. Show how Creation provides a better explanation for observation than evolutionary theory and evolutionary theory falls. (Be quick about it, I'm likely in my last decade.)

 

[Strathos]

This entire thread is based upon a false dichotomy.

 

[Gottservant]

I don't even want you to forget your theory, but I can't even get a half-empty or half-full answer on it, so I am forced to consider looking elsewhere.

I mean you are verging on suggesting that Evolution is above Philosophy, and that your defence is that Evolution is "aprincipled" so it doesn't have to address the issue of right and wrong.

But even a cleverly aprincipled theory, still has to account for how long it think it will retain its working value - do you understand what I am saying here? Not even Christianity is without an end date: you really must deal with the issues every great thinker has had deal with from the beginning of humanity - taxes, death and Judgment Day.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't even want you to forget your theory, but I can't even get a half-empty or half-full answer on it, so I am forced to consider looking elsewhere.

I mean you are verging on suggesting that Evolution is above Philosophy, and that your defence is that Evolution is "aprincipled" so it doesn't have to address the issue of right and wrong.

But even a cleverly aprincipled theory, still has to account for how long it think it will retain its working value - do you understand what I am saying here? Not even Christianity is without an end date: you really must deal with the issues every great thinker has had deal with from the beginning of humanity - taxes, death and Judgment Day.

No, you don't get a half empty or half full answer because you refuse to acknowledge what people tell you about evolution.

The only person suggesting that evolution is above philosophy is you because you are stuck on this insistent need to make evolution out to be something akin to a religion, the one thing is categorically is not.

 

[Hans Blaster]

you really must deal with the issues every great thinker has had deal with from the beginning of humanity - taxes, death and Judgment Day.

Taxes have only existed since the first cities formed, probably in Sumer or thereabouts.

Death has always existed since there was life.

Judgement Day didn't come out until 1991.

[I'm glad you think of your opponents on this board as great thinkers. ]

 

[Gottservant]

No, you don't get a half empty or half full answer because you refuse to acknowledge what people tell you about evolution.

The only person suggesting that evolution is above philosophy is you because you are stuck on this insistent need to make evolution out to be something akin to a religion, the one thing is categorically is not.

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.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

You either don't read carefully or your pre-existant worldview is so strongly coloring your interpretation of what we write, that you completely miss the point.

What was said (rephrased) is:

Evolution is not a religion, don't treat it that way.

Evolution is not a philosopy, don't treat it that way.

The study of evolution is a science, like physics, or geology, or chemistry. It is not lifestyle or life choice or any such thing.

 

[Gottservant]

The study of evolution is a science, like physics, or geology, or chemistry. It is not lifestyle or life choice or any such thing.

Yes but physics has a more or less consistent response (depending on force), geology has a more or less layered texture (depending on depth), chemistry has a weaker or stronger reaction (depending on volumes of the respective chemicals): what does Evolution say is more or less? (And depending on what?)

You either don't read carefully or your pre-existant worldview is so strongly coloring your interpretation of what we write, that you completely miss the point.

What was said (rephrased) is:

Evolution is not a religion, don't treat it that way.

Evolution is not a philosopy, don't treat it that way.

Evolution may not be a religion but why do you not want to learn from one?

Evolution may not be a philosophy but how do you recognize the knowledge of it - which give or take: requires Wisdom?

You guys are working on a water tight seal, but you won't get on the boat (and talk about steering it)...