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.
But will that evidence lead to CREATION?
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 don't know what a hypothetical is?That's nice.
Until the new evidence is provided, the current theory stands.
Notice he gives you credit for accepting evolution and "giving it a try"?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.
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."And it doesn't surprise me that you think this nonsense is worth praising.
And that's where you have it backwards.But will that evidence lead to CREATION?
I understand what hypothetical is, and I provided my answer in the thread.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.
Okay.If CREATION is found in the evidence overwhelmingly, it would. If not, then it'd lead to something else.
Simples.
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."
Okay.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.
Okay.... 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.
/threadDo you understand that concept?
Not surprised./thread
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
The study of evolution is a science, like physics, or geology, or chemistry. It is not lifestyle or life choice or any such thing.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?