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

[renniks]

Ill stick with what I know. God created. Men's theories come and go. As it has always been, It will forever be.

 

[Oneiric1975]

Ill stick with what I know. God created. Men's theories come and go. As it has always been, It will forever be.

...and man has also come up with countless versions of God over its history that have come and gone. Thankfully you were raised with and taught the REAL one!

 

[MIDutch]

Ill stick with what I know. God created. Men's theories come and go. As it has always been, It will forever be.

And if you were a Buddhist you would "know" something completely different.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I didn't say that.

I'm saying would you start to "hope"?

Not at all, because if evolution was found to be wrong, that doesn't automatically mean that I'd believe in creation by God, unless you can outright and uncategorically show that to be the case.

 

[AV1611VET]

Choice number 4.

"Creation", as creationists use the word.

Ah ... silly me. I should have known!

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you find the Separation clause to be "ugly"?

It's poorly written then. If atheists and collegians can use it to demand cease-and-desist orders against the likes of Judge Moore, then that clause needs a facelift.

 

[MIDutch]

It's poorly written then. If atheists and collegians can use it to demand cease-and-desist orders against the likes of Judge Moore, then that clause needs a facelift.

How do you know it wasn't Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Daoists, Shinto, Confucianists, Pagans, Wiccans, etc. who were demanding that HIS particular scripture be taken out of the government building? After all, the display of the scripture of a particular religion, and ONLY that religion, is slap in their collective faces as well.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's poorly written then. If atheists and collegians can use it to demand cease-and-desist orders against the likes of Judge Moore, then that clause needs a facelift.

How do you know it wasn't Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Daoists, Shinto, Confucianists, Pagans, Wiccans, etc. who were demanding that HIS particular scripture be taken out of the government building?

True ... true.

Two groups of people fighting against the same [enemy].

Luke 23:12 And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.

 

[renniks]

And if you were a Buddhist you would "know" something completely different.

How do you know I'm not a buddhist?

 

[renniks]

...and man has also come up with countless versions of God over its history that have come and gone. Thankfully you were raised with and taught the REAL one!

Most of which agree that God created.

 

[dlamberth]

How do you know I'm not a buddhist?

By the way you think.

 

[renniks]

By the way you think.

Because I believe in a creator? That's not either here or there for a Buddhist.

 

[dlamberth]

Because I believe in a creator? That's not either here or there for a Buddhist.

It's not the Creator part. I know a number of Christian/Buddhist. That's not what I'm meaning. What I'm looking at has more to do with your dualism thinking.

 

[renniks]

It's not the Creator part. I know a number of Christian/Buddhist. That's not what I'm meaning. What I'm looking at has more to do with your dualism thinking.

I'm not one to believe in two opposite concepts at the same time if that is what you mean.

 

[Oneiric1975]

It's poorly written then. If atheists and collegians can use it to demand cease-and-desist orders against the likes of Judge Moore, then that clause needs a facelift.

Judge Moore? Hopefully not Judge Roy “Loves the little children” Moore?

 

[dlamberth]

I'm not one to believe in two opposite concepts at the same time if that is what you mean.

What I’m looking at isn’t about belief. It’s about non-duality as a “reality”.

 

[renniks]

What I’m looking at isn’t about belief. It’s about non-duality as a “reality”.

Whatever that means.

 

[dlamberth]

Whatever that means.

A Buddhist would know.

 

[Ophiolite]

But there are reasons [why not all posters in the thread have voted], and I think I know the number one one.

The most probable reason is that the poll is so poorly constructed, being ambiguous, restricted in choice, strongly biased and generally inept, that many members simply ignore it.

No it isn't [silly].

Yes it is. See above.

Note: italicised words in square brackets are added by me to clarify what AV's posts were responding to.

 

[pgp_protector]

If a scientific theory is debunked / disproven.
You take the existing evidence & new evidence that disproved the old theory and come up with a new explanation that fits all Evidence.

It's happened before & will probably happen again.
Superseded theories in science - Wikipedia