What Would YOU Do If . . .?

[OphidiaPhile]

Evolution is a theory. It is not fact.

And what is your definition of a theory? Because in scientific parlance a theory is akin to a fact.

 

[angellica]

And what is your definition of a theory?

Not proven.

 

[roflcopter101]

Not proven.

And the bible has been proven?

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Not proven.

And of course you would be wrong.
Evolution has in fact been proven and is accepted as such by all of science.

This is the single biggest misconception that there is regarding evolution or science for that matter.

A theory is a vetted HYPOTHESIS, the hypothesis is just an idea based upon observation. The scientist will then produce a model that fits the hypothesis and tests the model, if it supports his hypothesis he will publish said data for the scientific community to attempt to invalidate. If they invalidate it he goes back to the drawing board, if not and more evidence is brought forth to support the original hypothesis it is eventually elevated to the level of theory. The reason Evolution will always be listed as theory and not fact is because there is always more information that we are uncovering.

Lets say I hypothesize that the sun is always yellow and produce a paper that says the sun is always yellow but then a scientists comes along and proves it is a multitude of colors, my hypothesis is incorrect and is invalidated. But lets say that all scientists that attempt to invalidate cannot do so it is elevated to theory, it cannot ever be fact because we are not sure of future criteria that could produce a different color. So the basis of the theory is factual it is just waiting on further data to add to the knowledge of it.

 

[angellica]

And of course you would be wrong.
Evolution has in fact been proven and is accepted as such by all of science.

Then why is it called the "theory of evolution"?

 

[b&wpac4]

Then why is it called the "theory of evolution"?

Gravity is also known as the "Theory of Gravity" and yet you don't hold as many objections toward it I would assume.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Then why is it called the "theory of evolution"?

Read the full post.

You are confusing hypothesis with theory.

Many things that you would call fact are instead theories. And things you call theories are in fact either hypothesis or not even that.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Science is not an opinion and yet it proves genesis as incorrect.

Here's a guy with an opinion that differs from yours:

http://mb-soft.com/public/genesis5.html

Genesis and Science ARE Compatible!

The story in Genesis 1 of the Bible, about the beginning of everything, is fully compatible with modern science. It actually even PROVES that modern science is on the right track! And modern science has CONFIRMED that Genesis presents the proper sequence of events! Science might even help explain some confusing things in the Bible like where Cain went when he left Eden, and whom he married.

In the discussion that follows, one major understanding is seen differently than has previously been done. Genesis 1:26 includes (KJ) "And God said, let US make man in our image, after our likeness". The NIV and other English translations are all very similar. ALL believers seem to accept this as meaning that our PHYSICAL APPEARANCE is like God's. The actual Ancient Hebrew word (tselem) can mean "resemblance" and there is not any actual implication that it is a PHYSICAL resemblance. This discussion makes a different conclusion from that Verse, in that the resemblance referred to is regarding man as HAVING A SOUL. The Bible reads perfectly reasonably and logically with this understanding, but it then also permits "intimate agreement" between Christian beliefs and scientific research.

If a human author had written Genesis 1 without God's help he could have presented/listed the 14 events mentioned in over 87 billion different sequences. How could a human author have selected the sequence, beginning with Light first and Man last, which has now (3300 years later) been shown to match the sequence that modern science accepts?

For the rest go to the link.

 

[corvus_corax]

Evolution is a theory. It is not fact.

This demonstrates that you have no understanding of Evolution.
It is both a theory AND (get this) a FACT.
Yes, fact.
Period, end of story.
As a matter of fact, it can be demonstrated objectively and empirically.
Unlike Creationism.
And unlike your subjective morality that pits a virgin gay teenager (whom you would kick out of your house) and a virgin gay heterosexual child (whom you apparently would not kick out despite the sinful lifestyle he engages in)
Please note (ie please read and understand) that I've placed both of these teenage boys as virgins.
Now, which one do you kick out?
BTW, this very scenario has been pointed out to you before, and all you've done is ignore it and/or change your goalposts.....Now just answer the question, directly, without handwaving.
Be Christlike for a change.
Or at least be emulating your OT deity if you wish.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

The tarnished golden rule the entire family can love!

Do unto others...before they do unto you.

Keeping Family Values Safe since Time Immemorial.™

Compared to: Do as many people as you can as often as you can?

Big difference in Christian culture and the culture that celebrates and protects public bathroom hookups and other forms of ultra promiscuity.

Do you need a link for proof of what "community" I mean?

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Here's a guy with an opinion that differs from yours:

http://mb-soft.com/public/genesis5.html




For the rest go to the link.

He is not a scientist and does not even have a possible hypothesis, hence it is irrelevant. If he can find evidence to support his hypothesis, get it published and peer reviewed with a viable model then his opinion will be valid.

So as usual you have no evidence, no science and nothing of substance to back up your assertions.

 

[corvus_corax]

Here's a guy with an opinion that differs from yours:

http://mb-soft.com/public/genesis5.html




For the rest go to the link.

You can't (or won't) present your own reply based on your link.
Therefore I must conclude that you don't actually understand the strengths and weaknesses of the long page you linked to.
Argument by link is NOT and argument PC_F, and you know it.

Yes, by all means, post a link.
But do so AS you propose your OWN argument.
To do otherwise is EPICPHAIL.

Not that I expect any better from you, Mr. "guess what Im talking about" poster.
At least angellica is presenting her own arguments (and kudos to her for doing so)

 

[OphidiaPhile]

You can't (or won't) present your own reply based on your link.
Therefore I must conclude that you don't actually understand the strengths and weaknesses of the long page you linked to.
Argument by link is NOT and argument PC_F, and you know it.

Yes, by all means, post a link.
But do so AS you propose your OWN argument.
To do otherwise is EPICPHAIL.

Not that I expect any better from you, Mr. "guess what Im talking about" poster.
At least angellica is presenting her own arguments (and kudos to her for doing so)

+1

 

[angellica]

And unlike your subjective morality that pits a virgin gay teenager (whom you would kick out of your house) and a virgin gay heterosexual child (whom you apparently would not kick out despite the sinful lifestyle he engages in)
Please note (ie please read and understand) that I've placed both of these teenage boys as virgins.
Now, which one do you kick out?
BTW, this very scenario has been pointed out to you before, and all you've done is ignore it and/or change your goalposts.....Now just answer the question, directly, without handwaving.
Be Christlike for a change.
Or at least be emulating your OT deity if you wish.

For the last time, I would not kick out a virgin gay teen if he chose to get help or not to give in to his temptations and realize that it was a sin. IF HE CHOSE TO PARTICIPATE IN GAY ACTS, ROMANTIC OR SEXUAL, HE WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DO IT IN MY HOUSE, THEREFORE VIOLATING MY HOUSE RULES, THEREFORE KICKED OUT. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REALIZING SOMETHING IS WRONG AND AVOIDING IT OR NOT DOING IT IS DIFFERENT THAN DOING IT PROUDLY AND NOT BEING SORRY OR THINK IT'S WRONG.

Please, please stop twisting my words.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

This demonstrates that you have no understanding of Evolution.
It is both a theory AND (get this) a FACT.
Yes, fact.
Period, end of story.

Evolution means something from nothing? A lizard becoming a hawk? How absurd that evolution is used to disprove God. Simply a fact that evolution is nothing but science applied as best the human brain can think about things in the "natural" world.

Period. End of story.

0 x 0 = atheism, a fact. Whatever evolution is, it is not mud monkeys to man.

As a matter of fact, it can be demonstrated objectively and empirically.
Unlike Creationism.

Evolution is creation "ism."

Period. End of story.

Er, again.

And unlike your subjective morality that pits a virgin gay teenager (whom you would kick out of your house) and a virgin gay heterosexual child (whom you apparently would not kick out despite the sinful lifestyle he engages in)

Why not respect the people that do not apporve of gay sex? EVEN, if they are people that are called "parents?"

Gay don't go 'round here savvy?

Please note (ie please read and understand) that I've placed both of these teenage boys as virgins.

It takes a lot more effort to lose your virginity in the straight world. Many trips to a bar in fact. Unless of course you want to pay to get it out of the way. Gay, on the other hand, may take about ten seconds walking into a gay bar for a young man to "lose" his virginity.

Now, which one do you kick out?

Gay culture.

BTW, this very scenario has been pointed out to you before, and all you've done is ignore it and/or change your goalposts.....Now just answer the question, directly, without handwaving.

I just put the goal posts in the correct positions on the corract playing fields.

Be Christlike for a change.

That means marriage before sex and marriage immutably man and woman.

Period. End of story. Look it up yourself.

Or at least be emulating your OT deity if you wish.

Emulating the OT proscriptions against gay sex is unecessary for a Christian. And besides, the outcomes for the gay sex adherant is far more costly. All a Christian should do is just live as culture is described by Jesus (the Christ) and His followers (the Christians).

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Evolution means something from nothing? A lizard becoming a hawk? How absurd that evolution is used to disprove God. Simply a fact that evolution is nothing but science applied as best the human brain can think about things in the "natural" world.

I knew you had absolutely no grasp of what evolution is but I did not know it was this bad.

Period. End of story

It is merely the beginning of the story.

0 x 0 = atheism, not fact. Whatever evolution is, it is not mud monkeys to man

I really hope you do not ever teach anything.

 

[corvus_corax]

Big difference in Christian culture and the culture that celebrates and protects public bathroom hookups and other forms of ultra promiscuity.

Are you talking about the Right/Christian/Republicans?
You know, like those senators (tap tap tap) and those governors ("Hey you sexy escort"), like Bakker, like Jimmy Swaggart, like Aimee Semple McPherson?
How about Ted Haggard?

Lonnie Latham?


C'mon, it's not all the liberal/left/pagan/socialist group.
YOUR group (yes yours) is just as guilty, and you know it.

You wanna dump us all into one category (which you've done before, over and over again)
Fine.
Just expect the same treatment from now on, seeing as how your right/republican/status-quo/christian/fundamentalist/evangelical group yells and screams about sexual immorality, but they are JUST as guilty of any sins you accuse us leftist/democrat/liberal/socialist/marxists/blah/blah/blah of.

To deny such is to become a liar.

Get ready to get generalized just as you generalize EVERYONE who does not agree with you.

 

[WatersMoon110]

MOD HAT ON

Hey folks, could we maybe leave debating about Evolution to the section of Society dedicated to it? Please?
Thank you.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Polycarp_fan]

You can't (or won't) present your own reply based on your link.
Therefore I must conclude that you don't actually understand the strengths and weaknesses of the long page you linked to.
Argument by link is NOT and argument PC_F, and you know it.

Yes, by all means, post a link.
But do so AS you propose your OWN argument.
To do otherwise is EPICPHAIL.

Not that I expect any better from you, Mr. "guess what Im talking about" poster.
At least angellica is presenting her own arguments (and kudos to her for doing so)

I'm not as sweet as she is. I realize that dealing with reprobate minds gets a little dirty. And I'm not afraid of any anti Christian on an internet debate site. Their positions are based squarely on hysterical emotionalism in just about every case. It's all about spreading licentiousness, hedonism and "do as thou wilteth . . ." through and through.

The last thing you want is my opinion of what you think, how and why. And the value attached to your views is even darker. Posting links is the softer approach to proving your positions for what they are. JUST an opinion. And little else.

This is Satanic stuff through and through, this altering the family and celebrating abominations.

I'm a Christian pal, you anti's get hysterical when you have to here a perspective that opposes yours. It is not my fault your mind is conditioned to accept what it does, and I certainly don't have to submit to your positions.

The "Powers and Principalities" in high places are influencing morality, decency and social power.

A child is a person. A parent is a person. Choices have consequences.

Make the right choices.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

He is not a scientist and does not even have a possible hypothesis, hence it is irrelevant. If he can find evidence to support his hypothesis, get it published and peer reviewed with a viable model then his opinion will be valid.

So as usual you have no evidence, no science and nothing of substance to back up your assertions.

You have an opinion.

He has an opinion.

I have an opinion.