If this is not a Poe, then i can tell you that TOE says nothing of the sorts.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationist - what is your understanding of TOE?
- Thread starter Big_TJ
- Start date
Ace7X
Member
then, what is TOE, to you?
outhouse
Atheistically
how so??
all of our history will be blatantly clear instead of the fragments of ancient man.
ancient man, homo sapiens have been here for roughly 195,000 years with no historical records at all. I believe you to have a very narrow view
you genesis does not confir with sciences time scale, i am certain that i sai that in my last post.
the fact that science doesn't mean that you need to try and fit a god in a corner that is still unexplored by sience.
sience is not the discovery of how god did it, science will not serve a religious agenda i thought i made that clear
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
this is science, what you are saying is not.
a theory is not a theory until proven, i thought that i explained that, ToE has tons of proof.
I had already claimed everything that you are suggesting in my previous post, together with saying that "ITS A THEORY" an " THERES NO PROOF" are not valid arguement, infact they are falce. I can give you as much proof as you want. and if you had any interest in finding proof of the ToE you would have no proble finding the evidence yourself.
im not going to discuss dark matter and dark energy in this thread.
Last edited:
Alceste
Vagabond
Being truculent and vacuous is not against forum rules. Plagiarism, on the other hand, is. Please write your own posts in the future.
Alceste
Vagabond
ToE has nothing to say about the beginning of life. It is entirely concerned with everything that has happened since. It explains life's diversity, not its origin.
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
When was the last time you looked at a history book and compared to one written in that era about that time? Do you really think generations down the road aren't going to do the same thing to us?
Your history is not my history nor is it the history of those half way around the world who see your history differently.
Do not think for a moment that they won't come along and combine the stories to make a whole new history.
outhouse
Atheistically
what are you debating.???
we have no history for 195,000 years, none other then what we have dug up.
what is your point? because so far your confusing current hostory with no or little history.
this is not apples to apples.
this is apples to rocks
Thief
Rogue Theologian
You're still not getting it.
I do believe in evolution.
Faith is an item that does not require proof.
That I credit God as creator ....does not discredit science.
God did it.
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
Your not paying attention.
Evolution is as much a theory as creationism is. It is all history which is being constantly rewritten. In a good number of years, someone will come along and say, "Look at these foolish people thinking that we evolved from nothing. How could the not have known we were displaced here from other planets?"
To say it will never happen is like someone from the 40's saying we will never land on the moon.
You demand theists have an open mind about evolution. Where is yours?
i guess that i am cunfused then, but using genesis in ur arguement, and then saying that you believe in evolution leaves me a bit convinced.
im also barely awake now so i have a bit of a short fuse.
speaking of which, im going to bed now so peace
Alceste
Vagabond
Evolution does not state that life emerged from "nothing." It addresses what happened after life emerged. And no, we are no more likely to discard the theory of evolution than we are to discard the theories of gravity and heliocentrism. There isn't just "some" evidence supporting evolution - all the evidence supports it. No evidence supports any alternative theory. And we are talking about mountains upon mountains of evidence and more emerging daily. Any fragment of any of this could call the ToE into question, but even after a hundred years of searching, not a single scrap of credible counter-evidence has been produced.
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
Again, someone not listening. Geez.
Two stories later combined into one.
I am saying that the possibility exists that someone will come along in the future and decide that we were all wrong about everything and rewrite our history to suite the way the see it.
See what I said? Two stories. Evolution and creation combined to make one story that will have all of us rolling in our graves.
Two stories later combined into one.
I am saying that the possibility exists that someone will come along in the future and decide that we were all wrong about everything and rewrite our history to suite the way the see it.
See what I said? Two stories. Evolution and creation combined to make one story that will have all of us rolling in our graves.
Am I accountable to explain to YOU the point of my posts, particularly when the post was addressed to some other than YOU? No! So stop harrassing me "Christian". Lol.
Last edited:
Well, it stands to reason that people would want to be understood when they post, doesn't it?
(And harrassing?!? You must be kidding.)
(And harrassing?!? You must be kidding.)
The post is self explainitory given that it was in response to an athiest chastizing a Christian for illegedly believing in myths. The post is a thorough explaination, more thorough than any other post in this thread (in my opinion) giving reason as to why one can conclude that the theory of evolution is not a new modern scientific idea (that we all need to "catch up with") but on the contrary is in an actual fact steeped in ancient pagan belief. If I have to explain this to infantile minds who keep piping up with snippy little throw away remarks in this and other threads, then to me, whilst it may not be harrassment according to the letter of the law of this forum, I find it to be rather tedious and tiresome. But thanks for your input.
Anything else of value to add to this stunning thread?
Last edited:
It's not plagurism when the source is given. We are discussing a topic that requires evidence, I dont possess all the evidence known to mankind available to us on these topics in my own words, Without the freedom and ability to post supporting evidence one ends up with a vacuous truculent gaseous exchange. And while it may not be against forum guidelines, it certainly wouldn't make it worthwhile sticking around to witness the inanity of it much longer.
Last edited:
I must have missed that post.
That is very arguable, but even granting the point, so what?
I'll keep my opinion to myself for the time being, other than to remind you that you still haven't addressed the express purpose of the thread.
Namely, what is your understanding of the Theory of Evolution?
I find this post to be as equally pedantic, tedious and tiresome as the previous post I referred to as the same. Given that the thorough post you deem to be "argueably pointless" (why I have no idea, which I find odd given that you are challenging me to explain the reason for my posts)
Also given that many posts in this thread are off on tangent from the original post, and as you admit to not seeing the post I was actually responding to, I don't feel particuarly oblidged to answer your question.
As far as your other odd question "So what?" I'm scratching my head over that one too.
Do you have some sort of problem with me from a staff persepective as far as my posts pertain to forum guidelines or it this just a personal foible you are demonstrating here? Becuase frankly I have precisley no idea what your on about or where your coming from.
Last edited:
My understanding of what is commonly referred to as the theory of evolution is this.
It's part varifiable scientific fact, that part, In my opinion is commonly referred to as natural selection, but only some of which is refferde to as natural selcetion is widely accepted and agreed to "scientifically varifiable", and also in my opinion the word is used extremely subjectively and means differnt things to many different people.
The other part is not varifibale sceintic fact at all, and that is what I call "the theory of Evolution", which in an of it self isn't a problematic idea, until people start attempting to suggest it has been scientifically proven to be fact. Which of course is rediculous, not to mention a lie.
The proponents of this theory would do them selves and the general public a huge service if they separated the scienticfic fact from the myth, because as of right now the very words "The theory of Evolution" is a PR night mare and a disinformationalist dream.
It's part varifiable scientific fact, that part, In my opinion is commonly referred to as natural selection, but only some of which is refferde to as natural selcetion is widely accepted and agreed to "scientifically varifiable", and also in my opinion the word is used extremely subjectively and means differnt things to many different people.
The other part is not varifibale sceintic fact at all, and that is what I call "the theory of Evolution", which in an of it self isn't a problematic idea, until people start attempting to suggest it has been scientifically proven to be fact. Which of course is rediculous, not to mention a lie.
The proponents of this theory would do them selves and the general public a huge service if they separated the scienticfic fact from the myth, because as of right now the very words "The theory of Evolution" is a PR night mare and a disinformationalist dream.
Last edited: