Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire So, which of the 6 theories of Evolution do you unbelievers believe in?

We’ve discussed beliefs on this thread a lot. The juice goes out of Christianity though, when it becomes too based on beliefs rather than on living like Jesus, or seeing the world as Jesus saw it. The juice goes out of it when it’s all about what a person believes as opposed to what a person does.

I think I may be agreeing with you. Will go back and see what else you have to say in other posts.

Ah. But this is where individuals touting science muddy the waters. You claim micro evolutional traits in other species as “proof” of macroevolution in man. That’s not science. That’s using science to justify your faith.




LOL. No. It’s been posted many times as a convenient example for people believing that men came from apes but having no way to prove it through their method: The scientific method.

They insult the opinions of others, saying faith in a God is made up because the presence of God can’t be “proven” and suggest christianity is based on nothing but faith. Then, the same people use the same measure of “faith” to suggest men’s descending from apes is “proven”. I find it interesting that I received scathing insult for not using scientific terms in their most absolute definition, yet no one championing evolution has commented on your use of hypothesis and proven. Inconvenient, indeed.

Faith is a religious unit of measure and all that is needed in christianity. I’ve never seen the word “faith” used in the scientific method. The closest thing is a thesis or hypothesis and a true scientific mind would never treat a hypothesis like a proven theory. A true scientific mind wouldn’t even treat an unproven theory like a proven one. Yet, here we are.....without a missing link.....pointing at other species and suggesting it is good science to apply that evolutionary occurrence to that of man. That, sir, is faith.......not science. I believe in science, but the manipulation of the scientific method seen here is the same as any radical religious belief encountered. Those that demand and passionately argue that man descended from apes instead of suggesting it is a possibility are religious zealots of another form.

Well, there is that.

The Bible stories were written for a reason. That was for GODs people to know the truth of the history of Christ.

Of course, it tells us to not deceive ourselves by only knowing the world and to live the way HE was. HE demonstrated the examples for us to strive to live by.

Who said HE had to come to earth to create those animals? HE told of the behemoths roaming the hills long ago.

I dont hold to a day being exactly a thousand years. I think it is to illustrate that to HIM, time is nothing. After all, HE made it.

"Nothing you've posted is testable proof. It's all theory. Universal common decent is a general descriptive THEORY....."
Proof requires direct, tangible, demonstrable, testable EVIDENCE that yields identical results, not conjecture. Macro evolution is not provable without all of the above.
Without that, it is ONLY theory and theory is nothing more than an idea or thoughts that have yet to be proven.

They know this, Mickey. That’s why the only responses are insults, misappropriation of science, application of philosophy or deflections to loosely related religious topics (like Paul).

Jesus referred to His dedicated followers as “disciples”. The term ‘Christian’ is oftentimes all about what a person believes...and the term ‘disciple’ is more about what a person does.

Jesus told us the defining characteristic of what it was to be one of His disciples.

Good point. Thanks.

PS. And HIS people as sheep?

TONS of strong evidence has been posted on here supporting Evolution.
It is a done deal and because it is science it will continually be reinforced.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens

Misappropriation of science. “Evidence” is a suggestion that is not conclusive, therefore, it is not a “...done deal.”

What about TONS of evidence actually PROVING (macro) evolution, not just supporting a flawed, unproven theory. See my earlier post concerning the elements needed for proving fact. Until ALL those elements are met, it's far from a done deal.
Proof requires testing. Testing that yields identical results assumptions don't matter. Anything less than that and all you have is theory.

That's what the left, unbelievers, are saying about Hydroxychloroquine.

Unlike many, if I get C-19, I will gladly take it

By that criterion you can't prove that anything in the Bible actually happened.

Some of the Hebrew history part did, however, happen. We have corroboration from other sources.

It's fairly easy to prove, though, that much it simply didn't happen. The whole book of Genesis is one example.

From all that I've read, taking it as early as possible after exposure can make huge difference in the results.

My dr bud who has treated many and lost none says it's almost a sure thing. He has successfully treated even several of 65 and one lady was in bad health with diabetes iirc and two kinds of cancer she was taking chemo for and she had been I'll and in bed a week before TX was started.

If you accept that proof requires testing, then all that you can "prove" is that no one else has been able to create the world as described in Genesis. But neither can you "prove" evolution. Both require acceptance of something that is humanly unprovable, which I believe is by design. So, once again, it comes back to which premise you are going to start with. That is a choice we each have. Choose well.

Evolution IS a Theory. It is not proven Fact. THAT is why it is still a Theory...
It is one of the most substantiated theory I can think of. Pick up a fossil, any fossil...
LIKE I SAID: “TONS of strong evidence has been posted on here supporting Evolution. It is a done deal and because it is science it will continually be reinforced.”
The gaps in any theory is what makes them so interesting to study. Pick up a wagon load of fossils...

Biblical Creation is not supported by evidence. In fact, it does not stand up to anything close to proof.

AND LIKE HE SAID: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens

Depends on how you interpret the evidence, I would think.