|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 5,808 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 5,808 Likes: 2 |
It's not an unfounded claim being made by 'evolutionsts,' the evidence is there. It has withstood one hundred and fifty years of testing. It's the creationist who makes claims. Did you just invoke the “I’m rubber. You’re glue.” proclamation with a double stamp? Statement of fact. Your response is somewhat ironic.
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk. That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied. Well?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,724 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,724 Likes: 2 |
It's not an unfounded claim being made by 'evolutionsts,' the evidence is there. It has withstood one hundred and fifty years of testing. It's the creationist who makes claims. Did you just invoke the “I’m rubber. You’re glue.” proclamation with a double stamp? No, I didn't. Look at the evidence objectively.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097 |
claiming Constantine to be a fully fledged christian as you did, when by your own later Admission you don't know it to be true. Since you cannot verify your claim, then it's a fantasy or fabrication till proven otherwise. BTW: Britannica is not a Theistic source to verify any faith you had in Constantine being an actual Christian. your desperation is showing again. When the huff- puff smoke and mirrors dont work, christians don't have anything remaining but claiming ~victim status. LOL. Why are the majority of evolution supporters on this thread so angry? 😂 please point out the anger in my post, I can't see it coz my vivid imagination isn't anywhere good as yours. You claimed you were being attacked and I pointed out your victim status attitude So what exactly is your issue.? Are you now disputing that you see yourself as a victim?
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,672
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,672 |
I'm just a little bit late, but all six work for me.
TV has become nothing more than the Petri dish where this country grows its idiots.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097 |
We have nothing from Jesus, only anonymous gospel writers and Paul.
The OT is clearly incompatible with the new testament....up to and including the requirements for the prophesied Messiah given in the OT and Jesus.
Bunker Busters!
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,663
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,663 |
claiming Constantine to be a fully fledged christian as you did, when by your own later Admission you don't know it to be true. Since you cannot verify your claim, then it's a fantasy or fabrication till proven otherwise. BTW: Britannica is not a Theistic source to verify any faith you had in Constantine being an actual Christian. your desperation is showing again. Ah. A Phd-conducted historical study must to come from a theistic source. Surely, my desperation is clearly evident. LOL. please point out the anger in my post, I can't see it coz my vivid imagination isn't anywhere good as yours. I’d say, based on your views of evolution, your imagination is as vivid as anyone’s. Do I need a theistic resource to point out your hostile tone or can it be observed by the readers of this thread? You claimed you were being attacked and I pointed out your victim status attitude So what exactly is your issue.? First you call me desperate. Now you call me a victim? LOL. You’re clearly struggling to avoid admitting the theory of evolution is not proven and using slander as a tactic to distract away from that point. Again, this is par for the course on the evolutionist side of this thread: Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make accusations and minimize the christian’s input by disparaging the poster. It would have to actually work for me to be a victim. It does not. You can provide evidence, but not proof. Since the beginning of this thread, my position has been the same: Christianity it subjective, so it cannot be measured using the scientific method. No Christian in this thread has suggested otherwise. It’s a relationship with Jesus and being as such, is as measureable as your relationship with anyone you know. How do you measure that? Can you provide a tangible scale of how you love anyone? This is where the evolutionists in this thread fail. They collectively disparage faith in an unobserved entity because faith in something unobserved is not part of the science. Yet while they dismiss God because he can’t be seen, touched or managed to leave tangible proof behind, they display faith in an unobserved theory that modern man evolved from monkeys and portray it as fact. Again, facts are proven and by science’s standard, evolution has not been proven. No…a finalistic answer of “yes it has” doesn’t make it any more proven. Nor does taking it to a personal level. Besides, you can’t triple stamp a double stamp. Hawkeye can post as many links as he wants, but a Don Barnes look-alike presenting a compelling (yet subjective) argument for evolution and dropping the mic is not proof of evolution. Others can condescendingly suggest to go read a book, but since the book has to be from their reading list, I don’t consider that proof, either. Proof is conclusive. Dismissing subjectivity while relying on subjectivity is hypocritical and discredits any argument evolutionists have. If the evolutionists here stated they believed evolution to be true based on evidence, but cannot prove it, this thread would’ve arrived at the same conclusion and been done in 3 pages. They won’t, however, as it would provide transparency to the fact that modern man’s evolution requires a leap of faith….the same characteristic they dismiss in Christianity. Instead, evolutionists here insist evolution is proven, falsely suggesting the theory has been concluded based on objective science. That is not science and actually discredits real science.
“When debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” - Socrates
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,724 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,724 Likes: 2 |
The failure isn't on the 'evolutionist' side. Evolution is a fact, theory lies in explaining the means of evolution, not the question of it....which is settled. Quote:''Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are not expressing reservations about its truth.'' ''In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.''
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,663
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,663 |
The failure isn't on the 'evolutionist' side. Evolution is a fact, theory lies in explaining the means of evolution, not the question of it....which is settled. Quote:''Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are not expressing reservations about its truth.'' ''In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.'' Thank you for that, DBT. It’s a good example of productive, uncontentious counterpoint. Allow me, however, to point out that your definition of a fact and NAS’s definition of a fact differ. This very much presents part of my point.
“When debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” - Socrates
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 132,008 Likes: 59
Campfire Sage
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 132,008 Likes: 59 |
The failure isn't on the 'evolutionist' side. Evolution is a fact, theory lies in explaining the means of evolution ... You've formulated it like this before, and have already been corrected. Once again, evolution is, scientifically speaking, the prevailing theory of biodiversity. In ordinary parlance, however, it's also a fact, since it's as well established a theory as is scientifically possible. You think you're bolstering its veracity by denying that it's a theory, but you're not. To say that it's not a scientific theory is to say that it lacks the necessary characteristics of a scientific theory, i.e., that it lacks falsifiability. Falsifiability just means that, were it false, it would be a simple matter to disprove it with evidence that can be acquired via scientific discovery or experimentation. Evolution theory meets that standard. Stop denying it's a theory. It just tells the informed that you don't know what that word means.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,724 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,724 Likes: 2 |
The failure isn't on the 'evolutionist' side. Evolution is a fact, theory lies in explaining the means of evolution, not the question of it....which is settled. Quote:''Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are not expressing reservations about its truth.'' ''In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.'' Thank you for that, DBT. It’s a good example of productive, uncontentious counterpoint. Allow me, however, to point out that your definition of a fact and NAS’s definition of a fact differ. This very much presents part of my point. If there are 'no reservations about its truth,' evolution is a fact. "No reservations" means beyond all reasonable doubt, ie, factual: a fact. There are "no reservations" as to the reality of evolution.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,663
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,663 |
If there are 'no reservations about its truth,' evolution is a fact. "No reservations" means beyond all reasonable doubt, ie, factual: a fact.
There are "no reservations" as to the reality of evolution. Let’s see how you arrived at that: ”Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are not expressing reservations about its truth.'' I believe you misinterpreted this. Not expressing reservations on a topic is not the same thing as claiming the opposite is true. If the intent was to claim its accepted as true, this would have been more direct in saying so. It’s actually supported in the below statement: ”'In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.'' It’s carefully crafted and the bias is restrained, but it is apparent. The writer implies evolution as a fact, but falls short of openly stating it. I appreciate that he/she defines “fact” and utilizes the term “evidence” instead of “proof”.
“When debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” - Socrates
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 61,275 Likes: 31
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 61,275 Likes: 31 |
It can not be proved on a blackboard, "IT", lives in the heart.
These premises insured by a Sheltie in Training ,--- and Cooey.o "May the Good Lord take a likin' to you"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354 |
It can not be proved on a blackboard, "IT", lives in the heart. If "it" is evolution, it most certainly can be proved on a blackboard. Look it up.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 96,081 Likes: 19
Campfire Oracle
|
OP
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 96,081 Likes: 19 |
It can not be proved on a blackboard, "IT", lives in the heart. If "it" is evolution, it most certainly can be proved on a blackboard. Look it up. So show us? BTW, people as dumb as you are starting to make me think they may be the missing link.
Ecc 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.
A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.
"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".
I Dindo Nuffin
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 61,275 Likes: 31
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 61,275 Likes: 31 |
I'll try to quote, Ben Stein, "Science brought us the Holocaust."
Another quote, :God is love".
These premises insured by a Sheltie in Training ,--- and Cooey.o "May the Good Lord take a likin' to you"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,937 Likes: 6
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,937 Likes: 6 |
You've formulated it like this before, and have already been corrected. Once again, evolution is, scientifically speaking, the prevailing theory of biodiversity. In ordinary parlance, however, it's also a fact, since it's as well established a theory as is scientifically possible. If evolutionism is so strong, why is it every year Ph.D. evolutionist convert to creationism? It's because both sides use the same evidence and eventually some of the scientists get over their brain washing.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,504
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,504 |
The Gospels=gossip=you said, they said he said=heresy = hearsay
The Theory of God=BELIEF (FAITH) in Mind before Matter
Last edited by Etoh; 07/09/20.
Most people don't have what it takes to get old
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 132,008 Likes: 59
Campfire Sage
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 132,008 Likes: 59 |
You've formulated it like this before, and have already been corrected. Once again, evolution is, scientifically speaking, the prevailing theory of biodiversity. In ordinary parlance, however, it's also a fact, since it's as well established a theory as is scientifically possible. If evolutionism is so strong, why is it every year Ph.D. evolutionist convert to creationism? It's because both sides use the same evidence and eventually some of the scientists get over their brain washing. We've been through that already.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,527 Likes: 6
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,527 Likes: 6 |
If there's no such thing as evolution, how did we get Covid-19?
Don't blame me. I voted for Trump.
Democrats would burn this country to the ground, if they could rule over the ashes.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,937 Likes: 6
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,937 Likes: 6 |
You've formulated it like this before, and have already been corrected. Once again, evolution is, scientifically speaking, the prevailing theory of biodiversity. In ordinary parlance, however, it's also a fact, since it's as well established a theory as is scientifically possible. If evolutionism is so strong, why is it every year Ph.D. evolutionist convert to creationism? It's because both sides use the same evidence and eventually some of the scientists get over their brain washing. We've been through that already. You're still stuck with the facts. No Ph.D. creationists are switching to evolution. Gee! I wonder why.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
544 members (222ND, 270wsmnutt, 25aught6, 10Glocks, 160user, 257Bob, 63 invisible),
2,565
guests, and
1,275
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,194,375
Posts18,527,466
Members74,031
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|