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

Statement of fact. Your response is somewhat ironic.

No, I didn't. Look at the evidence objectively.

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.





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?

I'm just a little bit late, but all six work for me.

Bunker Busters!

Ah. A Phd-conducted historical study must to come from a theistic source. Surely, my desperation is clearly evident. LOL.

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?


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.

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.

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.

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:


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:



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”.

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.

I'll try to quote, Ben Stein, "Science brought us the Holocaust."

Another quote, :God is love".

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.

The Gospels=gossip=you said, they said he said=heresy = hearsay

The Theory of God=BELIEF (FAITH) in Mind before Matter

We've been through that already.

If there's no such thing as evolution, how did we get Covid-19?

You're still stuck with the facts. No Ph.D. creationists are switching to evolution. Gee! I wonder why.