Evolution

[The Grand Nudger]

What theory?

[Chuff]

So Drich...

You're the only person on the planet who understand or gives credulity to your 'theory' then? What is your conclusion to this?

I also predict that you are going to persist against all odds in this thread in the hope of claiming some kind of victory, even though it ceased to be a reasonable discussion a long time ago

[Drich]

So Drich...

You're the only person on the planet who understand or gives credulity to your 'theory' then? What is your conclusion to this?

What gave you that Idea? I simply reported on what might have interested it this group first. I have some very positive feed back as well, Some have offered passages to strengthen my position while others tested it. Still yet There has been an academic request to further study all of the implications this may have for the Christian community. But as I said I seriously did not think any of you would be interested in that. So I lead with what I thought you might have wanted to hear first.

I also predict that you are going to persist against all odds in this thread in the hope of claiming some kind of victory, even though it ceased to be a reasonable discussion a long time ago

i only spoke the truth. That it was my conclusion that none of the Atheists who responded to this thread could find a scientific reason to separate Creationism and the Theory of Evolution. The best that anyone could do is ask for proof of this theory.

When I followed up and ask what kind of proof they were looking for? no one knew for sure. It just seemed like they were hoping I would go snipe hunting with them so I would get lost in the dark. which is what someone has to do when presenting an apposing view. Again this is not an opposing view therefore we have the option to allow those who wish to hunt for "snipe" the freedom to do so, and likewise those who have better things to do with their time are free to do that as well.

This argument breaks the paradigm of the old Creationism vs Evolution arguments you all have seemed to devoted your lives to. The Irony here is either you must learn to adapt, or you and your prized philosophies will get left behind.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think you need to invest in a dictionary amigo. You have strange ideas of what constitutes truth, or philosophy, or theory, actually, a great many things.

[KichigaiNeko]

And learn to use the quote tags properly...sorry Drich but your deity will not save you there in the communications area

[NoMoreFaith]

This argument breaks the paradigm of the old Creationism vs Evolution arguments you all have seemed to devoted your lives to. The Irony here is either you must learn to adapt, or you and your prized philosophies will get left behind.

Faeries exist in the realm which created the original universe using aspects of the Fae kingdoms to create the explosion of known reality.
Faeries added the spark of life from the metaphysical reality of the seelie kingdom billions of years ago, occasionally popping into our universe to use their magic to guide evolution to mankind, whom would eventually write about the faeries, and make way for us to reach the kingdom of the fae when we die.

My argument for the existence of faeries breaks the paradigm "faeries are myth" debate.

You afaeists must learn to adapt, or you and your prized philosophies will get left behind.

The best you could do is ask for scientific proof of my theory. You can't find a scientific reason to separate evolution from being guided and started by faeries.

When I ask what kind of proof they were looking for? no one knew for sure. It just seemed like they were hoping I would go snipe hunting with them so I would get lost in the dark. which is what someone has to do when presenting an apposing view.

[FoxBlade]

i only spoke the truth. That it was my conclusion that none of the Atheists who responded to this thread could find a scientific reason to separate Creationism and the Theory of Evolution. The best that anyone could do is ask for proof of this theory.

Evolution doesn't need to have a creator to work. Creationism isn't scientific because it's an unfalsifiable claim. You must also keep in mind that the premise (there being a creator in the first place) hasn't been shown to exist or to be true.

Occam's razor works perfectly here, because by inserting a creator into the idea of evolution - you are creating many more questions than your theory answers.

When I followed up and ask what kind of proof they were looking for? no one knew for sure. It just seemed like they were hoping I would go snipe hunting with them so I would get lost in the dark. which is what someone has to do when presenting an apposing view. Again this is not an opposing view therefore we have the option to allow those who wish to hunt for "snipe" the freedom to do so, and likewise those who have better things to do with their time are free to do that as well.

Two things -

First, I would like evidence of your premise (a creator exists).

Second, I would like you to explain what evidence you have that shows that a creator is involved with evolution.

This argument breaks the paradigm of the old Creationism vs Evolution arguments you all have seemed to devoted your lives to. The Irony here is either you must learn to adapt, or you and your prized philosophies will get left behind.

It doesn't because you first have to show that your premise is true in the first place. You haven't done so, at least not that I've read. From what I've read - you have asserted your premise is true and then concluded that a creator is involved with evolution somehow.

[Mister Agenda]

So by reading all of your comments it seems you ALL have taken the easy way out and not actually addressed the question I asked.

My question was: "If We Can Develop Light Without The Need of Creating A Star, Then Wouldn't It Be Possible For The Being That Created The Stars Could Also Create Light Without The Need For Creating A Star?"

Sure, an omnipotent being can do anything, that's why it can seem to explain anything while actually explaining nothing.

Their are only two possible answers to this question, of which none of you who chose to respond even approached. It seems when you all are faced with a simple obvious reasonable answer, you'd all rather opt of the question but still participate by attempting to trivialize and dismiss the comment that forces reasonable logical thought, rather than address you own folly for not seeing the obvious.

Some questions ARE stupid. If you're going to use evidence and reason and logic at all, why bring in magic? Sure, an omnipotent being could create light before sources of light, but to what purpose? Just to be inscrutable? Omnipotence stops the conversation by placing it outside the realm of reason.

If any of you had the stones to say yes or even no i would have pointed to scripture that says God Himself radiates light, and that would have concluded a Biblical perspective of a very legitimate question.

Genesis clearly isn't talking about any light God gives off, but light God created.

Why do you all hold me to a different standard than you hold yourselves? What if I had skirted one of your questions??

Yes, we do. We humor your made-up assertions much more than we would someone who claimed to be a rational skeptic.

Just look at how you all react when I simply ask you to define the parameters of the "evidence" you all seem to be looking for.

You mean when you dismiss examples of evidence that would interest us, like evidence that the Garden of Eden even existed?

This is a legitimate scientifically based question.

Only questions that can, in theory, be falsified, can be described as scientific.

(In order to define a variable, one must understand the standard in which it is measured.) Yet you all over look this fact when your arguments run out of spite and harp this point when i ask for something you should be able to provide. Yet when you have an opportunity to provide a direct answer you falter and fail even after I reduce the question to yes or no.(Completely defining the parameters for you again something you all have Failed to do for me) Again why am I held to a standard that you all fail to achieve yourselves?

Because you keep asking us to follow you down rabbit holes.

I am not preaching here as none of this pertains to anything religious.

You have a very unique perspective about what pertains to anything religious.

I am simply trying to force the bar of these conversations up a few notches to where you force me to play. May I humbly suggest if you can not participate on this level on a given topic, sit this one out and let those who can do.

We're still on the Thor vs. Hulk level, and you're the one keeping us there.

---

Did I say God created a light bulb?

Hey, it's your analogy.

We create light without bulbs as well..

Do we create light without any source?

So again if we have the wherewith all to create light with out the use of a "light bulb" or a star, then isn't it possible God did the same?

God who can do anything can do anything.

(Hint it is either a yes or no question, if you feel you need to explain your non yes or no answer, then know your answer is wrong no matter what the explanation.)

Your rules for how to determine if an answer is wrong differ from the ways reasonable people do it.

Plus did you not read the part where i said their is a verse that says God radiates light, that Heaven Radiates light??? Shouldn't this stop all light bulb related responses?

God said 'let there be light, and there was light'. It was an act of creation, not radiation.

---

For the one who said I should post this theory on a Christian site, know i took your advise and it's been a few days, but I am starting to see results. It took a while for them to start responding with deeper stuff than "that's blaspheme" but the theory is still biblically supported, and all questions/challenges from their side have been answered biblically. If you are interested in what the other side has to say PM me and I will e/m you a link. I do not want to get into any more trouble, or be accused of preaching on the Christian section of the web site again. (I don't know how many more times a Daniel will make it out of a lion's den unscathed )

AFAIK, it's not a violation to post the link. I hope you're persuasive, as rejection of evolution IS one of the things fundamentalist Christians do that puts us at odds. I prefer a Christianity that can accommodate science.

[Faith No More]

When I followed up and ask what kind of proof they were looking for? no one knew for sure

Oh, quit spewing this nonsense. You were asked to provide anything, anything that would prove your hypothesis, yet you continued to play this childish game. The only person that would engage in such stupid tactics is one that has no evidence. You keep acting like this question was your ace in the hole, but it just makes you look desperate and unprepared.

[The Grand Nudger]

Actually, he was given a very specific set of conditions which would be evidence that could possibly support his "theory", he didn't like that such evidence could not be found, and deferred instead to some tired bullshit.