Evolution/creation 2

[Faith No More]

Please by all means give me an example where i have stated the bible says________ or does not say________...

Not sure what you're asking, but what I was referring to in that post was that you have repeatedly said, "stay silent where the bible is silent." The bible is silent on the existence of these 'monkey men,' but realizing that the creation account in genesis doesn't fit with the known scientific evidence, you have attempted to add something where the bible is silent. So, which is it? Stay silent or add when the bible is obviously lacking?

[Drich]

kinda like the Whole THEORY of Evolution or creation to begin with eh? I looks to me that I'm in good company. As we all expend a measure of faith to believe what it is we want to believe about our orgins.

It may be true that we all expend a measure of faith to carry on with the beliefs which are manifest in our actions. But, if you're doing it right, there is no place for faith in scientific theory. You may be mistaking the application of poor-faith science such as creationism for actual science. They operate on completely different principles.

Actually they do not. for the fact that this 'theory' is ever changing means it is not based in sceientific Truth. Because it is not based in truth but fact one has to have faith that the current incarnation of what he or she believes is actual truth. Faith in ever changing facts is still FAITH no matter how you want to justify it.

[Annik]

Educate yourself.

[Drich]

Please by all means give me an example where i have stated the bible says________ or does not say________...

Not sure what you're asking, but what I was referring to in that post was that you have repeatedly said, "stay silent where the bible is silent." The bible is silent on the existence of these 'monkey men,' but realizing that the creation account in genesis doesn't fit with the known scientific evidence, you have attempted to add something where the bible is silent. So, which is it? Stay silent or add when the bible is obviously lacking?

what have I added is what i am asking. the fact is i took away the artifical time line the 'church' put in place 1500 years ago. Leaving us with an undisclosed amount of time between creation and the fall. to which i simply suggested that the whole evolutionary mess could still neatly fit between these to biblical events and NOT Change a single word of the bible.

I silenced the church's traditional (not biblical) time line. the rest i left up to the imaginations of the evolutionist and combined with biblical truth..

So again show me where i added anything. please...

---

Educate yourself.

like using wiki definations over Merrium-webster's definations, because the better suit my arguement? you mean change my world to reflect my reality, rather than adjusting my reality to fit the established standard?

Yeah, i'll be sure to hop on that turnip truck wid ja, why don't yu run on up thar, and I'll be along shortly...

[Hovik]

It may be true that we all expend a measure of faith to carry on with the beliefs which are manifest in our actions. But, if you're doing it right, there is no place for faith in scientific theory. You may be mistaking the application of poor-faith science such as creationism for actual science. They operate on completely different principles.

Actually they do not. for the fact that this 'theory' is ever changing means it is not based in sceientific Truth. Because it is not based in truth but fact one has to have faith that the current incarnation of what he or she believes is actual truth. Faith in ever changing facts is still FAITH no matter how you want to justify it.

Science adjusts its views based on new evidence and observation. A theory might change in the face of new evidence, but that just means that the theory is stronger because there are now more threads of evidence to support the ideas of the theory. If the evidence showed that evolution as we currently understand it (and we understand it pretty fucking well) were wrong, the theory would adjust to that new evidence.

Do you not realize that there are literally mountains upon mountains of evidence for evolution?

---

Educate yourself.

like using wiki definations over Merrium-webster's definations, because the better suit my arguement? you mean change my world to reflect my reality, rather than adjusting my reality to fit the established standard?

Yeah, i'll be sure to hop on that turnip truck wid ja, why don't yu run on up thar, and I'll be along shortly...

Wikipedia provides citations, you twit.

[Annik]

Educate yourself.

like using wiki definations over Merrium-webster's definations, because the better suit my arguement? you mean change my world to reflect my reality, rather than adjusting my reality to fit the established standard?

Yeah, i'll be sure to hop on that turnip truck wid ja, why don't yu run on up thar, and I'll be along shortly...

Besides that that particular dictionary is not the greatest, check out the 5th definition on the list: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

This is referring to the scientific definition of a theory. However, it's not nearly in depth enough. So look at the indepth version provided in the wiki article I sent and do check the citations they list.

For further clarification:

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: Darwin’s theory of evolution
a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based: a theory of education music theory
an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action: my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged
Mathematics a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition...s&q=theory

something suggested as a reasonable explanation for facts, a condition, or an event, esp. a systematic or scientific explanation:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictiona...y?q=theory


It's like you don't understand how dictionaries work or that words have multiple meanings. Stop being so smug.

[Tobie]

Most mainstream scientific theories provide the best model/explanation for real world phenomena. No one has to put faith in them, because we can accept that, and these theories have evidence, which your hypothesis is distinctly lacking.

Whilst evolution is called a theory, it is a theory in the scientific sense of the word, which has one clear definition. It does not mean everything found in the dictionary. (PS, you could actually use a dictionary constructively, rather than use it to make some pathetic attempt to make your nonsense look valid, and look up how to spell definition.)

[The Grand Nudger]

what have I added is what i am asking. the fact is i took away the artifical time line the 'church' put in place 1500 years ago. Leaving us with an undisclosed amount of time between creation and the fall. to which i simply suggested that the whole evolutionary mess could still neatly fit between these to biblical events and NOT Change a single word of the bible.

I silenced the church's traditional (not biblical) time line. the rest i left up to the imaginations of the evolutionist and combined with biblical truth..

So again show me where i added anything. please...

Yep, you took away the literal interpretation of the time line, and then added a bunch of horseshit about monkey men. The timeline appears in the bible, monkey men do not. That is what you have subtracted, and what you have added. It shouldn't need to be pointed out to you, because you took it upon yourself to do so. I agree, you havent changed a word of the bible, because even after your fantasies have spun themselves out, the timeline remains, and monkey men (nor evolution) are anywhere to be found. The timeline is biblical, your fantasies are not. You did not combine evolution with biblical truth at all, in fact, you don't seem to have any idea of what evolution is to begin with, and after this little exchange, I'm wondering how you've convinced yourself that you have "biblicaly based" beliefs in the first place. Let me put this simply, you've managed to diverge not only from the biblical account, but also the factual account. IOW, you're out in lala-land. This is Drichianity. Not that I have a problem with that, have at it, but at least own up to it, make it yours, claim it.

like using wiki definations over Merrium-webster's definations, because the better suit my arguement? you mean change my world to reflect my reality, rather than adjusting my reality to fit the established standard?

Yeah, i'll be sure to hop on that turnip truck wid ja, why don't yu run on up thar, and I'll be along shortly...

If you need to have the whole theory bit, (as it applies to science,) explained to you again then just say the word. You're clearly having trouble with the concept.

Looks like "the atheist" has plenty to criticize in this "theory" Drich. Curiously, those atheists which "saw the logic" remain mysteriously absent, just like your evidence, your scriptural support, and your god.

[Faith No More]

So again show me where i added anything. please...

Soulless monkey men that evolved from single cell organisms ring a bell?

[Whateverist]

It may be true that we all expend a measure of faith to carry on with the beliefs which are manifest in our actions. But, if you're doing it right, there is no place for faith in scientific theory. You may be mistaking the application of poor-faith science such as creationism for actual science. They operate on completely different principles.

Actually they do not. for the fact that this 'theory' is ever changing means it is not based in sceientific Truth. Because it is not based in truth but fact one has to have faith that the current incarnation of what he or she believes is actual truth. Faith in ever changing facts is still FAITH no matter how you want to justify it.

Oh my, you're going to catch hell for this. There is no scientific truth, just theories all the way down. No matter how much reliability a scientific theory demonstrates it always retains its provisional status given additional evidence or a better interpretation of the known data.

Basically you are demonstrating exactly what is wrong with creation science in that it exists to support a predetermined conclusion.

Now your monkeyman theory, that's a real humdinger. Obviously since no scientific theory represents established fact, your monkeyman proposal is right up there with the best of them .. at least in your completely biased opinion. You lack the intellectual maturity to engage in determining which theory best fits the available evidence. Unless you take god's titty out of your mouth you'll never be able to take the first step.