Originally posted by galveston75
Silly statement. We may not spend the time that evolutionist do on the study of evolution and the reason? It actually dosn't take much study and research to see the huge, huge gaps, flaws and lack of proof that it could even start to be a fact. So why would a spiritually wise person with faith in God and his creative powers waist time on such a silly "theory"? That's what evolutionist don't get.....

And this is your opinion.

"So why would a spiritually wise person with faith in God and his creative powers waist time on such a silly "theory"?" you ask.

Because evolution is a more beautiful theory than "It was created, Only go knows how." What if evolution was created by god in all its splendor? The evolution theory doesn't say anything about that. And as it is religion, science cannot prove it nor disprove it. Only that god is not needed once it was arolling. Scary, huh?

So naming it scientific properly as a 'theory', and not just an intelligent guessing, makes full sense.

Go learn what 'theory' means. Go learn what 'evolution' really means. You may actually learn something in the process.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
If you just google "proven mathematical theorems" you will get a lot of entries.
But if you are right then the term "proven mathematical theorem” would be a logical self-contradiction that would not be used by mathematicians; and yet I found:

http://nlp.stanford.edu/~wcmac/papers/peim.html

“...Since mathematicians regard proven mathematical ...[text shortened]... maticians do continually call mathematical theorems as “theorems” even after they are proven.

I don't see how I implied they wouldn't be called theorems. The point I was making (lets use an example) is that no one would refer to, say, Goldbach's conjecture as GoldBach's theorem, or the Riemann Hypothesis as the Riemann theorem until proofs have been found (and checked for errors). They clearly wouldn't be theorems were they proven false (the contrapositive statement would be a theorem though - or perhaps a proposition)

Originally posted by galveston75
A waisted question as I'm not going down that road again. Prove evolution is a fact and I'll listen. Oh wait, I've asked that before to and then you'll come back that I really need to study more then I'll see it. Lol.... You or no one here has got any proof to show, ever.

A waisted question as I'm not going down that road again

You don't want to go down the road of not substantiating your own claims?

You made the claim there has been no significant evidence since Darwin proposed his theory 150yrs ago. I'm waiting for you debunking of genetics.

If you fail to do so, which you will, i put it to you you are talking out of your arse. Over to you.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]A waisted question as I'm not going down that road again

You don't want to go down the road of not substantiating your own claims?

You made the claim there has been no significant evidence since Darwin proposed his theory 150yrs ago. I'm waiting for you debunking of genetics.

If you fail to do so, which you will, i put it to you you are talking out of your arse. Over to you.[/b]

I don't have to prove anything to you. It's your job to probe it to us.... Go ahead.

Originally posted by galveston75
I don't have to prove anything to you. It's your job to probe it to us.... Go ahead.

I'm asking you to substantiate this claim you made -

You can play with words all you want, it's still a theory with no more proof then Darwin had when he dreamed up that mess.

I'd like you to explain to me how the scientific field of genetics has not enhanced the evidence for the theory of evolution as you are claiming.

No side-stepping, no avoiding, explain away. If you can't, i'll have to put it down to you lying again.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'm asking you to substantiate this claim you made -

You can play with words all you want, it's still a theory with no more proof then Darwin had when he dreamed up that mess.

I'd like you to explain to me how the scientific field of genetics has not enhanced the evidence for the theory of evolution as you are claiming.

No side-stepping, no avoiding, explain away. If you can't, i'll have to put it down to you lying again.

beating up on my brother, AGAIN!!! perhaps i can be of assistance, or rather Huxely can,

'All our science is just a cookery book, with an orthodox theory of cooking that nobody's allowed to question, and a list of recipes that mustn't be added to except by special permission from the head cook.' - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World, Ch. 16

rather telling, isn't it!

Originally posted by FabianFnas
And this is your opinion.

"So why would a spiritually wise person with faith in God and his creative powers waist time on such a silly "theory"?" you ask.

Because evolution is a more beautiful theory than "It was created, Only go knows how." What if evolution was created by god in all its splendor? The evolution theory doesn't say anything about tha ...[text shortened]... arn what 'evolution' really means. You may actually learn something in the process.

i dont think so, indeed, i find the creation account infinitely more enthralling than, its just blind chance and mindless matter, i mean, its hardly appeals to ones imagination, does it!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'm asking you to substantiate this claim you made -

You can play with words all you want, it's still a theory with no more proof then Darwin had when he dreamed up that mess.

I'd like you to explain to me how the scientific field of genetics has not enhanced the evidence for the theory of evolution as you are claiming.

No side-stepping, no avoiding, explain away. If you can't, i'll have to put it down to you lying again.

Stop accusing me of lying on this forum. I never have and never will. Do it again and I'll report you for slander...

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
beating up on my brother, AGAIN!!! perhaps i can be of assistance, or rather Huxely can,

'All our science is just a cookery book, with an orthodox theory of cooking that nobody's allowed to question, and a list of recipes that mustn't be added to except by special permission from the head cook.' - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World, Ch. 16

rather telling, isn't it!

That's a quote from a novel. By a writer who had some pretty esoteric interests. I don't think that his apparent opinion (I haven't gone to the book to check the context of the quote) of science is all that telling really. Particularly as he was trying to create a very 'Big Brother' kind of atmosphere in that story.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
beating up on my brother, AGAIN!!! perhaps i can be of assistance, or rather Huxely can,

'All our science is just a cookery book, with an orthodox theory of cooking that nobody's allowed to question, and a list of recipes that mustn't be added to except by special permission from the head cook.' - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World, Ch. 16

rather telling, isn't it!

Beating up on? Stop being so sensationalist for goodness sake. I'm merely asking your 'brother' to substantiate something he said.

Were these not your words to Fabian in another thread?

your position is an act of faith, you doubt but you have no scientific data with which to backup your claim, it therefore remains unsubstantiated and pure conjecture......

Would you care to explain to me why these words are applicable to Fabian but not Galvo?

Originally posted by galveston75
Stop accusing me of lying on this forum. I never have and never will. Do it again and I'll report you for slander...

Less avoidance, more substantiation please sir!!!

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
That's a quote from a novel. By a writer who had some pretty esoteric interests. I don't think that his apparent opinion (I haven't gone to the book to check the context of the quote) of science is all that telling really. Particularly as he was trying to create a very 'Big Brother' kind of atmosphere in that story.

well i beg to differ 🙂

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Beating up on? Stop being so sensationalist for goodness sake. I'm merely asking your 'brother' to substantiate something he said.

Were these not your words to Fabian in another thread?

[i]your position is an act of faith, you doubt but you have no scientific data with which to backup your claim, it therefore remains unsubstantiated and pure conjec ...[text shortened]... i]

Would you care to explain to me why these words are applicable to Fabian but not Galvo?

its so annoying when some repeats your own words back to you! I shake my fist in your direction! 😠

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Less avoidance, more substantiation please sir!!!

Your avoiding my last post to you. Do you understand, sir?

Originally posted by galveston75
Your avoiding my last post to you. Do you understand, sir?

You claimed you'd studied evolution all your life, and then claimed you weren't a student of evolution, you can't have it both ways. Which was is it?

Now get back to the topic and back up your claim, in the words of your illustrious brother Mr Robbie Carrobie -

your position is an act of faith, you doubt but you have no scientific data with which to backup your claim, it therefore remains unsubstantiated and pure conjecture......