Is the theory of evolution correct?

Yes, yes;, Set but no, no, NoWhether or not "theistic" depends upon one's own definition

God Lord Mercy, if I've conveyed that impression my most sincere apologies to all and sundry hereabout. Tho my def for Her existence or -non- deviates a bit from prevalent, I very much respect the conventional view

I'm forced to observe however that response by the typical skeptic is so oft virulent as to suggest subconscious forces to the contrary. "Why," asks the largely neutral pantheist, do so many of you seem so terribly angry at all times about almost everything"

"I'm not mad at you, why are you so mad at me"

Ah, no doubt here you are right, now I remember that; I don't read him that much since he brings out my meanies.

Oh hey, Ye Tan, that's pretty accurate, and thanks for another opportunity to shoot off my mouth and bore everyone to death. However I maintain also that The Whole encompasses a certain factor, abstract but only vaguely understood, accounting, eg, for our importance to it; if not the mechanism by which everything seems to have been adjusted to promote our evolution

Part of the difficulty in arriving at its description arises from semantics. Maybe we simply don't quite yet have the vocabulary to discuss it intelligently. However intuition says it will eventually be shown a Her existence or non- is merely a semantic issue

Lotsa truth to that, Tan. I never claimed any sort of conclusive "Scientific" backing but repeatedly have represented my position as largely intuitive

But what earthly difference can the ruminations of some old man, an absolute stranger in a faroff location at a remote website, rile such emotional response

Yea Tan there's some truth to that. As a kid I was a downright atheist, sounded a lot like you

I've mellowed


Thanks for the chat

Well thank you Osso, at least you admit

You have some posting traits that I don't appreciate. I've said so a few times.
I generally bypass, but once in a while I am interested in the subject matter.

Golly then, there's some hope for me

Drop this Ye Tan bullshit, asshole. You're a bigger fool than i thought if you think you engender any emotional response in me. I wasn't chatting with you--i was responding to Osso; i have too much self-respect to chat with the likes of you.

Dale's position remains essentially that of not just a theist, but a middle eastern religious tradition theist. It is something about which he is being dishonest.

Dale, you have it precisely backwards. Everything isn't perfectly adapted to promote our evolution. We've adapted to fit it. It was here first. That's what evolution is all about.

Yea Jack I understand the theory. Yet life as we know it would be impossible with the slightest shift in value of some of the constants

Conceded that any such difference might yet permit life, though of an unimaginable form. Working with what we know, however, we can only conclude that the constants seem to have been set up, or "adjusted," to permit evolution of our higher life forms

That's not to say I'm presupposing some sort of anthropomorphic Being running the Whole Shebang, occasionally arbitrarily stepping in to tweak things. Doubtless the entire Megillah developed "naturally" through cause & Effect; that things are the way they are because that's the way they have to be

However I do maintain we oughtn't close our minds to the possibility there's some sort of quasi-abstract entity we can't quite yet describe, accounting for our apparently special place in the Big Show. But as an apodictical existential pantheist I see Her (It) as a perfectly natural phenomenon

So the theist will call Her "God". But God knows what She'll be called by the skeptic. In any case Her (Its) existence or non- will prove a mere semantic issue

Oh Jesus wept, here we go with that "constants" bullshit. The Great Oxygenation Event, more than two billion years ago, resulted in one of earth's great mass extinctions, the death of many anaerobic organisms. Change these hilarious, mythical constants, and it just changes the nature of life. Dale still doesn't get it, or doesn't want to.

Based upon an absolutely nonexistent
model with no evidence.
FYI We have another thread going on where the author is claiming the "Physics" of the great Flood, clearly show that it has happened in our earths history. He too, has not a drop of evidence and asks for an "open mind"

Usually science tries to collect the facts and , from them, draw conclusions. YOU, and our "Flood physics guy" are posing quite the opposite. (ie first the conclusion then hope to find some find the evidence)

Its poor religion and shitty science .


PS, what evidence would you consider is even mildly supportive of your claim?

Geez, I wish they actually taught this in elementary school.

Not so much claim as speculation, conjecture. We're working here in an area where Science peters out and Intuition takes over

Though I can't understand why hereabout it's considered such a threat

It's being laid on with a manure spreader in this thread.

Yes, but also confusion over evolution is all over the u.s.

I get a small personal kick that some people that get evolution are catholics, my old religion, famous for profound mistakes about nature in the past, but smarter than usual about this presently (the jesuit influence?) As I understand it, they're ok with present science as long as there is a posited Thomasian first cause. Thomasian my word, just to rile Thomas.

Also called Aristotle's Prime Mover.

Maybe in your mind. Science has developed a very good theory about evlution that all facts and evidence fits and nothing refutes.We use it every day in medicine, agriculture and exploration for minerals (you may not believe it but its true).

If there werent such a robust theory in action, then perhaps your "intuition" may have room.you just have to spend more time in understanding it

Why should anyone just lend a hand at promoting more ignorance. If you wish to join the anti-evolutionists of the A2K crowd, you would probably be welcomed .Just remember, they havent yet presented one piuece of evidence in support of their "belief system".

You seem to want to understand things but you always avoid the obvious data that explains it. I would not, for one, spend time making up (kinda) ridiculous queries as to whether evolution is valid, youre probably not gonna get support for your stance. Then, to top it off, you wonder why your stance isnt embraced by others.
its really not science thats settled by a debate. There are these biological facts that get in your way

The belief in Theistic EVolution or Intelligent Design or Creationism seems to be a majority view . The subject of evolution is one that requires some reading and investment in time to understand the seemingly unrelated aspects of science that underpin Natural Selection.
Its easier to accept "bumper Sticker Science" where some bar sots will simplify the subject and end up saying pretty much whgat Dale is saying "That its all conjecture" and "anyway, theres no proof that it has actually happened.

Court decision after court decision has (IMHO) not really made the population more savvy about the subject, It merely shunts the subject of "alternative worldviews" back into the realms of religion. The religious Fundamentalists use that as ammo and proof of a "atheistic progressive " government. The anti-science viewpoint is largely Republican, Im sure you know that.

The IDers and Creationists, though a clear minority (and hardly full of scientists as members), are well funded and are sharp about the means of getting peoples attention via websites and quasi scientific organizations.

I think the catholic church is more comfy with Thomas, but sure.