Jump to content

Bigfoot: Does It Exist? Or Not?


Recommended Posts

Posted

I don't think evolution or secular world view could be reconciled with the truth although their efforts might make an interesting novel.

Posted

I don't think evolution or secular world view could be reconciled with the truth although their efforts might make an interesting novel.

^^^ Oh my. Aaron, as an admin I'm sorta' surprised to see you post this thinly veiled comment in the free section.

  • Upvote 2
Posted

I don't think evolution or secular world view could be reconciled with the truth although their efforts might make an interesting novel.

 

My coloring. 

 

I think he is referring to this. 

Posted

We're allowed to say "evolution" and "reconciled with truth" even in the same sentence.....try again?

Posted (edited)

I didn't think we were even allowed to mention evolution in the GF, much less openly challenge it, being that the obvious alternative is a taboo subject in the GF.

 

 

So, by your logic, can I say "intelligent design" juxtaposed to "reconciled with truth" in the same sentence?  Given that, I fail to see how the discovery of bigfoot would work against evolution in favor of intelligent design. 

Edited by dmaker
Posted

You're allowed to discuss evolution til the cows come home in the GF and we are allowed to say it isn't truth if it's our POV. However, the obvious alternative is not allowed to be discussed--you might want to edit the 2nd half of your post as it does seem to "go there"

Posted

We're allowed to say "evolution" and "reconciled with truth" even in the same sentence.....try again?

 

Why even bring it up man?

  • Upvote 1
Posted

Ask Faenor, he began the mention and I was clearing the issue up with another member....

Posted

I was pointing out that scientists wouldn't have a problem if any sort of new animal being discovered. im not sure what that has to do with a vague "truth" which supposedly will create problems for evolution and the secular world.

  • Upvote 1
Posted (edited)

 

We're allowed to say "evolution" and "reconciled with truth" even in the same sentence.....try again?

 

Why even bring it up man?

 

Exactly. How is it okay to basically craft a post that clearly states that you don't think evolution to be true, and in the same breath say that discussing the alternative is taboo?  You open the door with your original post, that is very clear. To respond with any sort of refutation becomes taboo? That seems hardly fair.

 

It seems that it would be fine to mention evolution in passing, by your logic, but not discuss any alternative.However, you didn't just mention evolution in passing,  you brought alternatives into the discussion when you clearly stated that you believe evolution to not be the truth. Do the rules allow for that kind of drive by opining, yet, at the same time, restrict any response? I wouldn't think so.

 

Bear in mind, I am not discussing alternatives to evolution or intelligent design, I am simply expressing confusion as to how any mention of one, or the other, does not introduce taboo topics. 

Edited by dmaker
  • Upvote 1
Posted (edited)

^^ True, and I find little to argue with in that statement alone. Standard dating techniques, however, challenge many who believe a certain timeline for intelligent design that would preclude evolution as part of intelligent design.

 

 

Having said that, JDL, Aaron and myself are all premium members and we should probably continue this discussion in other areas of the forum.

Edited by dmaker
Posted

 

 

We're allowed to say "evolution" and "reconciled with truth" even in the same sentence.....try again?

 

Why even bring it up man?

 

Exactly. How is it okay to basically craft a post that clearly states that you don't think evolution to be true

It's ok to say you don't believe something to be true

,

and in the same breath say that discussing the alternative is taboo?

Your words, not mine

 

You open the door with your original post, that is very clear.

I only said I didn't believe in something--whatever doors that opens for you is not my fault

 

To respond with any sort of refutation becomes taboo? That seems hardly fair.

Agreed, but rules is rules

 

It seems that it would be fine to mention evolution in passing, by your logic, but not discuss any alternative.However, you didn't just mention evolution in passing,  you brought alternatives into the discussion when you clearly stated that you believe evolution to not be the truth. Do the rules allow for that kind of drive by opining, yet restrict any response due to the rules? I wouldn't think so.

 

Bear in mind, I am not discussing alternatives to evolution or intelligent design, I am simply expressing confusion as to how any mention of one or the other does not introduce taboo topics. 

You really should stop using that phrase in the GF!

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...