JDL Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Those left, anyway. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 I don't think evolution or secular world view could be reconciled with the truth although their efforts might make an interesting novel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Really? What exactly did I say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 We're allowed to say "evolution" and "reconciled with truth" even in the same sentence.....try again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 (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 September 22, 2015 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 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" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 We're allowed to say "evolution" and "reconciled with truth" even in the same sentence.....try again? Why even bring it up man? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Ask Faenor, he began the mention and I was clearing the issue up with another member.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faenor Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 (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 September 23, 2015 by dmaker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 If evolution is by design then there is no conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 (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 September 23, 2015 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts