Gods view on evolution ?

[HALIKniHUDAS]

---

just because creationism is non-factual, doesnt mean one must embrace evolution theory as THE theory.

taka man lang ni nga statement. Rational man must look for rational answers. don't push your idea on the people that finds creationism ridiculous.

It is THE theory.

[HALIKniHUDAS]

just because creationism is non-factual, it does not mean that we have to embrace is alternative evolution theory as THE theory.

are you suggesting nga dili ta maghonahona? awooooo.

[brownprose]

just because creationism is non-factual, it does not mean that we have to embrace is alternative evolution theory as THE theory.

sorry, but this is even more ridiculous sir. so, do you know of any particular theory sir more factual than evolution?

[The_Child]

just because creationism is stupid as a scientific theory, it does not mean, that we are bound to believe in evolutionary theory.



btw, is there a gradation of factuality, to refer to something as MORE factual?

[HALIKniHUDAS]

just because creationism is stupid as a scientific theory, it does not mean, that we are bound to believe in evolutionary theory.

nagka anam man ka walay sense ang imong statement. kasabot ka kong unsa ng scientific theory? don't fall for the trap nga its only a theory.

[HALIKniHUDAS]

just because creationism is stupid as a scientific theory, it does not mean, that we are bound to believe in evolutionary theory.



btw, is there a gradation of factuality, to refer to something as MORE factual?

hep hep hep, the issue is kong asa ang mas factual, evolution or creationism. ayaw lapas kay dili maghoman ang discussion.

[brownprose]

read the fine print.

just because creationism is stupid as a scientific theory, it does not mean, that we are bound to believe in evolutionary theory.

i see your point. so what is that you're talking sir the "alternative" to evolution when science has already established that it is a fact?

[regnauld]

i see your point. so what is that you're talking sir the "alternative" to evolution when science has already established that it is a fact?

OT: BTW, I love EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY, sir!

[The_Child]

i see your point. so what is that you're talking sir the "alternative" to evolution when science has already established that it is a fact?

none yet. but it does not mean, one must sacrifice truth for praxis.

-- one must not only be skeptical with priests, one must also be skeptical with scientists.

always have been a skeptic, but i do not understand what you refer to as "fact" because, there are still studies that continuously challenges that idea. If we are to take as secured, foundational and demonstrable, then would it not be the case, that studies against it, which are also done in a scientific manner stop?

nobody questions, Galileo's notion of Free-Falling objects, thats a fact. but evolution? ah... that takes time. and for me, although not a scientist, i do not think traditional evolutionary theory is enough to explain the history of life much so with creationism.

[brownprose]

OT: BTW, I love EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY, sir!

apil ba ang behavioural genetics sir reg sa evolutionary psychology? i have heard of it in a conference some 6 yrs ago...i am particularly curious on the subject. i just dnot know what it is.