thereal wrote:...
Now if you want this to be a scientific theory as opposed to simply an unsupported belief, how do propose testing these ideas? Why have we never seen "hyperevolution"? What support do you have for these statements? I could just as well say I believe a magic potion made all animals evolve to the forms we see today, but without any evidence it is as faulty as your stance.
Then I am in good company, because no evidence whatsoever exists fot claiming the past was as the present either. If you would like to be elevated from the rank of science, falsely so called, you would need to be able to test the past, to see if it was physical only as old agers claim! , How do propose testing these ideas? The bible indicates the future and past are more than that, and different.
We are not talking about science here, like making a computer, and whatnot, but the unsupportable speculations of the past, that assumes it was physical only. You cannot evidence, test or prove that.
We have never seen hyper evolution in the present, because it cannot exist here. God told the serpent it would be a different kind of creature, and go on it's belly, and that is what happened, lickety split. If you have any evidence to the contrary, do tell. Otherwise I guess you simply have your beliefs as well.
If you follow the argument at all, you would realize that it commonly consists of those with a religious background refuting the possibility of macroevolution but allowing microevolution. As your "theory" supports macroevolution, it is not in line with those religious folks who refute macroevolution and maintain the arguments.
No, it isn't, because they still assume the past was as we were told it was, when actually it was, I think, merged, spiritual and physical. This explains everything.
Wouldn't you first need to provide support that there was a garden for science to then address this issue?
Wouldn't you first need to provide support that there was a pond for science to then address this issue? As it is, you simply assume no creation, and old ages, based on the assumption of a physical only past you can never support!
And I hate burst your bubble, but the Bible is not a credible source.
My bubble is invunerable, but nice try. I am happy to announce that it is credible, and was true all along.
There are books on this earth that say the sun moves across the sky because it is pulled by a chariot, and that the world rests on the back of a giant turtle, etc., etc.
Yes, and that the universe was in a little speck of a hot soup, smaller than a pepper speck one time, and some lifeform appeared from non life and became the mother of all living things, and blah blah. Lots of stories.
Just because something is in a book doesn't make it unquestionable.
Of course not, not just because it is in a book. The bible was tried and proved over and over, and still works.
Also, if you were knowledeable about evolution, you would realize that it doesn't address abiogenesis.
Evidence?