Arian has always said he doesn't believe in god, I don't know why all of sudden it became a big topic
I don't know if you are trolling but you do know there is the colloquial definition of 'theory' and the scientific definition of 'theory' right? You just invoked the colloquial definition. A SCIENTIFIC theory occurs AFTER a hypothesis, observations and repeated tests are performed. Why the **** am I discussing this in the Texans sub forum!?!? But seriously, I really hope you were being sarcastic or something with that statement because that knowledge is grade school knowledge.
I'm glad he said it. I swear, some people think you are crazy if you don't believe in "god". Its very taboo. Nobody should be treated differently or looked down upon because of their lack of religious beliefs.
This will be my last comment, as I too would NOT like to ruin a sub-form I actually care about. I do NOT dispute anything you have stated in regards to the scientific method. But that is my point...Evolution is NOT the same as adaptation/modifying/engineering. Evolutionists cling onto changes seen through adaptation and force feed the general public that "this is the reproducible tests" everyone is looking for...If you or I were put in Antartica...over the course of our lives, we would have to find a way to survive...We would have to ADAPT to the new surroundings. Evole (as defined by Webster dictionary): Spoiler to change or develop slowly often into a better, more complex, or more advanced state : to develop by a process of evolution vs. Adapt Spoiler to change (something) so that it functions better or is better suited for a purpose These two are NOT the same, but the latter is what is observable. Evolution has NOT. Every kind of visible variation has occured within its own family. It has yet to be shown that one kind species becomes another kind. Methicilin Sensitive Staph Aureus has NOT evolved into Streptococcus Pneumoniae, but rather it has adapted to MRSA...
To me, the creation of the universe in the blink of an eye via the big bang 13.8 billion years ago makes it more likely than not there is a supreme being. And evolution could simply be part that being's creative force. That creator, unlike the universe, is probably not of this dimension, or bound by the natural laws of matter, time or space. As such, that creator did not need to be created in the sense that matter is created. If near-death experiences are to be believed, hopefully there is universal salvation and an afterlife.
Do you receive all your rhetoric from answersingenesis.org because everything you just stated has been stated hundreds of times and has been refuted hundreds of times. Did you just seriously copy and paste some Ken Ham bull because you SEEM TO NOT UNDERSTAND the difference between a colloquial theory and a scientific theory in your last post and suddenly shifted goal posts in your next post to hide your mistake. You explicitly used the term 'theory' in the colloquial sense since you have a severe misunderstanding between the relationship between scientific law and scientific theory. A scientific theory is often an explanation of a scientific law. One term does not supersede the other in the matter of how credible they are.
Do you suspect that every person that responds to your personal bull, are just folks that go on the internet and lets look up "how to answer that?" Once again, you prove my point. Folks just like you act like you are some gift to mankind claiming that your ideas have been developed through accurate reasoning and anyone that challenges that assertion have to use the ideologies of folks from the internet/can't think for themselves??? Show me one article that you have published, researched or contributed to the scientific community...Anything... doesn't have to be related to this topic either. Till that point, your ideas and thought processes are just as much copied and pasted from Dawkins/Hutchins or other prominent atheists...freaking hypocrite. If a given hypothesis requires observational and repetitive testing to formulate a general theory or law, how has the "theory of evolution" shown this?? In my retort, I have clearly concede that I agree with your definition of the scientific method, but to you...its like a "look here, I've got you..." moment asserting some sort internet-champion prowess. If you want to continue this...perhaps you should just start something on D&D...I am done throwing this forum around in the muck. Wish Castro could move this thread to the D/D... I HAVE ZERO QUALMS ABOUT HOW ARIAN FOSTER VIEWS THE WORLD. That is his right!
The onus is on you to read peer reviewed science articles on observational data. Also, scientific theories also have the powerful ability of making accurate predictions and the theory of evolution has made many accurate predictions such as the discovery of certain fossils in certain locations. The theory of evolution was already a well substantiated theory before the advancement of genetic research. Today, genetic information is probably the most compelling observational data for evolution. And stop backpedalling. You explicitly used the colloquial definition of 'theory'. Here, let me quote you in verbatim: "Evolution was still defined as a theory, yet people continue to regurgitate that BS as scientific law." Anyone with basic inductive reasoning skills can conclude that you have a sever lack of understanding of what a scientific theory and what a scientific law entails. I hope one does not have to be a geneticist or evolutionary biologist to understand how the theory of evolution came to be. My knowledge of biology comes from basic AP Bio and some other gen ed courses like orgo chem. That should be enough to understand the merits of what a scientific theory entails.
Now I've seen everything! A simple discussion of Arian Foster's beliefs or non-beliefs in an ESPN piece has somehow morphed into a evolution vs. creationism hissy fit. Wow, just wow!
Believe what you want to believe but don't push your beliefs on someone. I don't mind learning about someones religion. I do mind when they are trying to shove it down my throat. Also before you write something or say something, think about it before you blabber.
You haven't seen much if you're surprised. You're also no stranger to hissy fits over simple comments. Kleenex has a box with your name on it.
That is basically what he is. I never see any reference to him graduating just that he was a philosophy "major" He probably paid attention in a single class that his tutor was sick and couldn't take notes for and became football immanuel kant in his mind.
