god, life + creation

Originally posted by Halitose
French, you say? His origins already discredit his authenticity. Are you sure his book isn't intended as a comedy?

could be I've never read his book and I doni't want to call him a joker an idiot or that I believe him (however erratic) until I know a bit more about him

Originally posted by trevor33
could be I've never read his book and I doni't want to call him a joker an idiot or that I believe him (however erratic) until I know a bit more about him

I was the joker...

Originally posted by trevor33
Very interesting, again one that leaves more questions than answers and one that has left me with more questions than anyone could ever have the answers for. Thanks!

The theory that I believed and would still sway towards (but with some doubt) is the theory of universal common ancestry. Although a difficult theory to come to terms with, if you look at ...[text shortened]...
Ps, it still doesn’t say what theory you would be more inclined to believe, but thanks anyway.

Ps, it still doesn’t say what theory you would be more inclined to believe, but thanks anyway.

I'm inclined towards the Theory of Multiple Seperate Ancestries. As such, this theory merits a 'creator'. Having found the teachings of Christ; being convinced by His claim to divinity; considering the many evidences for Intelligent Design in nature; and many other aspects that I don't have the time to mention, I have solved my "creator" problem - and stumbled into the world of religion.

Originally posted by Halitose
I'm inclined towards the Theory of Multiple Seperate Ancestries. As such, this theory merits a 'creator'. Having found the teachings of Christ; being convinced by His claim to divinity; considering the many evidences for Intelligent Design in nature; and many other aspects that I don't have the time to mention, I have solved my "creator" problem - and stumbled into the world of religion.

Sounds like wishful thinking to me...kidding.

There must be some scientific backing for this theory--lay it on.

Originally posted by Halitose
I was the joker...

are you french

Originally posted by trevor33
are you french

Thank God, no! 😏

Wait a minute - I can't say for sure, knowing the French amorous tendencies, it may have sneaked into my gene pool;

I submit for your humorous perusal:

http://www.twainquotes.com/French.html

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Sounds like wishful thinking to me...kidding.

There must be some scientific backing for this theory--lay it on.

The evidence for TMSA is the same as the TOE without the mental-gymnastics of explaining the significant morphological differences in the taxa - e.g. from fish to amphibian, reptile to bird, etc, etc.

Originally posted by Halitose
Thank God, no! 😏

Wait a minute - I can't say for sure, knowing the French amorous tendencies, it may have sneaked into my gene pool;

I submit for your humorous perusal:

http://www.twainquotes.com/French.html

everyone do the can-can into the french parliament.

Originally posted by Halitose
The evidence for TMSA is the same as the TOE without the mental-gymnastics of explaining the significant morphological differences in the taxa - e.g. from fish to amphibian, reptile to bird, etc, etc.

What does it actually say.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
What does it actually say.

Did you check the link I provided on the previous page?

Edit: I'm currently strapped for time, and will attempt a more conclusive post at my convenience.

Originally posted by Halitose
Did you check the link I provided on the previous page?

Edit: I'm currently strapped for time, and will attempt a more conclusive post at my convenience.

"The theory of multiple separate ancestries explains most of the pertinent data. I think it does so more effectively than does the theory of universal common ancestry. Support for TMSA is based on observations in biology and paleontology, and by philosophical and theological arguments. TMSA cannot be proved scientifically, but it is a successful theory in explaining the origins of biodiversity."

That's it? It sounds awfully like...never mind.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
"The theory of multiple separate ancestries explains most of the pertinent data. I think it does so more effectively than does the theory of universal common ancestry. Support for TMSA is based on observations in biology and paleontology, and by philosophical and theological arguments. TMSA cannot be proved scientifically, but it is a successfu ...[text shortened]... in explaining the origins of biodiversity."

That's it? It sounds awfully like...never mind.

Support for TMSA is based on observations in biology and paleontology,

Obviously, like the TOE, it cannot be proven scientifically; there is just evidence given in support of the theory - and the TMSA doesn't have as many problems as the TOE.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Ps, it still doesn’t say what theory you would be more inclined to believe, but thanks anyway.

I'm inclined towards the Theory of Multiple Seperate Ancestries. As such, this theory merits a 'creator'. Having found the teachings of Christ; being convinced by His claim to divinity; considering the many evidences for Intelligent Design in nature; ...[text shortened]... time to mention, I have solved my "creator" problem - and stumbled into the world of religion.[/b]

This creator do you think its the same thing that created the universe, is it something that is confined to earth or did intelligent beings form another planet create live.

Originally posted by Halitose
Obviously, like the TOE, it cannot be proven scientifically; there is just evidence given in support of the theory - [b]and the TMSA doesn't have as many problems as the TOE.[/b]

It boils down to Goddunit, dunnit?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It boils down to Goddunit, dunnit?

It do. It's either that or Scientific Magik (TM) [pre-biotic chemicals and the magic wand of random energy and time]. Neither have empirical (and scientific-method validated) proof.