Mall

Nope 

Like I said when you read the old testament expecting a name to be there, you really don't understand what you're reading.

It's the same thing with claiming contradictions. All of you that's spreading falsehood saying that the old testament does not prophesize Jesus Christ are in error .

To RaymondSheen: They're in error.

I told you to relax. Are you bothered with all this ?

Trying to defend evolution had you lose your patience.

I claim or assert the fact of the word fact spelled f,a,c,t.

Assigning objective truths as moral values is valid over arguing morality is objective.

Regardless of the type of systems because an individual may prefer this and that so it's subjectively operated and we argue and converse over which is better .

At the end of it, we use truth of reality to help us mobilize within in it, operate in it making decisions deciding what to do and not do to operate and continue to operate.

People may call it ethics still, right and wrong . That gets back into arguing why this is moral or not. 

That's what I thought. Can't defend what you believe getting impatient and annoyed over the word theory when Google contradicts you as well as another individual on this thread that appears you didn't refute contradicts you. 

You ain't gonna be able to handle any more questions. You got that other individual all confused up, the individual I'm in a debate with changing back and forth from not proving to trying to prove evolution. 

I guess if the person sees your response, the person will recant again.

To Stephen: Acknowledge your error that we both showed on you.

Doesn't necessarily mean the elements of theism are false though. Let's keep that in mind .

Except a claim to a fact .

Of course it is unscientific. This isn't controversial. Just looking for a fight where there is none picking a fight.

Looks like case closed and the evolution I'm talking about is a thing that has become a complete human. 

I think you concede on there being no evidence for that. Now if you have another concept in mind, I thought so. You're better off trying to argue that as proven fact.

To Stephen : Look at all the witnesses this other individual brought forth. I just gave you four. 

What is your response to them? Are you going to deny them too?

You said explain. Why wasn't Isaiah connecting with Acts good enough?

Why don't you pick up these books and read if you're truly sincere? Is the onus supposed to be on me? I didn't write the bible. It's there for you to read, study, research, do your homework to know better of what you're talking about. The onus is on the book. I don't have to claim anything for what's for you to read.

Just acknowledge your error of the old Testament not touching on Jesus Christ.

If you don't read, don't speak on these things. Scripture says speak on what you do know.

Evolution is not proven fact.

I just tell you straight out.

You have no evidence for evolution. It's not fact .

Now you can elect to answer anymore questions or you can yield and bow out.

You got at least one individual contradicting you and you can't even face that.

How are you going to face me?

Go ahead and stand down.

Did you actually expect the name Jesus to be mentioned?

That's not how it's going to be written comrade. See when you approach the scripture of all you get out of it get understanding, line upon line . Those scriptures prophesied in the old testament what would be in the new.

While I was putting in this text , Isaiah 53 came to mind. In Acts 8 of the new testament the Eunuch was asked about what he was reading about the prophet Isaiah prophesying about Jesus Christ.

So you're wrong about the old testament having nothing to do with Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ said himself all things must be fulfilled written in the law of Moses(old testament) and in the prophets (old testament) and in the psalms(old testament) concerning him.

Now not only you calling the old testament and the prophets a lie , are you going to call Jesus a liar?

When you approach these scriptures, you have to understand all this line upon line, here a little, there a little.

Wow, I really learning something new here. It makes a whole lot more sense and is more realistic that many people in religions reject or don't believe in the theory (uncertain belief) of evolution as opposed to rejecting it as a fact. Let's grant that these folks define the word "theory" as that. 

When you Google search this, that's just what the definition comes out to. All the synonyms are of an idea, premise, presupposition, proposition, etc.

The antonym is fact. But what I'm getting from you, in the cult of popular opinion or the science community depending on how one sees that, the word "theory" just translates to "fact" anyway conveniently.

So in light of all this, granted these folks see it this way. We'll also grant that they're honest folks. Be it that, they know what facts are . They're aware of what facts they do know. Just like the fact of water cleansing. Just like the fact of fire burning. They don't reject those facts or any facts. They're honest as we grant the religion they're in teaches them the value of honesty and the truth that will surely make them free .

Therefore it is likely for these folks to be unaware of this subject you're calling fact. Wouldn't you agree they're more likely ignorant as opposed to rejecting what is called truth?

Of what they may know that is perceived as truth but not actual truth. See because any form of reasoning based on a subset of facts to come to a conclusion doesn't necessarily make the conclusion fact . Just a hypothesis and to those particularly use the word"theory"(hypothesis) just a theory.

It stands to reason that if evolution was fact, many religions would be shut down by now. You can give your thoughts on that or not. Now according to what you're saying, evolution (something that became a complete human) is a scientific fact.

You said yes to the question that empiricism is involved in science. How do we get empirical input of a thing that has become a complete man?

Nah that's good. Scripture says out of the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses, there's your three at least.

I'm trying to get us in the conversation here. I'm not asking for my information.This other individual is conveying theory is not another word for fact.

So we're all speaking something different here. Which is one reason why many receive the theory of evolution as non fact.

Well I don't get into about correct or incorrect use of terms. Correct or incorrect based on what?

Official consensus, the majority, the lexiconographers.

Just like here in this topic I'm starting to get conflict over the word "theory". But all I'm doing is just getting understanding of what individuals are saying and how the individual uses the term so that we can communicate effectively and understand each other.

That's what it is at the end of the day. We communicate in a language we can understand, otherwise there's no sense in communicating.

To baggins: Don't you agree with the point that "theory" is another word for fact?

From what I'm understanding and being told is that the word theory is another word for fact .

So this is not just on the subject of science alone.

Now people may use the term however they use it.

I don't know what is not clear of what I said.

From what I understand it's a traumatic problem causing suicidal effects.

Isaiah 9, Psalm 110, Psalm 22, Deuteronomy 18 on and on.

If you're really interested and sincere you'd do the research on your own and learn.

Many of you on this site have shown to lack understanding of the scriptures though.

For something so simple, as the book teaches how can I tell you spiritual things and you don't get earthly things.

No I'm not. I apparently am the only one so far from what I've seen thinks outside the box. No limitations on this side of the realm baby.

So sad.

The old testament has prophecies about Jesus Christ.

Simplicity isn't enough for all to accept it.

You must of only read 23 percent.

Now that we're all here...

I have a number of questions.

We'll start off with these three .

So the "theory"of evolution is not very well known or is it just rejected?

Do religions just reject this "fact" or are religious folks just ignorant to it?

The "theory" (fact) of water being wet is pretty widely accepted. But this "fact" of evolution is not, why?

When you talk about science, does that involve empiricism?

Please answer yes or no .

Please be as concise and precise as possible.

Relax brother . Let's have a laid back exchange and it roll off your back like how I do .

This is another yes or no question but I couldn't help it.

I was direct with my answer wasn't I?

So from what you're saying the word "theory" is just a synonym for the word fact. It's just another word for fact.

Is that it?

Anything else that is not about evolution that is called theory is actually a theory and not fact.

Whatever that means.

So much for straightforward.

So the theory of evolution is the same as saying the fact of evolution.

Is that it?

But everything outside of that conveniently is not a fact when it's called a theory.

Yes and no ok.

None. When you think about what the truth is, you either think it to say what is true or false or you don't.

"Here, let’s try another example. Tell me whether the following sentence is True or False:

You're still just looking at the urge itself but that's ok.

I was and am asking you the question. Is gender euphoria an inherent issue?

What about good, quick, poor, irrational, illogical thinking?

That's at least four more types.

My obliged for your invitation. 

A straightforward question to start this off.

What makes the theory of evolution a theory?

I received this communication from this individual that reached out.

Laying out the context for this thread.

Ok that's something else that plays a role in the economy.

Hey do atheists believe no gods exists?