Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

So are you suggesting that humans without emotions would progress more efficiently? I would be careful speaking on behalf of humanity. You only conclude what YOU see. You can't incorporate human thinking into your personal default. Seems as if the Universe "itself" is your God. Objective evidence is your standard. The Universe provides objective evidence within the framework of what we know and is much easier to "worship" than an unknown God. I think that the good Reverand has concluded that belief is not falsifiable. You havent.

That's a bit cruel, isn't it?

People have always been free to believe whatever they want. Science and religion can always coexist if each discipline "stays in its own lane". Thats my opinion, anyway.

The whole idea is that God speaks through Man. The problem is that Man does the final editing! I really liked your last post, Percy. We have Faith and we have Evidence. Two different concepts yet philosophically interlinked.We should never throw away evidence to defend Faith nor should we throw away Faith and seek only Evidence for the sake of humanity.Percy, I also liked what you said 16 years ago, before closing ICANTS thread then.Message 405

Percy:

---

When I originally began this site I intended that debate threads should close with an assessment by the moderator. As things have worked out most threads do not have any consistent moderation (I never imagined that there would be so many simultaneously active threads), and I haven't really moderated this thread though I think I've read all of it, but in any case, I'd like to offer an assessment.
​
One of the most wonderful qualities of the Internet is venues where those who want to learn can ask questions. It isn't uncommon to have the good fortune to find someone who knows a great deal about what you want to know, and that is certainly true of this thread, whose participants included a couple true cosmological experts and several sufficiently competent amateurs given the level of this discussion.
​
Those asking the cosmological questions could have learned a great deal, and perhaps they even did, no way to be sure at this point, but what this thread makes clear is that you can only explain something to someone who already believes it is true. If they believe it is false then they'll find every excuse and opportunity to avoid reaching an understanding.
​
But this practice isn't unique to those approaching science from a spiritual perspective, it is also true of the reverse, as we often see when science minded folks ask Christians about the Trinity.
​
So the problem becomes how do you explain something to someone who doesn't believe it and only wants to disprove it? We can argue that one doesn't have to accept it, just understand it, but this turns out not to be so easy to do, for anyone from either side of this debate.

---