Ok, I have to say I come from an incredibly short view on many subjects and I am not an incredibly intelligent person persay. I have traveled around
the world however, supposedly some 120 times and visited and worked in over 70 countries. In my experiences, I have learned to ask two questions when
observing or encompassing an idea or statement put forth by any group of people or individuals, or a set of facts to a general or specific conclusion,
and I am sure most of you have heard these yourselves. "What is the intention?" and "and to what purpose?" This has served me well in my relationship
to many cultures and people and in my understanding of my own faith in the Universe, and helped in the direct forward application in my work.
When reading an incredible amount of detailed facts such as I just did, my brain I recognize, is not large enough to take in all the theory and
supportive argument, in the way the Universe/Mulitverse is too vast and complicated for me to encompass. So I ask, what is the intention of the
author of this writing, and to what purpose do they write it, as I am pragmatic and look for it to serve an application in the present existence. The
only conclusiion I come to obviously, is their intention to disclaim any theory that states that evolution is real.
The purpose therefore, must be to forward the idea that no science outside of "God's" science has merit since this is the only threatened theory I am
aware of now. If it was not faith or religious based, there would be a preposition to counter it with another scientific theory or fact which I did
not see. Bear with me here as I am thinking and writing at the same time, but such a purpose could only be to support a religious concept that the
life of the writer feels is absolutely necessary to confirm.
From this I have to conclude that the writer must have some concept of "God's" intention or purpose and that all else is on the wrong "path", and for
the reasons known only to the writer, they feel it necessary to illuminate us with what 'couldn't possibly be' since it goes against their existing
belief and support system.
With only instinct to go by, as my little pea brain would have trouble with such detailed concepts of God, no God, maybe God, evolutionary theories,
intrusion theories, guidance, and spontaneous existence theories, (Whew) the previous responder's question to the writer really would have to be "Who
or what created God?" and to what practical purpose is there to show "scientific proof" that evolution couldn't possibly exist using an infinite
concept to support a finite statement or position? In my life experience, I can say what is, but have a hard time saying what isn't as often that has
come back to bite me. lol
Using scientific facts or argument, which are always subjective in nature to discredit a scientific theory does not seem practical in purpose other
than to support an inflexible self serving belief system. I am not trying to be harsh, but to conclude on my own that it is difficult to say a
"theory" couldn't possibly be, or doesn't support your existing position without first revealing and advancing your present position, its intention,
and purpose, has to be self serving with an unknown agenda. It is easy to see the intention here, but, "To what purpose?"
There is no support or experience that says evolution does not exist scientifically, unless you first prove and confirm the counter argument that God,
or this unknown position, exists scientifically as well. As it is impossible for a finite mind to confirm an infinite existence, (It can only
theorize) the purpose of your counter argument that evolution cannot exist is irrlevent and does not hold merit. It has no practical purpose and it
serves nothing or no one in application outside of a faith based theory. (I have never written so many words in my life lol) Therefore, based upon a
philisophical argument of exposure, I cannot give credence to your thoughts that evolution does not exist, or that it has been "proven" scientifically
based upon this argument. Just a thought. I'm willing to be corrected here. lol
edit on 21-11-2011 by Tane555 because: Grammar