Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's funny you should say that because most evolutionists argue that one cannot have any real grasp on a scientific field of study without first knowing and embracing evolution. Can one study medicine without a background in evo? Not according to evolutionists. Can one study biology or botany or paleobotany without first knowing and embracing evolution? Not according to the evolutionists. Can one study the stars and the planets without first studying and knowing and embracing evolution? Not according to evolutionists.
It's funny how people are forced to accept evolution as true without demanding an answer to the very first question that should be out of their mouths, "How did we get here?" How did life come about? Evolution has no answer and it cannot have a suitable answer so it pushes the question of life under the proverbial rug. Evolutionists mock those who have a different answer than themselves to the origin of life but will offer no answer in and of themselves. Evolutionists even go so far as to say it is completely unnecessary to even require such an answer!
Medicine is only tangentially related to science, and doctors can get by knowing little about evolution (pretty much just how resistance develops).
No, that one is basically impossible, since evolution is the organizing theoretical framework for biology. You can learn lots of facts about biology without accepting evolution, and I'm sure there are niches within biology where you can get by as a creationist, but the field as a whole depends on evolution.
What evolutionists? I've never seen anyone claim that you had to accept biological evolution to be an astronomer. Now it is true that you can't be an astronomer, at least not a sane one, and be a young-earth creationist, but that has nothing to do with accepting evolution.
The only thing forcing us to accept evolution is the reality we see in the world around us. When studied carefully, living things make abundantly clear that they have evolved. What's funny about recognizing that fact? Why should recognizing it depend on answering the question about how life got here?
Evolutionary biologists don't push the question under the rug; they push it off to people qualified to study it. The origin of life is a different field because it is mostly studied by different people using different scientific techniques, not because we're afraid of it.
It's completely unnecessary to require an answer to study evolution, as is clear from the fact that scientists have been successfully studying evolution for 150+ years without answering the question. How would answering the question change the way we study evolution?
How would the answer change how we go about studying the life that we know does exist and has existed?
Much of that question is a proper subject for biology, and is very much the kind of question that evolution answers (except perhaps the part about beauty, which is notoriously in the eye of the beholder). Most organization, diversity and symbiotic relationships have developed since life started.
What belief system would that be? And what's wrong with the answer "We don't know?" when in fact we don't know?
This is a fabricated lie! What you say is tantamount to me saying: "Christians argue that one cannot have any real grasp of Christianity without first knowing and embracing other religions!
You first.ToE is a scientific theory and Biology makes no sense without it. Medicine is based on Biology and thus is depended on ToE.
Get your facts right before you utter such dishonest lies!
No, you're wanting to compare road apples and apples. I said that evolutionists claim that one cannot have a satisfactory grasp of an area of biological study without first embracing ToE. You reassert my claim when you say the following:
From Cosmological Evolution
See my previous answer. Post #115 on page 12. That is from an undoubtedly evolutionistic viewpoint and totally validates my point and rests my case.
I would also expect a bridge architect to know a thing or two about structural engineering. So that either begins in school, or special revelation through prayer.
Yeah, I see that you've that you've gotten everyone tangled in knots about what meaning of "evolution" you're using. If you're talking about evolution vs creationism, or talking about the theory of evolution (as you did in your OP), everyone is going to assume you're talking about evolutionary biology. If you want to talk about any kind of process of change in the history of the universe and call it "evolution", you'd better specify that that's what you mean (as this article does). The latter use is unlikely to be very fruitful, however, since it leaves "evolution" with little specific content. It's also not clear in that case what you mean by "evolutionists", since creationists also accept that there has been change in the history of the universe. Basically, the entire discussion becomes pretty pointless.
