CREATION & EVOLUTION

[Sandra L. Butler]

CREATION & EVOLUTION

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

A link to a YouTube video and nothing else? No argument? Not even a submission statement?

You must be new at this.

 

[coffee4u]

CREATION & EVOLUTION

I believe its against forum rules to make a post with just a link to a video in it, you have to include some form of explanation.

 

[Sandra L. Butler]

A link to a YouTube video and nothing else? No argument? Not even a submission statement?

You must be new at this.

I am new at this, thanks!

 

[Sandra L. Butler]

The intro image, before pressing play is incorrect. Some religions teach evolution, which is the religion of atheism, secular humanism, as "religion" can simly mean (in a basic def.) that which is bound together in a singluar belief. Science doesn't teach evolution. Science simply means to know. There are those that call themselves scientists who teach evolutionism. There is a difference.

"science (n.)

mid-14c., "state or fact of knowing; what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;" also "assurance of knowledge, certitude, certainty," from Old French science "knowledge, learning, application; corpus of human knowledge" (12c.), from Latin scientia "knowledge, a knowing; expertness," from sciens (genitive scientis) "intelligent, skilled," present participle of scire "to know."

The original notion in the Latin verb probably is "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," or else "to incise." This is related to scindere "to cut, divide" (from PIE root *skei- "to cut, split;" source also of Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Gothic skaidan, Old English sceadan "to divide, separate").

OED writes that the oldest English sense of the word now is restricted to theology and philosophy. From late 14c. in English as "book-learning," also "a particular branch of knowledge or of learning, systematized knowledge regarding a particular group of objects;" also "skillfulness, cleverness; craftiness." From c. 1400 as "experiential knowledge;" also "a skill resulting from training, handicraft; a trade." ..." - science | Etymology, origin and meaning of science by etymonline

Thanks for the knowledge!

 

[coffee4u]

So what exactly are we debating?

Are you against the video or for the video?

 

[Rodneyk]

I don’t see where you got the idea that Adam was created on the seventh day. In the first book of Genesis it says Adam was created on the sixth day then the first verse of chapter two says, Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. Since 1972 evolution has been in a lot of trouble. In 1972 a new super dooper microscope was invented and we were able to see what was in a human cell, it was miraculous, unheard of. There was so much going on in one cell that it was obvious it was no accident. The whole video that I read was, as far as I’m concerned, mistaken.

 

[coffee4u]

Thanks for the knowledge!

Are you coming back to this thread? I was asking what are we debating here? Are you claiming the video is correct or incorrect?
*left with so many questions*

 

[Rodneyk]

Are you coming back to this thread? I was asking what are we debating here? Are you claiming the video is correct or incorrect?
*left with so many questions*

Are you coming back to this thread? I was asking what are we debating here? Are you claiming the video is correct or incorrect?
*left with so many questions*

I’m not sure if you are addressing me but if you are, I’ll say I disagree with the video.

 

[coffee4u]

I’m not sure if you are addressing me but if you are, I’ll say I disagree with the video.

I was trying to reply to the OP, this new forum look/use has me at sixes and sevens. :/ hate it.

 

[Rodneyk]

I was trying to reply to the OP, this new forum look/use has me at sixes and sevens. :/ hate it.

I don’t do well with these things anyway, good luck to you

 

[Job 33:6]

It seems strange to me that people want to use the Bible to debate science, when in fact the Bible describes ancient near east cosmology, not modern astronomy.

 

[Wings like Eagles]

This is a confusing thread for sure.

 

[returnn23]

According to Richard Dawkins, living things only look designed. They are not actually designed. This is not true.

• 'The Church “proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.”

• “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”

•' Quoting our late Holy Father John Paul II: “The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality, which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator.” '


"Christoph Cardinal Schönborn is archbishop of Vienna and general editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church."

 

[Austin Vickery]

A link to a YouTube video and nothing else? No argument? Not even a submission statement?

You must be new at this.

I’ve seen plenty of people put videos up with no context on other forums all the time. What’s the problem you have with this?

 

[sparow]

CREATION & EVOLUTION

I have never read Darwin, but I suspect Darwin was innocent and it was the Church who was guilty.

Evolution is a word that describes anything involving time and motion; the "theory of evolution" is only one of an infinite set of usages, yet when people hear the word "evolution" they mostly assume, theory of evolution.