As a Christian, how many of you believe in evolution?

pitabread said:

This is so confusing.

Click to expand...

They start talking in circles to avoid actually supporting their assertions or addressing the evidence.

inquiring mind said:

For a self-proclaimed scientist

Click to expand...

Nothing self-proclaimed about it -- I'm employed as a scientist, so that's my job. (If you really want to know about what I do as a scientist, you can read about it here

inquiring mind said:

First, why do you assume I'm trying to get somewhere in science?

Click to expand...

I didn't make any assumptions; I read your posts. You have made claims about science: macroevolution lacks conclusive evidence, macroevolution isn't really science. To make those claims you have to know quite a bit about the evidence for evolution and about how science is done. In reality, you don't seem to know much of anything about either.

sfs said:

Nothing self-proclaimed about it -- I'm employed as a scientist, so that's my job. (If you really want to know about what I do as a scientist, you can read about it here

Click to expand...

Pretty impressive... so, what is it exactly you're looking for here?

sfs said:

To make those claims you have to know quite a bit about the evidence for evolution and about how science is done.

Click to expand...

Would I have to be a mechanic to know the likelihood of a particular vehicle making it from the east coast to the west coast?

sfs said:

In reality, you don't seem to know much of anything about either.

Click to expand...

I sort of thought you might stay away from the playbook stuff.

inquiring mind said:

Would I have to be a mechanic to know the likelihood of a particular vehicle making it from the east coast to the west coast?

Click to expand...

It's more like you take your car to a dozen mechanics for a diagnosis and they all agree on the problem, but you don't believe any of them.

And then your car breaks down because you didn't get it fixed.

Justatruthseeker said:

Jesus made it very clear he believed in a literal translation. As did Paul.

Click to expand...

Then you will have no trouble producing a clear statement of His to that effect. All I can deduce from His statements is that He believed scripture to be the authoritative word of God.

pitabread said:

I'm still wondering when creationists will agree on what a "kind" even is...

Click to expand...

Oh I would say about the same time evolutionists agree on what a species is and give up their 26 or more deffinitions.

And here you complain because we might have 2 or 3, lol.....

So I am still wondering when Evolutionists will agree on what a "species" even is.....

Species problem - Wikipedia

Defining ‘species’ is a fuzzy art

"At first glance, “species” is a basic vocabulary word schoolchildren can ace on a test by reciting something close to: a group of living things that create fertile offspring when mating with each other but not when mating with outsiders. Ask scientists who devote careers to designating those species, however, and there’s no typical answer. Scientists do not agree."

Ahhh, so difficulty in defining is only allowed for you, right????? Right????? Well, right?????

Speedwell said:

Then you will have no trouble producing a clear statement of His to that effect. All I can deduce from His statements is that He believed scripture to be the authoritative word of God.

Click to expand...

it's clear you know the verses, so why not accept them?

“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” Matthew 19: 4-5

"“For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.” Matthew 24:37-39

Do you nullify the gift and the reason for it????

"“For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” Romans 5:15-18

Not the trespass of many men, but of one, the "first" man.... If you discount Genesis as literal, then you actually discount the need for the sacrifice of Jesus and why...... You make the Gift null and void and for no reason at all....

Justatruthseeker said:

And here you complain because we might have 2 or 3, lol.....

Click to expand...

In my experience, it seems like every creationist has their own definition and in some cases more than one.

So I am still wondering when Evolutionists will agree on what a "species" even is.....

Click to expand...

The difference is that the difficulty in drawing hard boundaries between populations is exactly the type of thing one expects if life evolved. Not so much if life was independently created, which is what creationists keep trying to argue via "kinds". Yet they've never successfully demonstrated that "kind" has any biological reality.

Ahhh, so difficulty in defining is only allowed for you, right????? Right????? Well, right?????

Click to expand...

Creationists are the ones who keep trying to claim that "kinds" are a thing. So yeah, it's an issue that you guys have to figure out before trying to make such claims.

Come back when you've got it sorted out.

inquiring mind said:

Pretty impressive... so, what is it exactly you're looking for here?

Click to expand...

Evidence to support your claims.

inquiring mind said:

Would I have to be a mechanic to know the likelihood of a particular vehicle making it from the east coast to the west coast?

Click to expand...

What @pitabread said.

inquiring mind said:

I sort of thought you might stay away from the playbook stuff.

Click to expand...

People who post boilerplate unsupported claims get boilerplate requests to back up those claims.

Justatruthseeker said:

My civility extends as far as Jesus’ civility did when it comes to truth. He called them Vipers and hypocrites, not very civil, hey?

Click to expand...

By the way, who created vipers, and who said that everything that he had made was very good?

TagliatelliMonster said:

When the reason for rejecting a scientific theory amounts to no more then "I already believe something else", then clearly there is a problem, wouldn't you agree?

Click to expand...

I did not say otherwise. You, on the other hand, seemed in the first few posts to assume this is the habit of those with a priori religious beliefs.

TagliatelliMonster said:

You are welcome to share with us one instance where science and religious beliefs were on opposite sides of the fence and where it turned out that the religious beliefs were actually correct.

Click to expand...

Truth is, Tagli, IF (and I keep it that way for the sake of argument) there is indeed First Cause With Intent, then what is opposed to that is necessarily false. Simple, really --truth is truth.

But the truth is, whether or not there is First Cause With Intent, science has yet to oppose that, nor does First Cause With Intent oppose true science.

I was hoping to keep it theoretical, since it began that way, and I don't want to descend into an unnecessary and misleading discussion of religion vs science, because it is mostly a bogus issue, unless either "science" (not true science, but perhaps the scientific community, or pop science, or consensus) is wrong, or unless religion is wrong (and sometimes both), but here is a starter:

http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Science-Christian-Scientific-Revolution/dp/1596981555/bedeslibrary

"Few topics are as open to misunderstanding as the relationship between faith and reason. The ongoing clash of creationism with evolution obscures the fact that Christianity has actually had a far more positive role to play in the history of science than commonly believed. Indeed, many of the alleged examples of religion holding back scientific progress turn out to be bogus. For instance, the Church has never taught that the Earth is flat and, in the Middle Ages, no one thought so anyway." Science owes much to both Christianity and the Middle Ages : Soapbox Science

Astrophile said:

By the way, who created vipers, and who said that everything that he had made was very good?


View attachment 249491

Click to expand...

That's a little bit of a short-sighted comment. If God created, he did it for a good reason --in fact, a satisfying reason. If you punish a child for wrong doing, is that bad? If you set roadblocks in the highway so you can repair or add to the highway, is that bad? No, in fact it is good (provided, of course roadblocks aren't more trouble than they are worth).

Vipers are very good. But I would stay away from the sharp end, if I was you.

Mark Quayle said:

Truth is, Tagli, IF (and I keep it that way for the sake of argument) there is indeed First Cause With Intent, then what is opposed to that is necessarily false. Simple, really --truth is truth.

But the truth is, whether or not there is First Cause With Intent, science has yet to oppose that, nor does First Cause With Intent oppose true science.

I was hoping to keep it theoretical, since it began that way, and I don't want to descend into an unnecessary and misleading discussion of religion vs science, because it is mostly a bogus issue, unless either "science" (not true science, but perhaps the scientific community, or pop science, or consensus) is wrong, or unless religion is wrong (and sometimes both), but here is a starter:

http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Science-Christian-Scientific-Revolution/dp/1596981555/bedeslibrary

"Few topics are as open to misunderstanding as the relationship between faith and reason. The ongoing clash of creationism with evolution obscures the fact that Christianity has actually had a far more positive role to play in the history of science than commonly believed. Indeed, many of the alleged examples of religion holding back scientific progress turn out to be bogus. For instance, the Church has never taught that the Earth is flat and, in the Middle Ages, no one thought so anyway." Science owes much to both Christianity and the Middle Ages : Soapbox Science

Click to expand...

What is "true science" and how is it different from regular old science?

USincognito said:

What is "true science" and how is it different from regular old science?

Click to expand...

By "true science" I mean, simply science --just science. Not noise about science, not the scientific community, not pop science, not consensus, not published works, not accepted dogma, not even application of learned beliefs. It really has nothing to do with people's opinions. Only science.

Mark Quayle said:

By "true science" I mean, simply science --just science. Not noise about science, not the scientific community, not pop science, not consensus, not published works, not accepted dogma, not even application of learned beliefs. It really has nothing to do with people's opinions. Only science.

Click to expand...

Then what is science?

Mark Quayle said:

...Vipers are very good. But I would stay away from the sharp end, if I was you.

Click to expand...

So the vipers that Jesus talks about are very good but dangerous people?

pitabread said:

It's more like you take your car to a dozen mechanics for a diagnosis and they all agree on the problem, but you don't believe any of them.

And then your car breaks down because you didn't get it fixed.

Click to expand...

Except my mechanic doesn't believe my Toyota is going to change into a Mercedes given enough time...... He can be believed.....

durangodawood said:

So the vipers that Jesus talks about are very good but dangerous people?

Click to expand...

No, they are bad, but then Vipers didn't sin..... and don't try to kill you for spite, or the dollar in your pocket, just if they feel threatened....

sfs said:

Nothing self-proclaimed about it -- I'm employed as a scientist, so that's my job. (If you really want to know about what I do as a scientist, you can read about it here

I didn't make any assumptions; I read your posts. You have made claims about science: macroevolution lacks conclusive evidence, macroevolution isn't really science. To make those claims you have to know quite a bit about the evidence for evolution and about how science is done. In reality, you don't seem to know much of anything about either.

Click to expand...

So let me ask you a question.....

In all your years of research, when have you ever had to worry about any virus, bacteria, etc, changing into something other than a virus or a bacteria??????

For example, the influenza virus has never become anything other than an influenza virus. Oh sure, it may adapt within it's Kind, like a Poodle is different from the Wolf, but you have NEVER IN YOUR ENTIRE CAREER had to worry about any virus becoming anything other than the type of virus it started as.... Let me repeat that..... NEVER IN YOUR ENTIRE CAREER.....

So why are you even trying to feed people that PR spiel about evolution?????