I thought YECs rejected genetic evidence. After all, it disproves things like a global flood or Adam and Eve. Why suddenly accept it now as it relates to evolution?
Upvote
0
-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
35 year evolution experiment *FAIL*
- Thread starter Monarchist
- Start date
Jig
Christ Follower
- Oct 3, 2005
- 4,529
- 399
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Those who believe God created the Earth in six days, flooded the world in judgment, and recognize Adam as the father of all do not reject genetic evidence.
BOTH Creationists and Darwinianists examine, study, and conclude on the exact same pieces of evidence. It is not the rejection of genetic evidence - it is the rejection of some of the interpretations given to that evidence.
Based on our subjective philosophical world views (materialism, naturalism, uniformitarianism, idealism, etc.) we formulate interpretations for the evidence - the evidence itself is neutral. The true issue we face is not a scientific one, but a philosophical one - yes, on both sides.
Upvote
0
shernren
you are not reading this.
- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 38
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
I think I should try that the next time my housemate accuses me of stealing food.
After all, the evidence - missing eggs, depleting containers of minced garlic, disappearing noodles, and the fact that no other housemate cooks - is neutral. Based on his subjective philosophical worldview, he formulates interpretations for the evidence. The true issue he faces is not a scientific one, but a philosophical one.
If only he began by assuming that I am a wonderful, honest person, and studiously applied that world view throughout his interpretation of the evidence, he would readily agree with me that the real problem is that our kitchen is being raided by invisible drop bears. Nasty Australian wildlife!
Upvote
0
Jig
Christ Follower
- Oct 3, 2005
- 4,529
- 399
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
You joke, but essentially you are correct. He did not physically see you. He is making an assumption that has the potential to be wrong. A thief could have broken in and made eggs. Seemingly unlikely but still very possible.
Upvote
0
I'm confused.
Change occurred through evolutionary process.
But the change is not evolution.
How does that work?
Upvote
0
I would love to hear more about the types of forensic evidence you do and do not accept. And about which convicted murderers you believe should be released from prison.
Upvote
0
juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
pastorkevin73
Senior Member
Perhaps if the science doesn't work out then one has to question how the science is done?
Could it be that God was right after all? The thing is, God is alot furthar along than we are at discovering science, which He created. Perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to throw out God's Word (or give some excuse like Genesis isn't literal) and let our discovery of science catch up with what God has told us to be true in His Word.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
The direction which we see in the fossil record.
And the anticipated result the experiment was designed for.
Upvote
0
Cabal
Well-Known Member
- Jul 22, 2007
- 11,592
- 476
- 39
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Why? It's not that the science didn't work out, it just didn't work out as expected. There was still genetic change over time, just not the kind predicted.
Sure God's right. He created everything via the scientific processes we are now discovering, like evolution and cosmology.
Who says we threw it out?
Upvote
0
pastorkevin73
Senior Member
Where in scripture does it say that God used evolution?Why? It's not that the science didn't work out, it just didn't work out as expected. There was still genetic change over time, just not the kind predicted.
Sure God's right. He created everything via the scientific processes we are now discovering, like evolution and cosmology.
Who says we threw it out?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
