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.
Oh i have consideration for others, i just do not agree with them. And i am not doing this for money or pleasureThis attitude is selfish (worshipping your own point of view) and judgmental (denigrating other people and putting them down).
So do you. In addition to faith in Christ, you require certain eccentric and difficult to sustain beliefs about the Bible for salvation. In fact, in terms of a dependency towards works/obedience based salvation, I would say that yours is more exacting than that of most Christians.The majority of christian also believe in some form of work/obedience based salvation.
So do you. In addition to faith in Christ, you require certain eccentric and difficult to sustain beliefs about the Bible for salvation. In fact, in terms of a dependency towards works/obedience based salvation, I would say that yours is more exacting than that of most Christians.
You certainly seem to require it for yourself, and I think you know full well that stating overtly that it was a requirement for salvation would be a violation of the ToS. My point, however, was that you are in no position to sneeringly impute belief in works salvation to Christians whose faith you know little or nothing about.Find one post by me stating that believing etc.. about Gods creation is required for a person to receive Eternal Life.
Find one post by me stating that believing etc.. about Gods creation is required for a person to receive Eternal Life.
You certainly seem to require it for yourself, and I think you know full well that stating overtly that it was a requirement for salvation would be a violation of the ToS. My point, however, was that you are in no position to sneeringly impute belief in works salvation to Christians whose faith you know little or nothing about.
Then there is no problem in adding a philosophical concept, be it Biblical or Aristotelian, to evolution theory. This is good to hear.
True, yet the debate continues and draws the two together like a hand and glove. I think everyone debates it at some point in their life, regardless of their qualifications. The thing I find the most frustrating is not getting hit with contradictory evidence (because the interpretation of said evidence can usually be questioned), but that evolutionists can claim creationism is not science (which it’s not), yet creationists can’t claim evolution a belief (despite it not being ‘proven’ or ‘absolute truth’ as you even acknowledge). Creationists are hamstrung right out of the gate… don’t you think?No scientific theory is taken as "absolute truth." Perhaps it might seem that way to an outsider whose favorite alternative explanation is being debunked, but if you want to replace evolution as a scientific theory you need to have a better scientific theory. The fact is, that biblical creationism is not science. it rests on an entirely different epistemological foundation than science. Even if creationists were right about our origins and scientists wrong, creationism still wouldn't be science.
The thing I find the most frustrating is not getting hit with contradictory evidence (because the interpretation of said evidence can usually be questioned), but that evolutionists can claim creationism is not science (which it’s not), yet creationists can’t claim evolution a belief (despite it not being ‘proven’ or ‘absolute truth’ as you even acknowledge).
My point is, you claim on the one hand that creation vs. evolution is apples and oranges. On the other hand, you’re here, you want to debate, but you insist the apple must debate from the oranges’ perspective and on his terms.It makes as much sense to call evolution a belief as it does to call gravity a belief.
No. Just because it is not "proven" or "absolute truth" doesn't mean it is without plausible content or evidentiary foundation. But that brings us back to the OP: In my opinion, if creationists are hamstrung by anything it is in not knowing what the theory of evolution actually claims and on what evidence those claims rest.True, yet the debate continues and draws the two together like a hand and glove. I think everyone debates it at some point in their life, regardless of their qualifications. The thing I find the most frustrating is not getting hit with contradictory evidence (because the interpretation of said evidence can usually be questioned), but that evolutionists can claim creationism is not science (which it’s not), yet creationists can’t claim evolution a belief (despite it not being ‘proven’ or ‘absolute truth’ as you even acknowledge). Creationists are hamstrung right out of the gate… don’t you think?
No, we are merely suggesting that if you are an apple debating an orange, it is best to be aware that it is an orange which you are debating, rather than a peach or a plum.My point is, you claim on the one hand that creation vs. evolution is apples and oranges. On the other hand, you’re here, you want to debate, but you insist the apple must debate from the oranges’ perspective and on his terms.
The Lie of Evolution and the Truth of God’s WordI took a look at that site. One of the first things I clicked on was this article here: TESTING EVOLUTION: What are evolutionists testing when they claim evolution is a fact because it can be tested?
Unfortunately it's rife with misrepresentation of science and evolution. It starts with a bizarre anecdote by which the author claims that evolution isn't being "tested" (scientifically):
When I was a student at University I took up Genetics to find out how living things work, but our professor was the first to admit that: a) the geneticists didn’t know how evolution happened, b) the evidence was not observed in genetics, and c) he believed in evolution because the geologists had the fossils to show it had happened.
But as a geology student I had a paleo professor who had also been the first to concede that there wasn’t any evidence in geology, so he believed in evolution because of the expertise of other scientists such as geneticist and organic chemists.
In other words, if anybody did bother to test anything they were experts in, they always found that there was no evidence in their own specialisation. So to bluntly and politically incorrectly answer your question,’ what are they testing?’ The answer is Nothing!
The author goes on to claim that evolution is "never derived from the data at all... ever!".
I suspect that this story is made up as I can't fathom any competent professors claiming that the history of life on Earth is not testable. I'm always wary of "anonymous professor/expert"-style anecdotes.
It also doesn't help that I've read material from scientists (books, research papers, etc.) and taken University courses myself that demonstrate the precise opposite: evolution, like every scientific theory, is subject to hypothesis testing via the standard scientific method (hypothesis -> prediction -> observation).
This site appears to be another bog standard creationist source that includes blatant misrepresentations of science, the scientific method, and respective fields of study.
edited to add:
Looked up another article on that site and found this gem:
If anything, speciation is the opposite of evolution. Whenever a large and varied group of living creatures has been split into smaller and less variable sub-groups, regardless of the reason, each of the less viable (often called specialised) subgroups is more likely to die out if the environment changes. This is because natural selection, (another real but non-evolutionary process), will eliminate any organism that does not have the appropriate genetic variations needed to survive in the new environment.
SPECIATION? Is speciation a fact, and does this prove evolution?
I don't even know where to begin with statements like this. Claiming that speciation isn't an example of evolution or that natural selection is a "non-evolutionary" process... aside from being factually incorrect, it's just plain bizarre.
My point is, you claim on the one hand that creation vs. evolution is apples and oranges. On the other hand, you’re here, you want to debate, but you insist the apple must debate from the oranges’ perspective and on his terms.
Dr Georgia PurdomYes, AiG is another site that blatantly mischaracterizes science and evolution.
I'm already well familiar with the sites that get it wrong. I'm looking to see if any creationist sources actually get it *right*.
Do you have any of the latter? If not, then you're wasting your time.
Dr Georgia Purdom
19th century geologist and lawyer Charles Lyell (1797–1875) is renowned for popularizing the idea that the world’s geology reflected an old age of the earth (i.e. much older than the Bible’s 6,000-year timeframe of history), thus paving the way and providing some traction for Charles Darwin’s evolutionary ideas.Yes, AiG is another site that blatantly mischaracterizes science and evolution.
I'm already well familiar with the sites that get it wrong. I'm looking to see if any creationist sources actually get it *right*.
Do you have any of the latter? If not, then you're wasting your time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?