- Dec 31, 2016
- 7,221
- 3,311
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Ha, I see... I was answering your statement and not the question. I certainly am male.
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.
Ha, I see... I was answering your statement and not the question. I certainly am male.You're profile says you are male, but you just said you were not.
Though the method that God chose to create and the timing of those creative events, is another matter altogether.
Unfortunately that is true.And yet some have inexplicably tied their religious beliefs to that method and timing.
IDeterming relationships is not the same for the distant past when the conditions and subjects are unobservable.
As far as lab work, similar DNA, similar this or that doesn't count.
Close only counts in horseshoes and explosives; in everything else 'seeing is believing' seems to be the heralded foundation of the scientific method
, so when you can't see it, observe it, or test it under normal conditions...
you're assuming and speculating only.
There is no convincing evidence of macro evolution.
and its not conclusively backed-up by the fossil record
In other words, it is only backed-up with healthy doses of assumptions and speculation, connecting-the-dots as it is often referred to.
Basically what I said... in my opinion the archaeological record just doesn’t conclusively support that ‘Kinds’ gradually appear through long drawn out transformation from other 'Kinds,' despite the pretty picture biology paints in that regard. I just think there's more speculation there than they care to admit. My interpretation is that they seem to appear all at once, and in stages, vary and adapt some, and that’s it. I'm sure that's different from the traditional creationism you're used to arguing against. For me that stays in line with the bible and creation because I don't think we know anything about God's work or His timeframe (what a day represents in creation time or anything else). That's a little loose, but its not loose enough for me to see macro evolution taking place.
No, macro evolution should be rejected.
(Not accepting your premise here, but for the sake of argument): When science disagrees with mere beliefs, it may well be that the science is incorrect. It cannot be proven either way, with only that information.
I hope you aren't assuming that the remarkable numbers of Christians, Theists and Deists among published, notable, scientists are all stupid.
Mere a priori faith based beliefs, whatever that means to you, may well notice an apparent contradiction that will raise the eyebrow and prompt further investigation, instead as is the case with pseudo-scientists who without critical eye accept statements that seem to them to be true, merely because the statements support their worldview.
"As long as it promotes Evolution" is good enough reason for them.
For a self-proclaimed scientist your assumptions are sure off target.
First, why do you assume I'm trying to get somewhere in science? Second, why would you assume my comments are attempts to lecture anyone?
It's not lame... Jesus quoted and must have read Genesis. Matthew 19:4-5
Except that in reality, it is the only thing that makes biological sense of the facts.
Nothing in science is "conclusively" backed-up.
In science, data is only ever consistent with / supportive of ideas.
This is all you needed to say.Stubborn religious denial, or just honest ignorance, will not change that. It is backed up by literally all data that is currently available to us and contradicted by none.
I can see why you think that. Our legal system has to battle that all the time... ignore the concrete evidence and listen to an expert's theory on the matter.The fossil record is extremely nice off course, and very interesting, but it really isn't that "crucial important piece of evidence" that you make it out to be.
It is your statement that makes no sense, the former has no convincing evidence (for those who are not wishing for it anyway) and the latter does... beyond that is speculation.There is no seperate "macro evolution" theory that is not simply "evolution theory".
Your statement makes no sense.
And, you do?"self-proclaimed"?? You have no idea who you are talking to, it seems.
Ow my.....
Uhhh... No. I'm saying when they let a 'system of thought' take them beyond what they can ascertain and know for certain, and allow themselves to be intimidated if they question a specific line of assumptions and speculation, then they are... well, why don't you finish the sentence.Errrr.....................
You're telling thousands, if not millions, of evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, geneticists, etc... that they are wrong about the backbone theory of their field. And not just a little wrong, but completely wrong.
I'll remind you, like I have to do others here occassionally... this is a Creation & Evolution forum. And, what Jesus has to say is not irrelevent anywhere.This is the science forum.
What Jesus did or didn't say in anyone's opinion or bible, is completely irrelevant here.
But your misrepresentation of what Jesus had to say is relevant nowhere. Jesus made very clear that He believed Genesis to be the authoritative word of God. Jesus never gave us any indication that it had to be literal and inerrant to be the authoritative word of God.I'll remind you, like I have to do others here occassionally... this is a Creation & Evolution forum. And, what Jesus has to say is not irrelevent anywhere.
I certainly haven't intended such a thing... is that more scientific assuming?But your misrepresentation of what Jesus had to say is relevant nowhere.
No, just reading your posts.I certainly haven't intended such a thing... is that more scientific assuming?
Oh it is quite clear what Jesus thought about Genesis. He made it very clear he believed in a literal translation.
Well now, in all fairness you're not quoting me.No, just reading your posts.
This is all you needed to say.
I can see why you think that. Our legal system has to battle that all the time... ignore the concrete evidence and listen to an expert's theory on the matter.
It is your statement that makes no sense, the former has no convincing evidence (for those who are not wishing for it anyway) and the latter does... beyond that is speculation.
And, you do?
Uhhh... No
I'm saying when they let a 'system of thought' take them beyond what they can ascertain and know for certain, and allow themselves to be intimidated if they question a specific line of assumptions and speculation, then they are... well, why don't you finish the sentence.
I'll remind you, like I have to do others here occassionally... this is a Creation & Evolution forum. And, what Jesus has to say is not irrelevent anywhere.
My civility extends as far as Jesus’ civility did when it comes to truth. He called them Vipers and hypocrites, not very civil, hey?Careful, you "civility" is slipping. Jesus made very clear that He believed Genesis to be the authoritative word of God. So do I. Jesus never gave us any indication that it had to be literal and inerrant to be the authoritative word of God. Paul didn't either.
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?