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.
Evolution is the study of how life evolved from the first single-celled organisms. Evolution is not interested or effected of how they came about.Good morning to you, too. Asserting that abiogenesis is an alternative to "God did it" is a falsehood. Asserting that the the theory of evolution rests on it is also a falsehood. Care to try for three in a row or are you interested in a civil conversation?
What's a Don Lemon-ism?Yes, really. That was kind of a Don Lemon-ism.
Fact is, there IS an evolution vs God argument. You may not be part of that, but the argument is out there, bigly. And yes, it comes from both sides. The challenge is that one side thinks the other is anti-God and the other side thinks that side is stupid.
They are both wrong - and right - in some ways. Those that are actually steeped in the research don't usually engage in these sorts of debates. They're kinda pointless. I dabble in them for fun sometimes and then suddenly catch myself - which I just did - and get back to stuff that matters.
That's academia for you.There is no "evolution vs. God" argument on the evolution side. There is an "evolution vs. the God of the magic Bible" argument on the evolution side, but most Christians don't have a dog in that fight.
That's wrong from the get-go. There are theists is "academia." There are Christians, devout ones, in academia--just not very many who believe in the magic Bible God.That's academia for you.
"No God ... but a God of the magic Bible."
Tell that to the untold millions of children who were removed from their mothers' wombs in the name of biological reclassification (viz., "child" to "fetus").But I think that you're entirely and flat out wrong if you think that because the theory of evolution is a scientific fact means that people need to give up moral thinking and beliefs.
Tell that to the untold millions of children who were removed from their mothers' wombs in the name of biological reclassification (viz., "child" to "fetus").
Just like Pluto lost its status as an ordinal planet (our 9th), children lose their status as ... well ... children, and become unwanted tissue, fit for heating furnaces in hospitals in the winter.
Leviticus 18:21a And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech,
There was no first "single-celled organism".Evolution is the study of how life evolved from the first single-celled organisms. Evolution is not interested or effected of how they came about.
Except that it really isn't an analogy - the key concept isn't common to both.I can't speak for them. BTW, I just checked the post you were referring to. I think his point is valid as an analogy.
It's not a problem; evolution theory begins after the origin of life - it makes no difference whether the first living things were made by gods, aliens, magic, or plain old chemistry. The ToE explains what happens given simple organisms that reproduce with heritable variation.The big problem with evolution theory is that until it can offer a reasonable explanation of how life came from lifelessness, it's all just conjecture regarding every claim other than those actually seen in the lab during testing.
So China doesn't take any interest in asking Christians questions about their beliefs, so they can counter those beliefs in their science books?In China, if this is of interest, creationism
is hardly worth an eye roll- something like astrology at NASA.
No, "fetus" as a term came first.Tell that to the untold millions of children who were removed from their mothers' wombs in the name of biological reclassification (viz., "child" to "fetus").
There are "theists" in Mormon temples too.That's wrong from the get-go. There are theists is "academia."
Because of it, or in spite of it?Speedwell said:There are Christians, devout ones, in academia--
Good.Speedwell said:... just not very many who believe in the magic Bible God.
Nothing has evolved beyond what the laws of thermodynamics allow. Even car design and manufacture is subject to the laws of thermodynamics.When something DOES evolve beyond what the laws of thermodynamics predict, it's because it was forced via someone intelligence and purpose.
Concentrate on the verbs, not the nouns, and you just might understand my point.How on earth can you compare the argument over abortion to bloody Pluto not being a planet? How are they even comparable?
I thought you believed that everything has to have a cause. Whether God caused it, or nature through God caused it or nature alone caused it, there had to be a first single celled organism.There was no first "single-celled organism".
Don Lemon is the poorest of televised political opinion, IMO. Agree or disagree, he will talk over qualified guests if he disagrees with them and can't counter them, or he will just do his exasperated "really?", "REALLY?", with no actual argument behind it. I remember Laura Ingraham did the exact same thing, but she followed up the second "really" with facts and evidence to explain why what she was responding to was so utterly vapid and ridiculous. Lemon just lazily presumed we all just knew it was true without supporting that position.What's a Don Lemon-ism?
Opinions vary. Thanks muchly for sharing yours.It is impossible
to be an informed, honest creationist.
No, it didn't.No, "fetus" as a term came first.
Except that it really isn't an analogy - the key concept isn't common to both.
It's not a problem; evolution theory begins after the origin of life - it makes no difference whether the first living things were made by gods, aliens, magic, or plain old chemistry. The ToE explains what happens given simple organisms that reproduce with heritable variation.
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?