• 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.

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
.Thus they can never claim that our origins (including the origins of the natural) had nothing to do with God, let alone push a hopeless model down our throats.
Only atheists make such a claim, and they make it on metaphysical, not scientific grounds. The theory of evolution itself makes no such claim, nor does any other scientific theory.
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟128,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Really?
When you adamantly believe in a naturalistic idea to account for our origins, you both ignore AND deny God.
'Creator' is even synonymous to 'God'.
I gather you have no background in any of the physical sciences, thus you do not understand my comments.
 
Upvote 0

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,428
3,005
54
the Hague NL
✟84,932.00
Country
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Wrong. It has been demonstrated that what is presented to the environment for selection is not "corrupted data" but a random distribution (think "bell curve") of variations produced by an orderly and well evidenced process which uses mutation as (only one) of its inputs.
When you start off with an assumed completely functional organism to multiply and speciate, and you have random mutation as the means of changing the data at hand, it is indeed corruption of the previous data.
In information science a mutation is actually "a change" that is made deliberately, by a person.
Well gee wizz, i wonder why they would avoid using the word "corruption" though, huh? :rolleyes:
You have got to stop relying on Creationist sources for details about how evolution is supposed to work.
Wow, great argument bro, i'm convinced now..
Seriously though, it would be only fair if you actually had a serious look at the problems of the ToE, which many creationists are very happy to point out to you, so you can form an honest opinion about it.
If you want to maintain that evolution can't work, then PLEASE address your arguments to the real theory, not the bogus version fabricated by Creationist propaganda mills.
Another great argument there brother.
It is you who only hear one side of the story, not me.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟128,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Wrong. It has been demonstrated that what is presented to the environment for selection is not "corrupted data" but a random distribution (think "bell curve") of variations produced by an orderly and well evidenced process which uses mutation as (only one) of its inputs.
You have got to stop relying on Creationist sources for details about how evolution is supposed to work. If you want to maintain that evolution can't work, then PLEASE address your arguments to the real theory, not the bogus version fabricated by Creationist propaganda mills.
Excellent reply Speedwell. I think an important aspect of "creation science" (creationism) that the people who accept it do not understand that "creation science" presents on original scientific data or research, only opinions and misrepresentations of the sciences.
 
Upvote 0

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,428
3,005
54
the Hague NL
✟84,932.00
Country
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Atheistic evolution is not theistic, theistic evolution is.
repeat: ToE is not theistic.
There is no ToTE (theory of theistic evolution), there is no model for that around (a.f.a.i.k.)
This is all evolution is...
That's ToE, not ToTE.
 
Upvote 0

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,428
3,005
54
the Hague NL
✟84,932.00
Country
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Excellent reply Speedwell. I think an important aspect of "creation science" (creationism) that the people who accept it do not understand that "creation science" presents on original scientific data or research, only opinions and misrepresentations of the sciences.
How would you know?
Did you ever take a serious look,or doyou just gather this too, like you gather ToE is true?
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟128,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
It's the claim the ToE makes concerning the human species.
But what you need to understand, rather than condemn, is that many Christians do not view Genesis as literal, especially when many things we know today, make a literal interpretation not only impossible, but paint God as a deceiver. How do you verify Genesis a literal? What evidence is there, especially when it was never written down until thousands of years later.
 
Upvote 0

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,428
3,005
54
the Hague NL
✟84,932.00
Country
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
But what you need to understand, rather than condemn, is that many Christians do not view Genesis as literal, especially when many things we know today, make a literal interpretation not only impossible, but paint God as a deceiver. How do you verify Genesis a literal?
Obviously because it is repeatedly confirmed throughout the Bible, even by Jesus.
I have no problem with the Bible, you do.
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟128,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
How would you know?
Did you ever take a serious look,or doyou just gather this too, like you gather ToE is true?
I have credentials in the earth sciences and have investigated if for myself. Can you explain the fossil record and the way it is distributed throughout the geologic column without evolution?
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟128,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Obviously because it is repeatedly confirmed throughout the Bible, even by Jesus.
I have no problem with the Bible, you do.
And how do you confirm the bible? Are you aware that there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus and especially that of Genesis.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
See, you don; t even understand what they have you believe.
When you start off with an assumed completely functional organism to multiply and speciate, and you have random mutation as the means of changing the data at hand, it is indeed corruption of the previous data.
So what do you think is happening? Are scientists publishing a plausible theory to cover up the fact they they secretly harbor an unworkable theory that only they and you know about? That the theory of the process of variation I just described to you is not the real theory of variation? I don't get it. Why should they use a plausible, well evidenced theory as a cover for one that any reasonable intelligent high school graduate can see is unworkable? Why not just go with the plausible theory?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SnowyMacie

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2011
17,008
6,087
North Texas
✟125,659.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
repeat: ToE is not theistic.

It's not atheist either, it's nothing.

There is no ToTE (theory of theistic evolution)

Technically correct as it's more a philosophical model than it's own scientific theory separate from evolution.


, there is no model for that around (a.f.a.i.k.)

There's actually several, it just depends on how involved God or the Creator was in it.

That's ToE, not ToTE.

The only difference between evolution and theistic evolution is that the latter takes a step outside science to make a claim.
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟128,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
That's true of a real scientist, but I said atheistic scientist, they have an agenda.
Colter, I was a research chemist for some 30 years and worked with scientists of all walks of life and many different religions and atheists. Perhaps it would help me to better understand what you are saying with a more detailed explanation by what you mean by atheistic scientist.
 
Upvote 0

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,428
3,005
54
the Hague NL
✟84,932.00
Country
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I have credentials in the earth sciences and have investigated if for myself. Can you explain the fossil record and the way it is distributed throughout the geologic column without evolution?
Asking that seems to me that you have blind faith in established naturalistic beliefs and their ambiguous models and ignore the raised doubts, debunkings and alternatives of these beliefs.
You choose to subscribe to naturalistic models, and only you know why you choose to do so, i don't know why.
The naturalistic models cover many scientific disciplines, and especially assumed huge amounts of time are characteristic.
It seems to me that you have had little to no interest in Flood models and how they account for rock layers with rapidly fossilised animals in them.
You are ignorant of the evidence in support of the Bible.

Let's call this quits though, it's been pointless for a couple of pages now (i.m.o.).
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Let's call this quits though, it's been pointless for a couple of pages now (i.m.o.).
It will always be pointless until you face up to what the real theory of evolution actually says and stop tilting at straw men.
 
Upvote 0