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.
I do not know how exactly define "creationist" and I do not know if "never", but first scientists were Christians who were driven by the desire to know how God created our world.And from creationists you never get an answer.
Again numbers dont count when looking at proof. There may be only one person in this world who has the right theory and others having a different view cannot make him /her wrongIt's a mistake to think of evolution or the Big Bang as atheist ideas.
There are far more believers who accept them then there are atheists
Can the theory be incorrect altogether?Scientific theories like evolution only exist to explain facts and evidence. We would need a lot of fresh evidence to change them.
Agree that conclusions can keep changing. Tomorrow we can have altogether different theory of how we got something from nothing which is altogether different from the current theory of evolution
But he did not say that the Big Bang theory is right because many Christians believe that.Again numbers dont count when looking at proof. There may be only one person in this world who has the right theory and others having a different view cannot make him /her wrong
No, my point was that you don't get an explanation. If you ask an evolutionary biologist how man came to be you will get an explanation involving random variation, genetic mutations, adaptations, etc. You might not like the explanation, but many people think it's plausible. If you ask a creationist basically all he will say is that it "just happened." But what was going on in that handful of dust God held in His hand? What chemical reactions? What order did the organs form in and why? You never hear about any of that from a creationist.Well you can get an explanation but you would not accept that claiming that to have no proof. There are theories on both sides u see. Evolution is not a proof of how it began but a hypothesis. You can claim it to be scientific but its not proven science. We must admit the problem is how we see some things as proof and some we don't. The concept of proof is always subjective.
Sorry if i mixed them up but u do get my point. Again the concept of theory in science is not what i am saying. Maybe the definition keeps changing. U also cannot have a definition that is approved by all scientists. I am trying to make a point here. My question is there are facts like humans breathing in oxygen and breathing out co2, gravity, laws of motion that can be verified now by scientific methods but making a hypothesis is not similar. I am not debating what is a theory and what established science. I hope you get my pointOnce again you are mixing different concepts. 'Something from nothing" (i.e. Big Bang) has nothing to do with evolution. It also appears that you misunderstand the concept of 'theory' in a scientific context. At the same time you are insisting that these scientific theories must be attributed to atheists when it is demonstrably not true.
Absolutely. But you need evidence.Again numbers dont count when looking at proof. There may be only one person in this world who has the right theory and others having a different view cannot make him /her wrong
Can the theory be incorrect altogether?
You fail to understand just because u use biology to explain how a man came to be is no way a percentage better explanation than how God created adam by breathing a soul into him. You are using biology as an excuse here. If u claim that is how man came to be u gotta prove it not assume it happened that way.No, my point was that you don't get an explanation. If you ask an evolutionary biologist how man came to be you will get an explanation involving random variation, genetic mutations, adaptations, etc. You might not like the explanation, but many people think it's plausible. If you ask a creationist basically all he will say is that it "just happened." But what was going on in that handful of dust God held in His hand? What chemical reactions? What order did the organs form in and why? You never hear about any of that from a creationist.
A theory is established science. It is the most firmly established science and the definition hasn't changed in several hundred years. Theories are the best evidenced and tested explanations for the facts of observable phenomena that science can offer,Sorry if i mixed them up but u do get my point. Again the concept of theory in science is not what i am saying. Maybe the definition keeps changing. U also cannot have a definition that is approved by all scientists. I am trying to make a point here. My question is there are facts like humans breathing in oxygen and breathing out co2, gravity, laws of motion that can be verified now by scientific methods but making a hypothesis is not similar. I am not debating what is a theory and what established science. I hope you get my point
Well, maybe the universe has always existed. And there’s really no evidence of a god/s until man showed up and on the scene. And of these two things, all of us agree that at least one exists. So maybe we should start there.God has no cause and needs none, He is God, He has always existed
If you just want to believe that God created Adam in some magic way that's fine. But if you want to make that a scientific claim you have to offer a testable proposition.You fail to understand just because u use biology to explain how a man came to be is no way a percentage better explanation than how God created adam by breathing a soul into him. You are using biology as an excuse here. If u claim that is how man came to be u gotta prove it not assume it happened that way.
You fail to understand just because u use biology to explain how a man came to be is no way a percentage better explanation than how God created adam by breathing a soul into him. You are using biology as an excuse here. If u claim that is how man came to be u gotta prove it not assume it
happened that way.
It does explain but there is no proof that there is a link between the fossil records. U have absolutely no evidence that there were actually Homo habilis or other species which evolved to homo sapiens. We can see around us how the human skull can be different than others and no doubt similar to apes. But what u are doing is using different skull makeup to justify different species existed. There is absolutely no proof of a specie transforming into another altogether. It's only a hypothesisAbsolutely. But you need evidence.
Evolution explains genetics and the fossil record, and had been gaining more supporting evidence for 150 years.
Have you read “Who We Are and How We Got Here”?It does explain but there is no proof that there is a link between the fossil records. U have absolutely no evidence that there were actually Homo habilis or other species which evolved to homo sapiens. We can see around us how the human skull can be different than others and no doubt similar to apes. But what u are doing is using different skull makeup to justify different species existed. There is absolutely no proof of a specie transforming into another altogether. It's only a hypothesis
Speciation has been observed. It is absolutely certain that new species can form.It does explain but there is no proof that there is a link between the fossil records. U have absolutely no evidence that there were actually Homo habilis or other species which evolved to homo sapiens. We can see around us how the human skull can be different than others and no doubt similar to apes. But what u are doing is using different skull makeup to justify different species existed. There is absolutely no proof of a specie transforming into another altogether. It's only a hypothesis
If u also want to believe that we magically became from a bacteria to homo sapiens well thats also fine. You also need to provide testable evidence how that happensIf you just want to believe that God created Adam in some magic way that's fine. But if you want to make that a scientific claim you have to offer a testable proposition.
Lets see how scientific are u in proving the aboveMy claim is that God created man by evolving him from a precursor primate.
Your claim is that God created man by ____________________.
What observation can we make, what experiment can we do to determine which of those two statements is correct?
False gods (small g) do not exist and true God (capital G) was not created.Like god?
U need to prove otherwise. I admit this is a possible hypothesis and cannot be proven by facts as u demand it to be proven. But same goes with evolutionGod did not ‘breath a soul into Adam.’
There's plenty, if you really want to get into it.If u also want to believe that we magically became from a bacteria to homo sapiens well thats also fine. You also need to provide testable evidence how that happens
No, the burden is on you to come up with a test that will tell us which of those claims is true. That's how science works.Lets see how scientific are u in proving the above
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?