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.
Anyone who has the time can easily verify my statements that not even one of the scientists who are advocating today for evolution over creation has an academic background in creation biology making him qualified to have an educated opinion on the matter.
Creation, therefore, cannot be studied scientifically and, hence, there can be no scientific evidence for it.
Baloney!
Now your prejudice is showing. You just really have a hard time with Gods ability to do what ever he wants even if is steps through the rules of nature that He Himself made. You and your message are irrelevant but keep on banging that drum, God knows what you are doing.
Sealacamp
It can also be accurately said that macro-evolution biology belongs to the realm of the miraculous and the supernatural, and of plain faith in a philosophy instead of scientific facts observed, where as biology belongs to the realm of science and the natural.creation belongs to the realm of the miraculous and the supernatural, where as biology belongs to the realm of science and the natural. Creation, therefore, cannot be studied scientifically and, hence, there can be no scientific evidence for it.
I believe in old-earth creationism. I believe that the earth is old because science has proven that it is old. I believe in creationism because of my religious beliefs. I believe in microevolution because it has been observed in the laboratory and in the field, and I am cognizant of the fact that the mechanism for microevolution is exactly the same as the mechanism for macroevolution as taught by evolutionists since the day of Darwin. Therefore, I know from science that the theory of evolution is based upon a proven mechanism. Furthermore, I know from science that the theory of evolution is based upon massive amounts of evidence that supports the theory, and that the “evidence” against the theory is composed of nothing more than a few, isolated tidbits of anomalous data that need further study. Nonetheless, I believe, for religious reasons, that God created man and placed him upon the earth. Are my religious beliefs inconsistent with the evidence of science? No, they are not. Why? Because science does not take into consideration the possibility of the miracle of creation. Science and religion are two very different disciplines, both of which need to be pursued with clean hands and a right spirit.
So what is your background that lets you evaluate these claims unbiasedly. How do we know that you aren't some blogger living in his mom's basement wearing Star Wars pajamas? Do you have a degree in microbiology?
Biology, including all of its many branches, is the scientific study of life, and science totally excludes the miraculous and the supernatural.It can also be accurately said that macro-evolution biology belongs to the realm of the miraculous and the supernatural, and of plain faith in a philosophy instead of scientific facts observed, where as biology belongs to the realm of science and the natural.
Macroevolution can be, and is, studied scientifically because your premise is false.Macro-Evolution, therefore, cannot be studied scientifically and, hence, there can be no scientific evidence for it.
Scientists see what is actually observable. They see evolution and speciation occurring by the mechanism of gene mutation and natural selection. Just 50 years ago, creationists argued that scientists have observed only microevolution take place, without speciation (macroevolution). Now that scientists have observed speciation in both the laboratory and in the field, creationists have re-defined macroevolution—but they do not at all agree about the new definition. Some creations argue that macroevolution begins at the subgenera level, some at the genera level, and some, including Answers in Genesis, at the family level.It continues to amaze me how biased scientists can be, that they would only see one philosophy (creation) as miraculous and not the other, neither of which happens naturally or can be observed occurring naturally.
The science of biology is the study of life, including the origin of life. Do you believe that posting false statements in order to prove an incorrect position makes Baptists look good?Biology as a science studies how things work, not where they came from; just as psychology is the study of how the brain thinks and feels, not where it came from. This in itself shows both the ridiculousness of biologists getting their underwear in twists when creation is suggested, and the ridiculousness of a true biologist even getting involved in or caring about this argument.
For all you know, I flunked out of school in the second grade! I could post my college and university transcripts showing the degrees that I have earned in the biological sciences, but how would you know if I were telling the truth? Moreover, even if you were to accept as true and accurate my college and university transcripts showing the degrees that I have earned in the biological sciences, how would they prove that I am unbiased in my statements and conclusions? Furthermore, if I were to post my academic qualifications, would I not be accused of bragging about my education?So what is your background that lets you evaluate these claims unbiasedly. How do we know that you aren't some blogger living in his mom's basement wearing Star Wars pajamas? Do you have a degree in microbiology?
I agree. I heartily recommend as one of them Dr. Henry Morris's commentary entitled "The Genesis Record." His superior knowledge in the realm of science makes it one of the best and most informative on Genesis.Therefore, the readers of my posts should not take my word for anything. Instead, they should study the book of Genesis making good use of the best Hebrew lexicons and grammars, and by reading commentaries on the Hebrew text of Genesis written by scholars representing a wide spectrum of theological thought and who are recognized around the world for their academic excellence in the study of Genesis;
Having done that, the readers of my posts should read the literature on the science of evolution written by scholars who are recognized around the world for their academic excellence in the study of evolution; and, having read this material, compare with it what I have posted.
Yes, by all means you should adjust your theology according to what scientists say.When, through their own study as described above, they have come to realize that I am posting accurate information, they should compare what I have posted with what creation scientists have written, and adjust their personal theology accordingly.
Yes, by all means you should adjust your theology according to what scientists say.
I can picture a God that created evolution being a God that is just as personal as a God involved in creationism.
The problem lies with those that would say that evolution explains the origin of all life as we know it and that it happened by chance. Darwin did not say that but many of those that worship at the altar of evolution do and they insist that God does not exist, rather that all of what we see is all there is and that this all came about by a random set of events directed by nothing. That is what current evolution is to the vast majority of those that pound the evolution drum crying heresy to all who refuse to join in the dance.
Sealacamp
Good point. I don't think that anyone here is using this evolution to support this argument though.
Maybe not but considering the current environment against God and His word I will stand against evolution as it is displayed for the masses of the world. It has been mentioned by a poster or two here that the validity of Gods word is questionable. I disagree with that therefore I stand against anything that detracts from Gods authority, power, or validity.
Sealacamp
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?