Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

[racer]

Scientific theory? Yes. Scientific fact? No.

BIG, BIG, BIG difference.

 

[Victory of the Cross]

Its a Nice thing to talk about when you are bored and have nothing else to do *Leans over to talk to friend* "Yes Bobby you were once Pond Scum, doesn't that make you feel smart"

No Really I think it just another attempt at trying to remove God from Society

 

[artybloke]

Scientific theory? Yes. Scientific fact? No.

BIG, BIG, BIG difference.

Wrong. A scientific theory is a theory that is supported by scientific facts. Evolution is one of the best fact-supported theories on the block. Creationism is a lie dreamt up to make some evangelists a lot of money.

 

[stumpjumper]

After all gravity is just a theory.

Evolution is a fact and theory. The fact is that evolution has occurred and will continue to occur. The theory is our current best explanation of how the fact of evolution has occurred.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

After all gravity is just a theory.

Evolution is a fact and theory. The fact is that evolution has occurred and will continue to occur. The theory is our current best explanation of how the fact of evolution has occurred.

So, do you support the fact that we were originally single-celled water born organisms?

 

[nephilimiyr]

Ecclesiastes 3:11, He hath made everything beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.


8:17, then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea farther; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.

Whether you think evolution is a valid theory or not...it isn't the answer...

 

[coolstylinstud]

Creationism is a lie dreamt up to make some evangelists a lot of money

Evangalist did not make it up the person who wrote genesis did. and they evangalist dont talk about it just to get money they talk about it because its true and its biblical.

 

[pjalford]

I sure hope you don't mind, but I printed your blog about Alexander the Great because it looked very intriguing and I want to take it home so I can read it without interruption. I don't have computer access at home.

As for the question at hand - no - I don't bite on the evolution theory - I don't accept that my ancestors were monkeys, chimps, etc. or whatever they want us to believe.

 

[stumpjumper]

So, do you support the fact that we were originally single-celled water born organisms?

Macro-evolution is a very well supported theory. Even Michael Behe (ID's big gun) believes in universal common descent he just gives God a more active role in the evolutionary process.

There is no conflict between evolution and Christianity.

 

[invisible trousers]

So, do you support the fact that we were originally single-celled water born organisms?

As for the question at hand - no - I don't bite on the evolution theory - I don't accept that my ancestors were monkeys, chimps, etc. or whatever they want us to believe.

Good thing evolution makes neither of those claims.

I've never understood why people who call themselves christians go to such great lengths to make up lies about the theory of evolution.

Ends justify the means I guess.

 

[bertie]

there are more things on heaven and earth than are accounted for in our philosphy horatio.
that is to say that the theory does not fit the facts perfectly.
Niether do the facts add up to the theory totally.
If God were to create all of this,dont you think that it would be done in stages as the bible has averred?
Nothing about GOD is bound by our time our thoughts or our expectations thats why we call HIM GOD and give HIM the Glory.
If evolution was a totally proven fact it would not be called a theory.
On the other hand there is no proof that our carbon dating methods are accurate,its a real pity that we can not keep an open mind and practice more charity when it comes to others beliefs and opinions.
meanwhile much of what the bible does say about the more recent past,has proven to be accurate,and thats the most important part...........for our salvation

 

[jasperbound]

It doesn't really matter to me either way.

 

[seebs]

If evolution was a totally proven fact it would not be called a theory.

Have you ever heard of the "theory of gravity"?

 

[Lynn73]

No.

 

[Nice Dream]

Have you ever heard of the "theory of gravity"?

I've heard of the law of gravity.

 

[seebs]

I've heard of the law of gravity.

It's a theory, too. We call some theories "laws" by convention, but in fact, the modern theory of gravity is somewhat different from early conceptions of it.

That life changes over time is a fact. We have theories about how this happens; these theories are among the most exhaustively tested and widely supported in modern science, being essential to our current understanding of nearly all aspects of biology, from medicine to agriculture.

But even gravity and Newton's Laws are "theories" in formal parlance.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Good thing evolution makes neither of those claims.

I've never understood why people who call themselves christians go to such great lengths to make up lies about the theory of evolution.

Ends justify the means I guess.

I'm sorry, but I believe I heard that statement on the Science Channel. The show was Miracle Planet. I guess they were making it up also.

 

[artybloke]

Evangalist did not make it up the person who wrote genesis did.

The person who wrote Genesis wrote a poem that expressed his belief that God is the ultimate creator of the universe. He wrote in a time before scientific theories and had no interest in such things. Evangelists made up the theory that the only way to interpret said poem was according to a literatistic modernistic scientistic literal way rather than as a poem to be interpreted symbolically. Then they fooled a lot of gullible people who can't tell the difference between theory and guess into believing them and sold a lot of perfectly dreadful tripe on the back of it. Creationism makes the UFO crazies look rational.

 

[Willtor]

The person who wrote Genesis wrote a poem that expressed his belief that God is the ultimate creator of the universe. He wrote in a time before scientific theories and had no interest in such things. Evangelists made up the theory that the only way to interpret said poem was according to a literatistic modernistic scientistic literal way rather than as a poem to be interpreted symbolically. Then they fooled a lot of gullible people who can't tell the difference between theory and guess into believing them and sold a lot of perfectly dreadful tripe on the back of it. Creationism makes the UFO crazies look rational.

I don't know if I'd go that far (comparing UFO enthusiasts to creationists), but certainly, I don't know of any evidence that Genesis was used in this way until the scientific age. St. Athanasius gives an analysis of the beginnings of the world and the fall of man, and it certainly looks as though he's interpreting Genesis in a way that wouldn't please creationists. My particular perspective is that he's interpreting Genesis theologically. Of course, what with being one of the great Church theologians, his interpretations are difficult for me to ignore. That is, if I am going to disagree with his analyses, I typically like to have a very good reason.

 

[*Starlight*]

Yes, I do... it's much more possible than creationism.