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.
well for one the "THEORY" of evolution is not fact. evolution is fact but they are different things. the theory just uses evolution to make its points. though they dont do a very good job unless you add to it greatly with things that cannot be proven, which is why its a theory. Its never good to use the word evolution when you mean theory of evolution.
yes like the theory of gravity. used often to push the fact of the theory. we cannot claim gravity as fact becasue we cannot physically prove it through certain tests. we have no gravity so to speak to investigate or disect ect. no matter or material or elements etc. it is just that what goes up comes down. doesnt matter how much or how often we throw something up it will come down. its proven fact through personal experience so to speak. But if i was to prove God through personal experience the same way gravity is It wouldnt stick would it. But the theory of evolution is based on facts about evolution and earth science. Throw in assumptions and you have the theory. the assumptions are ideas based on what we know now or so far and what we think i might have been in the far far past. No matter how much evidence you have assumption is in it. and the FACT is the assumptions could be wrong. So teaching it as fact is factualy wrong.
no i am saying if your speaking of the theory of evolution say it. dont say evolution like it means the same thing. creationist believe in evolution just not the theory of evolution. Its is only stated this way to make creationist look stupid. Like we dont believe in evolution.A theory is just a type of model used to describe, account for, and explain different kinds of evidence. The theory of evolution is comprehensive; even though you said evolution was a fact, it seems like you're trying to play this down.
the link was wrong on its responce. simplistic to the point of thinking we are stupid. most of its points about the theory being fact are facts about evolution not the theory. its usefulness is based on simple evolution not the thoery of evolution.
no i am saying if your speaking of the theory of evolution say it. dont say evolution like it means the same thing. creationist believe in evolution just not the theory of evolution. Its is only stated this way to make creationist look stupid. Like we dont believe in evolution.
not many i know. this is what evolutionist say but its not true. Doesnt mattert he age of the earth. evolution does happen and creationist know this. all the facts about evolution are pushed to prove the theory when they only show the facts of what evolution does. such as speciation. The only way it shows the thoery is if we add earth sciences to it and assumptions we cannot completely prove. evolution in itself does not show the theory of evolution to be fact or even plausible except to strectch it into assumptions beyond any proof.I don't think most people who accept that evolution is a fact would call themselves creationists. Creationist usually means someone who believes in young earth or old earth creationism, and they don't accept evolution.
the OP said the fact of the theory of evolution. the only fact in the theory is facts about, and or strongly support assumptions, on earth sciences and evolution. they mesh the two and create the theory.Who's arguing otherwise?
What's a "strongly supported assumption"?the OP said the fact of the theory of evolution. the only fact in the theory is facts about, and or strongly support assumptions, on earth sciences and evolution. they mesh the two and create the theory.
speciation isnt one species evolving into another class which is what the theory says not evolution which you keep saying. They dont deny speciation of species they are the same species. reptiles dont evolve by speciation into mammals.First, schroeder, to show that you are actually interested in the the topic of this thread, would you like to tell us how many of the interviews you listened to, and which ideas in them you found most and least inspiring? I'm sure you aren't just using their title as an excuse to rant about evolution.
Second, it's not at all clear that creationists accept the fact of evolution. What you or I heard from so and so is not relevant - that's just anecdotal (hearsay), which is pretty much worthless.
So (after answering the first question above), are you saying that many creationists accept the evolution of one species into another (speciation)? It sounds like that's what you are saying - that creationists don't deny that one species can evolve into another, perhaps because they say that "kinds" are larger groups, and that one "kind" cannot evolve into another. After all, we've seen many different cases, even in recent times, of one species evolving into another.
If not, I'm not sure how you are saying that creationists don't deny the fact of evolution.
Papias
Again, no one said they did. Mammals evolved from basal amniotes. There's really good fossil evidence to support that theory, too. It's not simply an assumption, as you seem to think.reptiles dont evolve by speciation into mammals.
They dont deny speciation of species
nice try to discredit what i am saying.
but i have to go to work and will not be back until monday.
so have fun with the rest of the creationist quacks.
I'm impressed. Let's see if the others will follow your lead.
yes like the theory of gravity. used often to push the fact of the theory. we cannot claim gravity as fact becasue we cannot physically prove it through certain tests. we have no gravity so to speak to investigate or disect ect. no matter or material or elements etc. it is just that what goes up comes down. doesnt matter how much or how often we throw something up it will come down. its proven fact through personal experience so to speak. But if i was to prove God through personal experience the same way gravity is It wouldnt stick would it. But the theory of evolution is based on facts about evolution and earth science. Throw in assumptions and you have the theory. the assumptions are ideas based on what we know now or so far and what we think i might have been in the far far past. No matter how much evidence you have assumption is in it. and the FACT is the assumptions could be wrong. So teaching it as fact is factualy wrong.
No i did not. dont have time to do it. just throwing in my two sense. did all this reading and such awhile ago. I dont rant about evolution just the theory of evolution.First Schroeder, you seemed to have missed my first question, which was:
*****
First, schroeder, to show that you are actually interested in the the topic of this thread, would you like to tell us how many of the interviews you listened to, and which ideas in them you found most and least inspiring? I'm sure you aren't just using their title as an excuse to rant about evolution.
******
So saying in a loose way that all animals have exsisted in their present form since the beginning means they dont believe in evolution or speciation. HARDLY. I know thats what you lkike to here. but i dont seet he guestion or how it was worded or how they actually answered it. Its a bit BROAD. and i cannot imagine why. If its worded in a way that evolution MEANS evolution theory i see how they answer that way. again al in how the guestion is asked etc. but in the end you hear what you want to hear. SO your PROOF is weak. just like the theory.Next, you wrote:
Well, let's try to find some data about that, not your or my "things we heard". Here, I found this:
A plurality of Americans (48%) say that humans and other living things have evolved over time, but nearly as many (42%) say that humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. The latter group is often called "creationist" because this view is seen as consistent with a literal reading of the Bible's account of creation.(1)
From: Religion A Strength And Weakness For Both Parties: Summary of Findings - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
Around 45 to 50% of the population is creationist, so that's 42/50, or over 80% of creationists deny evolution, even microevolution (otherwise they would agree that species have changed over time).
So it seems that the data is clear that an overwhelming majority of creationists deny even the well-documented evolution we've seen today.
nice but your the one makeing it so. distorting polls which are weak anyways.This doesn't have to be personal, I'm just investigating the topic, as you are. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was attacking you. If we Christians can't have a civil, evidence based discussion, they what does that say about Christianity to outsiders?
i drive a school bus so it is at times, or at least some of the kids are a pain.I hope working isn't too much of a pain. See you then!
I am a creationist so i wasnt really saying they were funny. But we both hold certain things both sides find funny.They can be funny - like when they deny gravity and such.
But, even then, hopefully we can have a good discussion,they are our sisters and brothers in Christ, too.
Papias
yes speciation not evolving from one common ansector. their is no real evidence for the theory of evolution. their is evidence for evolution aplenty. thier may even be evidence of millions of years, at least in how we see things, but useing the two to create something else doesnt make it true or fact. just show how a reptile can change one aspect of itself which makes it a true reptile into something that makes a mammal a mammal like say scales to fur. And to save you effort saying they are the same essential thing doesnt work. God uses alot of the same things becasue he is limited to how the earth is. the whole he is God so he can do what he likes bla doesnt fly.That's not always true. If you're in space, what goes up most definitely does not come down, and in fact there is no up or down. Why do differently-sized objects exert different levels of gravity? What force is it that causes gravity to exist in the first place?
Dropping a ball is only evidence that some force called gravity exists. It is not gravity itself. This is the same as looking at change in species as evidence that a force called "evolution" exists. Except, the sheer amount of evidence we have to turn to is so much greater for evolution than gravity we can be surer that we know more of it than we do of the latter.
Its also important to note the usage of the term speciation as an example of macro evolution. A process where organisms act like they are different species is considered an act of speciation, which is macro evolution. Polyploidy or genome duplication, is considered speciation, but more importantly, macro evolution. The section on talkorigins seems to uphold a special criteria and this has been outlined.yes speciation not evolving from one common ansector. their is no real evidence for the theory of evolution.
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?