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.
Didn't Germany's scientists in the 1940s experiment with evolution?
Ya ... what is one day considered "medical experiments," is another day considered "war crimes."If you're referring more generally to medical experiments that were later considered war crimes, then your example agrees with my point that science or medicine does not provide a valid philosophical basis for excusing crimes.
Didn't Germany's scientists in the 1940s experiment with evolution?
Didn´t creationists burn witches?Didn't Germany's scientists in the 1940s experiment with evolution?
Ya ... what is one day considered "medical experiments," is another day considered "war crimes."
Didn´t creationists burn witches?
Couldn't scientists state evolution as fact with the same certainty as gravity if they could show one transition of one life form through the fossil record?
For arguments sake, if real science finally debunks evolution and states that intelligent design is the only possibility of life....would the science world embrace God or some supreme alien intelligence as the creator....
Yes, but only if ID presented some kind of theory and only as long as ID remained undebunked. Science is inheretly unfaithful.
not talking faith as much as where would this worldview turn to, if denying God must be upheld at all cost.
Interpretation of "made in his image" varies.1. It blasphemes God, since God says He made us in His image, whereas evolution says we came from an animal.
No, we actually are objectively, "animals." We have all the characteristics of members of the Animal Kingdom. Don't like that? Too bad.2. It teaches us human beings are animals, whereas God has set us apart from the animal kingdom.
That is an allegory.3. It teaches we came about by natural processes, whereas God created us via a miraculous fiat.
No, only those passages that clearly describe allegories. Like when you have trees bearing magically fruit, talking serpents, a woman made from a rib, etc.4. It reduces Genesis 1 to the status of a fable, starting a process whereby the rest of the Scriptures are looked upon with suspicion. Left unchecked, this downward spiral will eventually lead to every jot & tittle being reduced to the status of an allegory.
No, creationism breeds contempt between evolutionists and creationists.5. It breeds contempt between evolutionists and creationists.
I'm not sure where this idea comes from. Most evolution supporters here don't even posess such knowledge.6. It creates a zero tolerance for those who don't appreciate it, or know how it works -- right down to the molecular level.
According to your twisted view of REV.7. It creates a philosophy that the Antichrist will be able to exploit to the fullest.
So?8. It teaches uniformitarianism, rather than catastrophism.
Bull. I call shenanigans!9. It breeds Antisemitism & Antizionism.
Nonsense. How does it "produce destruction and despair?" By indicating life will continue to adapt to changes in our environment?10. It produces no hope for the future -- only destruction & despair.
< standard predictable denials >
Yes, there are plenty of fossils that are difficult to caetgorize into established nomenclature. The mammal-like reptiles are a good example of this. There are numerous extinct species, and it is arbitrary whether one is put into the "reptile" category or the "mammal" category. The theropod dinosaurs also do not fit well into the "reptile" category, especially since they are now aligned with birds.If evolution is to be true, shouldn't there be a great number of fossil remains of these "inbetween" species specimens? In fact, shouldn't there more of these than those we can put into certain "blocks" of living organisms?
I mean there are fossils of birds and there are fossils of reptiles, but shouldn't there be more bird-reptile crossover fossils at different stages than both of these combined?
In order for this process to occur there had to be (according to the evolution theory) an almost exponential greater number of mistakes and gradual changes with carbon dating differences of billions of years...than fossils of a fully formed bird and a fully formed reptile.
Again, there is no carbon-dating of these fossils. There have been numerous mass extinctions according to the fossil record, at least some of which were likely do to climate change.It just seems that the fossil evidence, or lack of, makes evolution as unstable in theory form as Creation is in theory form.
In order for evolution to work, there could have NEVER EVER been a sudden climate change....everything the earth went through would have to be extremely slow-moving always, or carbon dating is an inaccurate measure of dating fossils....in could only be accurate up to the last extreme climate change...AND scientist would have to know pretty exactly when this was...so there would be a zero date.
Haven't you ever been to a natural history museum?Where are the numberless fossil records of evolution? I mean it should not be a handful of very debatable fossils total, it should be the numberless majority...but it just isn't.
It is like saying a pearl came from sand...without the physical proof of the sand itself. The ratio of pearls to sand should be comparable to the number of inbetween fossils for every one categorized species fossil.
Couldn't scientists state evolution as fact with the same certainty as gravity if they could show one transition of one life form through the fossil record?
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?