- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,070
- 16,820
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
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 am not sure that even makes sense.
I figured you wouldn't. It means the small incremental changes supposedly caused by the so-called beneficial mutation would be out of the resolution of natural selection.
After college, Kramer went to seminary to study ways to read Genesis through a different lens, taking the view that you can reconcile faith and science without forcing the two to cohere line by line. By 2009, he had done a complete reversal: “[W]e should proceed with extreme caution when trying to understand science through the writings of an ancient culture that looked at life poetically, not scientifically,” he wrote in an op-ed supporting evolution from a Christian perspective. In 2014, Kramer became managing editor at BioLogos. This year, he started a blog called “The Evolving Evangelical.” Today he still considers himself a creationist—just one who happens to embrace evolution and who helps others do the same.
“We call ourselves creationists, and we’re stubborn about that,” says Kramer of BioLogos. “We purposely live between the cultural categories, because we disagree with the way in which the lines are drawn.” If you asked Kramer whether he believes in the words of Genesis or the words of Origin of Species, in the biblical God or the science of evolution, he knows what he would choose. It’s the same answer he’d give if you asked him whether the recent Homo naledi discovery is scientific or divine, or whether his 2-year-old daughter Josephine is a gift from God or nature. “I’d say both,” he says. “One hundred percent both.”
He treated evolution as an unsurmountable truth, and tried to find a way to accommodate it.
This is wrong to begin with.
Evolution, is NOT true. He needs to dig into science in order to understand it.
This is a fatal mistake happened to many Christians who do not know enough science to refute evolution at the first hand.
I would think Francisco Ayala knows more than enough science to refute it, if refutable it was. In any case, there can hardly be an Academy of Sciences on the face of the Earth which he isn't either a member, or an honorary member, of.
That is his problem. If he tried to say anything FOR creationism, he WILL lose all his titles.
He may believe evolution is true. But it is a belief and is not scientific. A belief can not be used in any scientific argument.
I don't think any scientist has proven the evolution is true. If one said so, he is not a scientist.
In that case, why doesn't he just stay quiet, instead of arguing energetically against creationism?
Baloney. Nothing in science is known 100% to be true, but things are believed to be true when there is very good evidence for them.
Evolution theory has lower than 30% (that is an absolute overestimation) proven facts. It is scientifically unacceptable.
...Where does that figure come from?
God bless Israel!Hello I am from Israel
If he tried to say anything FOR creationism, he WILL lose all his titles.
Evolution theory has lower than 30% (that is an absolute overestimation) proven facts. It is scientifically unacceptable
Oh yeah, I suppose that is why practically every biologist on the face of the Earth accepts it.
Is there really no end to creationist codswallop?
Oh yeah, I suppose that is why practically every biologist on the face of the Earth accepts it.
Is there really no end to creationist codswallop?
They accept the 30% (max) experimental data.
And if they do believe, then they accept the rest of the 70% by faith.
Random responses to recent posts:
1) Evolution as a theory is underdetermined. Of course it is. All scientific theories are underdetermined -- as are all nonscientific theories. That's just the reality of living in an uncertain world. That's why science is always open in principle to a new theory that will explain the data better. Unless you have a better (or even comparable) theory to offer, however, pointing out underdetermination is not contributing anything of value.
...Where does that figure come from?
Yes, I made it up. And it is an exaggeration.
Let's see. You've previously declined to debate biology because you said you didn't know enough about it. Now you're criticizing it based on numbers you admit you just made up. What exactly am I supposed to respond to? Is there an argument here I'm missing?You can not use that argument as an excuse. You work on genetics, and you "think" the evolution is shown by your data. But that is it. You can not apply what you know to other thousands of speculations such as dinosaurs changed to birds.
Counting questions answered by evolution and questions asked to evolution, I think the ratio would be smaller than 10%. And you want to call that an acceptable scientific theory?
Let's see. You've previously declined to debate biology because you said you didn't know enough about it. Now you're criticizing it based on numbers you admit you just made up. What exactly am I supposed to respond to? Is there an argument here I'm missing?
You name one proof of evolution, then I would give you a number of related questions abut evolution which you would not be able to answer.
To compare, one can not get a similar result in other better supported scientific theories.
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?