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.
Oh, for crying out loud. Every poll for decades has shown similar numbers for the U.S., and most other countries show much lower percentages of creationists.
It's funny you should say that because most evolutionists argue that one cannot have any real grasp on a scientific field of study without first knowing and embracing evolution. Can one study medicine without a background in evo? Not according to evolutionists. Can one study biology or botany or paleobotany without first knowing and embracing evolution? Not according to the evolutionists. Can one study the stars and the planets without first studying and knowing and embracing evolution? Not according to evolutionists.Do you need to know how galaxies form to study how stars work?
It's funny how people are forced to accept evolution as true without demanding an answer to the very first question that should be out of their mouths, "How did we get here?" How did life come about? Evolution has no answer and it cannot have a suitable answer so it pushes the question of life under the proverbial rug. Evolutionists mock those who have a different answer than themselves to the origin of life but will offer no answer in and of themselves. Evolutionists even go so far as to say it is completely unnecessary to even require such an answer!While the question of how life started is very interesting it is not a necessity to understand how life evolved.
I don't believe the poll. I need to see the survey.
You can make people to say anything in a well designed survey.
In my church, about 90% of them are creationists. I don't care how many creationists in my town.
Well, I am sort of lost the goal of argument. What am I talking about?
It's funny you should say that because most evolutionists argue that one cannot have any real grasp on a scientific field of study without first knowing and embracing evolution.
Can one study medicine without a background in evo? Not according to evolutionists. Can one study biology or botany or paleobotany without first knowing and embracing evolution? Not according to the evolutionists.
Can one study the stars and the planets without first studying and knowing and embracing evolution? Not according to evolutionists.
It's funny how people are forced to accept evolution as true without demanding an answer to the very first question that should be out of their mouths, "How did we get here?"
How did life come about? Evolution has no answer and it cannot have a suitable answer so it pushes the question of life under the proverbial rug.
Evolutionists mock those who have a different answer than themselves to the origin of life
but will offer no answer in and of themselves. Evolutionists even go so far as to say it is completely unnecessary to even require such an answer!
Yet it is a perfectly absolute necessity to understand how life evolved.
If life is capable of such evolution as evolutionists claim, then how did such a complex existence come into being? Where did it all come from?
What forces could possibly bring about such organization and diversity and beauty in symbiotic relationships that are more interconnected than a spider's web?
It is an absolutely necessary question if we are to be forced to swallow such an enormous pill as evolution.
I guess if there is no answer under your belief system, then the only necessity is to say there is no necessity in answering the question of "How did life begin?"
Medicine is only tangentially related to science, and doctors can get by knowing little about evolution (pretty much just how resistance develops).It's funny you should say that because most evolutionists argue that one cannot have any real grasp on a scientific field of study without first knowing and embracing evolution. Can one study medicine without a background in evo? Not according to evolutionists.
No, that one is basically impossible, since evolution is the organizing theoretical framework for biology. You can learn lots of facts about biology without accepting evolution, and I'm sure there are niches within biology where you can get by as a creationist, but the field as a whole depends on evolution.Can one study biology or botany or paleobotany without first knowing and embracing evolution?
What evolutionists? I've never seen anyone claim that you had to accept biological evolution to be an astronomer. Now it is true that you can't be an astronomer, at least not a sane one, and be a young-earth creationist, but that has nothing to do with accepting evolution.Can one study the stars and the planets without first studying and knowing and embracing evolution? Not according to evolutionists.
The only thing forcing us to accept evolution is the reality we see in the world around us. When studied carefully, living things make abundantly clear that they have evolved. What's funny about recognizing that fact? Why should recognizing it depend on answering the question about how life got here?It's funny how people are forced to accept evolution as true without demanding an answer to the very first question that should be out of their mouths, "How did we get here?"
Evolutionary biologists don't push the question under the rug; they push it off to people qualified to study it. The origin of life is a different field because it is mostly studied by different people using different scientific techniques, not because we're afraid of it.How did life come about? Evolution has no answer and it cannot have a suitable answer so it pushes the question of life under the proverbial rug.
It's completely unnecessary to require an answer to study evolution, as is clear from the fact that scientists have been successfully studying evolution for 150+ years without answering the question. How would answering the question change the way we study evolution?Evolutionists even go so far as to say it is completely unnecessary to even require such an answer!
How would the answer change how we go about studying the life that we know does exist and has existed?Yet it is a perfectly absolute necessity to understand how life evolved. If life is capable of such evolution as evolutionists claim, then how did such a complex existence come into being? Where did it all come from?
Much of that question is a proper subject for biology, and is very much the kind of question that evolution answers (except perhaps the part about beauty, which is notoriously in the eye of the beholder). Most organization, diversity and symbiotic relationships have developed since life started.What forces could possibly bring about such organization and diversity and beauty in symbiotic relationships that are more interconnected than a spider's web?
What belief system would that be? And what's wrong with the answer "We don't know?" when in fact we don't know?I guess if there is no answer under your belief system, then the only necessity is to say there is no necessity in answering the question of "How did life begin?"
It's funny you should say that because most evolutionists argue that one cannot have any real grasp on a scientific field of study without first knowing and embracing evolution. Can one study medicine without a background in evo? Not according to evolutionists. Can one study biology or botany or paleobotany without first knowing and embracing evolution? Not according to the evolutionists.
Can one study the stars and the planets without first studying and knowing and embracing evolution? Not according to evolutionists.
It's funny how people are forced to accept evolution as true without demanding an answer to the very first question that should be out of their mouths, "How did we get here?"
How did life come about? Evolution has no answer and it cannot have a suitable answer so it pushes the question of life under the proverbial rug.
Evolutionists mock those who have a different answer than themselves to the origin of life but will offer no answer in and of themselves.
Evolutionists even go so far as to say it is completely unnecessary to even require such an answer!
Yet it is a perfectly absolute necessity to understand how life evolved. If life is capable of such evolution as evolutionists claim, then how did such a complex existence come into being? Where did it all come from? What forces could possibly bring about such organization and diversity and beauty in symbiotic relationships that are more interconnected than a spider's web? It is an absolutely necessary question if we are to be forced to swallow such an enormous pill as evolution.
I guess if there is no answer under your belief system, then the only necessity is to say there is no necessity in answering the question of "How did life begin?"
In Christ, GB
And you don't?As is typical for a creationist, you only believe what you want to believe,
And you don't?
This is a fabricated lie! What you say is tantamount to me saying: "Christians argue that one cannot have any real grasp of Christianity without first knowing and embracing other religions!It's funny you should say that because most evolutionists argue that one cannot have any real grasp on a scientific field of study without first knowing and embracing evolution.
Medicine is only tangentially related to science, and doctors can get by knowing little about evolution (pretty much just how resistance develops).
You first.ToE is a scientific theory and Biology makes no sense without it. Medicine is based on Biology and thus is depended on ToE.
Get your facts right before you utter such dishonest lies!
No, you're wanting to compare road apples and apples. I said that evolutionists claim that one cannot have a satisfactory grasp of an area of biological study without first embracing ToE. You reassert my claim when you say the following:This is a fabricated lie! What you say is tantamount to me saying: "Christians argue that one cannot have any real grasp of Christianity without first knowing and embracing other religions!
ToE is a scientific theory and Biology makes no sense without it [evolution]. Medicine is based on Biology and thus is depended on ToE.
I said that evolutionists claim that one cannot have a satisfactory grasp of an area of biological study without first embracing ToE.
Check the post above for my answer.No, you're wanting to compare road apples and apples. I said that evolutionists claim that one cannot have a satisfactory grasp of an area of biological study without first embracing ToE. You reassert my claim when you say the following:
Seems to me that you just said that no one can study biology or medicine without adhering to the ToE. Isn't that what I said evolutionists say? I fail to see how or where I lied.
In Christ, GB
From Cosmological EvolutionNo, you didn't. Here is what you actually said:
"It's funny you should say that because most evolutionists argue that one cannot have any real grasp on a scientific field of study without first knowing and embracing evolution. Can one study medicine without a background in evo? Not according to evolutionists. Can one study biology or botany or paleobotany without first knowing and embracing evolution? Not according to the evolutionists. Can one study the stars and the planets without first studying and knowing and embracing evolution? Not according to evolutionists."
You did not limit the scientific fields to biology, and you actually included astronomy as one of the sciences that needs the theory of evolution.
See my previous answer. Post #115 on page 12. That is from an undoubtedly evolutionistic viewpoint and totally validates my point and rests my case.Check the post above for my answer.
I would also expect a bridge architect to know a thing or two about structural engineering. So that either begins in school, or special revelation through prayer.From Cosmological Evolution
"The beginning of the twenty-first century is a unique point in human history; for the first time we have a coherent picture of the history of our universe. Because of this a major change in teaching science is now possible.Did you see that? That part above in not so tiny red bold and underlined letters? I guess my statement still stands about evolutionists demanding anyone who wishes to be in an area of scientific study to know and embrace evolution.
With our current scientific knowledge it is now possible to teach science as the history of nature. The organizing concept behind this is the evolution of historical systems through time. Almost all of science is the study of the evolution of historical systems. Biology's central organizing principle is the evolution of living things, just as geology centers on the evolution of the planet Earth, and astronomy on the evolution of the universe. Understanding the central explanatory role of evolution in so many areas of science is the first step toward integrating science education.
The history of nature can be subdivided chronologically into the evolution of the universe or cosmological evolution, the origin and evolution of our solar system and the planet Earth, and the origin and evolution of life on Earth or biological evolution."
In Christ, GB
See my previous answer. Post #115 on page 12. That is from an undoubtedly evolutionistic viewpoint and totally validates my point and rests my case.
Yeah, I see that you've that you've gotten everyone tangled in knots about what meaning of "evolution" you're using. If you're talking about evolution vs creationism, or talking about the theory of evolution (as you did in your OP), everyone is going to assume you're talking about evolutionary biology. If you want to talk about any kind of process of change in the history of the universe and call it "evolution", you'd better specify that that's what you mean (as this article does). The latter use is unlikely to be very fruitful, however, since it leaves "evolution" with little specific content. It's also not clear in that case what you mean by "evolutionists", since creationists also accept that there has been change in the history of the universe. Basically, the entire discussion becomes pretty pointless.Did you see that? That part above in not so tiny red bold and underlined letters? I guess my statement still stands about evolutionists demanding anyone who wishes to be in an area of scientific study to know and embrace evolution.
I would also expect a bridge architect to know a thing or two about structural engineering. So that either begins in school, or special revelation through prayer.
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?