How to choose between creation and evolution.

[VirOptimus]

You think his arguments are well evidenced? That's laughable, he is the resident troll who will do nothing but insult me through the course of the thread. There is always one.

I have not insulted you, I do have attacked your ”ideas” however. Its you who called me a troll.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't worry, I just haven't seen it. As far as my personal faith, I could easily rearrange my theology to accommodate a Darwinian worldview. I just remain unconvinced and the fact that theistic evolutionists are incapable of work in doctrine doesn't help their case much.



It would all depend.

Depend on what?

 

[bhsmte]

You think his arguments are well evidenced? That's laughable, he is the resident troll who will do nothing but insult me through the course of the thread. There is always one.

I think the evidence to support evolution, is extremely well evidenced, yes.

 

[Haipule]

There's no explanation of "first life" with germ theory either, but I'm willing to bet you're not going to lick a leper.

I WOULD IN A HEART BEAT! I even contemplated eating armadillos in order to catch leprosy!

Then they would put me in the leper colony on the beautiful Kaluapapa Peninsula on the North Shore of Molokai to live out my days surfing some killa waves! Glad Hansen's Disease is cured with penicillin.

Oh, dare to dream!

 

[mark kennedy]

I have not insulted you, I do have attacked your ”ideas” however. Its you who called me a troll.

No you've done nothing but insult me, but there is always one of you in these threads, I expect it.

 

[mark kennedy]

Depend on what?

The heart condition.

 

[mark kennedy]

I think the evidence to support evolution, is extremely well evidenced, yes.

Evolution is a phenomenon not the philosophy of natural history you are calling evolution.

 

[VirOptimus]

No you've done nothing but insult me, but there is always one of you in these threads, I expect it.

If you started to post real science your ideas wouldnt get attacked.

 

[mark kennedy]

If you started to post real science your ideas wouldnt get attacked.

If you had the slightest interest in science I might have.

 

[VirOptimus]

If you had the slightest interest in science I might have.

Oh but I do, and I have the degrees to prove it.

 

[mark kennedy]

Oh but I do, and I have the degrees to prove it.

Well those are useless in this discussion so far.

 

[bhsmte]

Evolution is a phenomenon not the philosophy of natural history you are calling evolution.

Evolution is a scientific theory and a well evidenced one, with practical uses that have been substantiated.

I understand your position to not go along with this evidence, though.

 

[joshua 1 9]

If you study evolution, with an open mind, you will likely believe in evolution.

Evolution is the best explanation for the evidence we have. Pardigm shifts are common as new evidence comes to the surface for people to examine. Science books go though constant revision. The Bible does not need revised although there are always new translations and our interpretation goes through the same sort of revision we see with Science. Only the original Hebrew Biblical language is dependable.

 

[Haipule]

I don't believe in evolution or creationism. As evolution is stupid yet I recognize micro "adaption" has occurred. And there is no word in Hebrew or Greek that should have been translated by the Latin word creatura or the Latin idea of ex nilio.

All the verbs in the Hebrew and Greek are all verbs of making, building(Eve), forming(Adam), etc.

 

[mark kennedy]

Evolution is a scientific theory and a well evidenced one, with practical uses that have been substantiated.

It's not a theory, it's a phenomenon in nature. It's the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. The a priori assumption of universal common ancestry is presupposition, not science.

I understand your position to not go along with this evidence, though.

I'm well acquainted with the fossil and genomic evidence, I have no problem going along with it, just remain unconvinced.

 

[VirOptimus]

It's not a theory, it's a phenomenon in nature. It's the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. The a priori assumption of universal common ancestry is presupposition, not science.



I'm well acquainted with the fossil and genomic evidence, I have no problem going along with it, just remain unconvinced.

So you dont think the theory of evolution is a scentific theory?

 

[pitabread]

So you dont think the theory of evolution is a scentific theory?

Incoming rant about "Darwinism" in 3... 2...

 

[Haipule]

The simple words about how God caused Adam to sleep and removed a bone from his side and built Eve, was not even understandable until we understood scientifically that rib bones contain multipotent [edited: stem cells] DNA from which God could build Eve and that rib bones grow back if the sheath which houses it is left intact by the surgeon.

So, for thousands of years we could only look at that and wonder. Yet, men since the beginning have been assigning ideas to the text without any ideas of what it could mean.

Then, we should accept what the bible says as it has proven to be good information even if we have no ideas of why or how. Science is a big help in these matters.

Paul said that we will know God by the things He has made. That's a lot of science!

 

[Snappy1]

The simple words about how God caused Adam to sleep and removed a bone from his side and built Eve, was not even understandable until we understood scientifically that rib bones contain multipotent DNA from which God could build Eve and that rib bones grow back if the sheath which houses it is left intact by the surgeon.

So, for thousands of years we could only look at that and wonder. Yet, men since the beginning have been assigning ideas to the text without any ideas of what it could mean.

Then, we should accept what the bible says as it has proven to be good information even if we have no ideas of why or how. Science is a big help in these matters.

Paul said that we will know God by the things He has made. That's a lot of science!

Oh what a load.

 

[Doug Melven]

until over time they made more permanent changes to suit the new environment.

How? Did the animal just decide to modify its DNA?

As for abiogenesis. Life arising from nonliving matter.
If this could work, scientists would have been able to produce life.