- Oct 16, 2015
- 15,038
- 7,403
- 31
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Yes, that's in the Christians Only section. This part of the forum is open to Christians and non-Christians alike.
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.
ok well using your logic if you're able to quote Darwins theory of evolution to support your claims on how creation was made WHY CAN'T I QUOTE SCRIPTURE TO SUPPORT MY CLAIMSYes, that's in the Christians Only section. This part of the forum is open to Christians and non-Christians alike.
Honestly man (or woman) I'm tired sorry if this got heated. At the end of the day is it a salvation issue how things got made? Does it really matter whos right? Isnt the most important thing that God loves us and wants us to show others that love?Yes, that's in the Christians Only section. This part of the forum is open to Christians and non-Christians alike.
You can. But it won't be relevant in a thread that's looking for scientific (and not theological) answers.Rofl bro this is a Christian forum and you're telling me not to use scripture here? Laughable
After going through the many, many, many pages of @pitabread's thread: Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution, and seeing the comments from a certain poster on this forum about micro and macroevolution, I do have to ask this question to the people who say that macroevolution is false or incorrect or just wrong, while microevolution is scientifically correct: what replaces macroevolution if it is wrong?
You can't just say 'creationism' or Creation because they're unscientific and incorrect too, so what replaces macroevolution?
ok well using your logic if you're able to quote Darwins theory of evolution to support your claims on how creation was made WHY CAN'T I QUOTE SCRIPTURE TO SUPPORT MY CLAIMS
Isn't this OP and example of someone saying in essence "by definition your view is wrong -- so if you claim my view is not correct then what is the correct one?"
And why is that a problem? All of the people who claim that macroevolution is wrong claim they have something to replace it.
I agree everyone has an opinion - but if you start with "your opinion is wrong by definition so if you think my POV is wrong what is your other solution?" it looks like a circular argument where one simply starts by assuming one of the salient points in their own position as the basis for dialogue.
After going through the many, many, many pages of @pitabread's thread: Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution, and seeing the comments from a certain poster on this forum about micro and macroevolution, I do have to ask this question to the people who say that macroevolution is false or incorrect or just wrong, while microevolution is scientifically correct: what replaces macroevolution if it is wrong?
You can't just say 'creationism' or Creation because they're unscientific and incorrect too, so what replaces macroevolution?
Where do I start by saying the opposing opinion is wrong right from the off?
You can't just say 'creationism' or Creation because they're unscientific and incorrect too, so what replaces macroevolution?
hmmm --- let me think about that one for a second.
I do have to ask this question to the people who say that macroevolution is false or incorrect or just wrong, while microevolution is scientifically correct: what replaces macroevolution if it is wrong?
ok well using your logic if you're able to quote Darwins theory of evolution to support your claims on how creation was made WHY CAN'T I QUOTE SCRIPTURE TO SUPPORT MY CLAIMS
Also notice in the OP, that's not the question. The question is in the first paragraph:
You can't just say 'creationism' or Creation because they're unscientific and incorrect too, so what replaces macroevolution?
fine -- and so what is it "we can't say" again?
Yes, creationism is wrong.Isn't this OP an example of someone saying in essence "by definition your view is wrong -- so if you claim my view is not correct then what is the correct one?"
hmmm --- let me think about that one for a second.
Yes, creationism is wrong.
Warden_of_the_Storm said: ↑
You can't just say 'creationism' or Creation because they're unscientific and incorrect too, so what replaces macroevolution?
Seems to me that example only kills the supposed mechanism of macroevolution; it doesn't change the vast quantity of evidence supporting common ancestry, speciation, etc.Let's say we found a genetic block in the DNA of all species. Something that prevents genetic change beyond certain limits, thus establishing what we could call "kinds". This would effectively kill macroevolution. But we would have nothing to replace it. We're certainly not going to put together a theory that involves the supernatural.
So although a great deal of evolution theory would remain, macroevolution and the overall Theory of Evolution (all living things sharing common ancestors) would have to be thrown out with nothing replacing it, at least for the time being.
Parents giving me money. The reality-based conclusion. Same sort of conclusion I drew after reading the bible.When you found out that what you were told about the Tooth Fairy was incorrect; what did you replace it with?