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.
The laws of physics underlie all of the concepts discussed in this forum, claims of "goddidit" notwithstanding.How?
Are you afraid that your worldview will implode if you provide a simple yes or no to this question? What is the worst that can happen?Do you have a question related to creationism or evolution?
I started a perfectly good thread entitled: Why Are You An Evolutionist? and by page 7 it had been hijacked by something I see in everyday life. People who ignore the evidence. (refer post 123)
In legal proceedings the object is to present evidence and in the case of Evolution the evidence in favor of it is already piled to the ceiling.
I am not a biologist but I do love the good old fashioned who-dun-nit.
So let's try this in reverse: Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?
(please let's not start with an argument about whether the word 'evolutionist' is relevant, as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Gould (rip) and others have used the name to describe themselves)
The case for a creator is the book that has done the most to lead me to where I currently am which is not believing in evolution. The bible on the other hand has not stopped me from believing in evolution. Genesis and evolution could coexist just fine as far as I can tell. Maybe Adam was the first man to have a spirit in him? He was formed by God out of the dirt whether that creation process took millions of years of evolution or a split second. The use of the term day in Genesis doesn't seem to effect anything here either as a thousand years are like a day and a day like a thousand years to the Lord. Now Eve being made from one of Adam's ribs is problematic for me if I were to believe that evolution was the creation tool used by God but could be that I'm misinterpreting the verse.
That being said I still think modern science has it all wrong when it comes to evolution. So much of it doesn't make sense. It surely makes a lot more sense to atheists as they don't have any better alternatives at their disposal. But for someone like myself who believes that the Lord is the author of all creation then there are plenty of better alternatives.
On a side note, I find the evolution of the universe to be a much more vexing subject to atheists. How do you get something out of nothing? Haven't heard many coherent answers for that one yet.
The laws of physics underlie all of the concepts discussed in this forum, claims of "goddidit" notwithstanding.
Are you afraid that your worldview will implode if you provide a simple yes or no to this question? What is the worst that can happen?
You are still not clear. Are Newtonian physics a scientific truth?
And the Flat Earth theory has existed far longer than both of the above. Does that make it true?The Bible does not agree with evolution. God used a literal six days. The bible has existed so much longer that this new religion of evolution.
How many images have I posted in this thread, outside of my sig? Give me a count.Stick with the unscientific claims of 'willy-nillydunit' in the creation of humanity from an unknown single life form of long ago. That would be within the topic of the forum. Just a hint...walls of cartoons does not equate to discussion.
You are worried. That's cute.What's the worse that can happen if you actually stay on the topic of the room?
The theory that babies were delivered by storks can be traced back to Roman times.The Bible does not agree with evolution. God used a literal six days. The bible has existed so much longer that this new religion of evolution.
It's a problem when one is led to believe that the 'how' of Darwinist evolution is based on the scientific method, when it's not. Why would one behave in such a misleading manner?
Alright, Justlookkinla, following your suggestion, here is quote from you that I wish to respond to. It appears to me you are being rather arrogant and accusing evolution scientists of somehow deceiving you. See, the problem I have with such statements is that they appear way, way off base. Your are pointing the finger at a highly respectable, highly educated group of men and women, and , for no specified reason, claim they somehow are misleading you. Then you talk about the "scientific method." I didn't se any evidence here that you even begin to know what that really entails. Next, you keep harping on the"how" of evolution. It appears you think evolution is all washed up because, according to your personal definition of the scientific method, , the "how" has to be explained or else the whole idea of evolution or any other "scientific truth" should be thrown out as false. But, see, that is not the way true science operates. I mean, maybe in your own peculiar definition, but certainly not that held by the real world of science. Look, as I may have mentioned Newton had no real idea how gravity really works, and neither did anyone else at the time, and so Newton skid just do the math, period. Up to the 20th century no one was sure how it worked. And even after Einstein, we are still not sure. Getting back to Darwin, he did in fact give a very solid scientific case that natural selection is one major factor in how it works. And this definitely has ben born out my numerous studies. OK, true, Darwin himself admitted that he really didn't the whole story on how evolution works. Next step, along came another group of scientists, bringing in hard data from genetics. Hence, genetics is another part of how it works.
You also harp on your notion that evolution, specially the "how," has never been directly observed. Well, isn't there some solid research backing the idea that you can turn a fox into a dog, showing that foxes can be bread in such a way that they increasingly are showing more and more dog features? I can refer you to more than one solid scientific paper on research showing that a whole new species of bacteria can be created under the right conditions? Aren't lions and tigers separate species, and can it not be shown by mating that they produce a new species? Aren't horses and donkeys separate species, a mule?
I have seen you and others here admit that micro-evolution does happen and can be observed. OK, what that tells me is that macro-evolution is a definite go. I mean, what sense does it make for anyone to assign some barrier or arbitrary stopping point beyond which these evolutionary processes cannot go? If science sees some law working in one area, it is automatically assumed to work in every other. The laws of physics do not stop at you stove. And I think it equally irrational to assume evolution stops at some arbitrary boundary between the species.
How many images have I posted in this thread, outside of my sig? Give me a count.
You are worried. That's cute.
Again: You are still not clear. Are Newtonian physics a scientific truth?
Are you afraid that your answer will undermine several thousand of your posts made in this forum?
How many?A couple of posts back it was nothing but a wall of cartoons.
I am on topic, which will become clear upon you directly answering the question.Worried enough to ask you to stay on the topic of the room? Could it be you're worried enough to not wish to say on topic of the room?
Excellent.Stick with the topic of the room. It's nothing to fear.
How many?
I am on topic, which will become clear upon you directly answering the question.
Excellent.
Then you can answer the question: Are Newtonian physics a scientific truth?
And the Flat Earth theory has existed far longer than both of the above. Does that make it true?
And evolution is not a religion, regardless of how you personally feel about it.
You said, "nothing but a wall of cartoons." That was one image. Did your mother not tell you not to exaggerate?Post #619. While you may admire your wittyness, it doesn't contribute to discussion.
Right after you answer the question: Are Newtonian physics a scientific truth?You can actually explain how this is related to creation and evolution if you wish to discuss it.
On the contrary, the Bible has always stated the Earth was not flat. Where did you get that idea?
You said, "nothing but a wall of cartoons." That was one image. Did your mother not tell you not to exaggerate?
Right after you answer the question: Are Newtonian physics a scientific truth?
You might want to reread my post. I never commented on what the bible said.
You said the bible existed long before the TOE, implying that that gave creationism legitimacy. I pointed out that the Flat Earth theory existed long before the bible or the TOE, and asked if similarly that gives the idea of a flat earth legitimacy. I was hoping you would then understand why your reasoning is flawed.
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?