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.
Today at 10:55 PM Douglaangu said this in Post #83
And that Ladies and Gentlemen is why, when John says something about evolution, genetics, and anything related to science, he can safely be ignored. He simply does not, or does not want to, understand it.
Today at 10:54 PM Arikay said this in Post #82
The irony here is that quite a few of those people that "do not ever get sick" arent christians.
Today at 03:15 PM gentu said this in Post #90
So John, are you saying that my friend, a devout Methodist pastor, is not a true Christian because he has developed brain cancer? We shouldn't pray for anyone who's sick, right, because they're already cursed and that's why they're sick?
Today at 07:59 PM pete5 said this in Post #84
*sigh*
The dabate about "Evolution vs Creation" will NEVER be solved to everyone's satisfaction.
This is because science NEVER deals with fact, only hypothesis, probability and averages.
Nothing can be perfectly measured, there are always unknown facts, and often things appear to be different from what they really are.
Evolution is a THEORY based around a paricular interpretation of a large number of observations and extrapolations.
Often science becomes religion, and people talk about truth when they should be talking about "in all likelyhood" and "to the best of our knowledge"
Evolution SHOULD be taught in schools because it is one of the most involved and influential areas in science today, and illustrates very well the many methods of scientific research and conclusion.
It should be taught as theory, not fact, and the opposing arguements should also be considered (where they are also based on the scientific method)
The history of the theory of evolution is also filled with lies, faked data, and outright perversion of the scientific method (remember that "missinglink skull" they found in englend that turned out to be a humen head with an ape jaw... that skull is STILL in a museum with the title "Missing Link"). Things like this should be taught as well, to show that science is influenced by politics and ambition.
There would be very little debate about evolution vs anything if only people would realise exactly what science is, and what it can or cannot tell us.
these unknown facts arent wether evolution is correct or not.
Today at 08:37 PM pete5 said this in Post #96
They might, because they are unknown
I said all that because it annoys me that people missrepresent science especially as taught in schools. Often they are taught old theory as if it were current.
Eg Find a scientist today who will give full support to Darwins theory.... the modern theory of evolution is very different.
I do not believe that there is no evidence against evolution which disproves it, because evidence regarded as such can be poorly considered by evolutionists.
Also, while there may be no evidence against, there is still only inferred proof of evolution, not empirical evidence of observed sustained macro evolution.
Proof usually takes the form of "This means that if such conditions existed, and all the right things happened, there is a possibility that the following might occur" often mistaking the discovery of conditions which might induce some aspects of evolution as proof that evolution actualy happened
Today at 10:00 PM pete5 said this in Post #99
One specis becoming a different thriving specis is what I take macro evolution to be.
I do not know if this is the creationist or evolutionist theory. Personaly I don't subscribe to a particular theory... I don't know enough about either theory.
I believe in God, and frankly it's possible (but pretty unreasonable) that he made the earth in 7 days 10'000 years ago to look like it was 9 billion years old.
My main concern is that science stays science, and 'religion' stays religion, and one does not maskerade as the other.
Just like the theory of stars... The look like big burning balls of gas, they show all the scientific signs of big burning balls of gas.... But how sure are we that they are... Just because a theory is logicaly consistant with the facts we have observed does not mean that it is right. For all intents and purposes we can continue to treat them as big burning balls of gas so long as that continues to produce the expected results, but what about when someone discovers a new way of measuring something we haven't even heard of, and they turn out to be somehting else?
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?