Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[Mr Laurier]

People tracing my ancestry to "noah" are in a class with those
trying to make native Americans into a lost tribe of Israel.

Indeed. Both are deeply insulting

 

[Mr Laurier]

Spring Break in early academia?

Nope.
pre-literate farmers figuring out how to properly celebrate harvest

 

[Mr Laurier]

You don't know the power of Satan, and how deceptive he can be.

Please do tell.

Paul even warns against embracing evolution, saying it can lead to atheism.

Alas, if you have grandchildren, you have already embraced evolution.

 

[Mr Laurier]

And there are no transitional forms between single cell and multiple trillion celled life - there are no two cell, fou cell, hundred cell, etc life forms.
.

Stromatalites
Sponges.

 

[renniks]

Time + evolutionary processes + patience
Timeline of the evolutionary history of life

Lol, magic time!

 

[renniks]

I can't make sense out of this.

They have a couple of teeth and are telling us it was a bear/ canine/ cat/ muskalid.
Millions of years are needed in order to allow for the never-observed biological evolution to presumably happen. I call it evolutions magic time theory. Given enough time, they claim that things they have never observed happen. That's not science.

 

[renniks]

Not that moldy nonsense again!

Tell us why if evolution is so wrong nobody can ever find one flaw?

We can find lot's of flaws. But everytime one is pointed out as false, we are told that's just how science works, that there's always mistakes at first.

 

[renniks]

I give the answers the posts deserve.

And repeat themselves...

 

[Astrid]

We can find lot's of flaws. But everytime one is pointed out as false, we are told that's just how science works, that there's always mistakes at first.

That's garbage. All of it.

 

[renniks]

One has to be impressed that anyone could have
found the one true version of the one true religion.
considering the odds.

Even more impressive is to know more about
biology / paleontology than anyone who has spent
their lifetime in study....without ever lifting a finger!

It's not hard to spot guesswork.

And I've been observing nature first hand for 40 plus years. Not in a laboratory. I have more field time than most biology students.

 

[renniks]

That's garbage. All of it.

Really? How about Darwins gradualism theory?

 

[sjastro]

You don't know the power of Satan, and how deceptive he can be.

Paul even warns against embracing evolution, saying it can lead to atheism.

Does this mean the large percentage of Christians who believe in evolution are closet atheists?

 

[Speedwell]

They have a couple of teeth and are telling us it was a bear/ canine/ cat/ muskalid.
Millions of years are needed in order to allow for the never-observed biological evolution to presumably happen. I call it evolutions magic time theory. Given enough time, they claim that things they have never observed happen. That's not science.

And as you know, that's not quite what "they" claim.

The theory of evolution is a plausible well-evidenced explanation for the diversity of life. It has been observed in living creatures up to the level of speciation and no fossil yet found is inconsistent with it. Yes, it is only a scientific theory and as such is only accepted provisionally--like all scientific theories--but to date no contradictory evidence has been discovered and no better explanation has emerged. That's as close to "proof" as science ever gets.

 

[Speedwell]

Does this mean the large percentage of Christians who believe in evolution are closet atheists?

It would be against the rules of this forum for many creationists to answer that question honestly.

 

[Speedwell]

Really? How about Darwins gradualism theory?

Do we care? Darwin has been dead for close on to 150 years.

 

[renniks]

Do we care? Darwin has been dead for close on to 150 years.

Of course we care. Many such theories have come and gone, yet we are expected to believe the current theories are correct.

 

[Speedwell]

Of course we care. Many such theories have come and gone, yet we are expected to believe the current theories are correct.

Which is why we no longer look to Darwin. He is revered for his original insight, but evolutionary theory has moved on since his day with new evidence, new techniques and a more sophisticated understanding of biology.

 

[renniks]

Which is why we no longer look to Darwin. He is revered for his original insight, but evolutionary theory has moved on since his day with new evidence, new techniques and a more sophisticated understanding of biology.

Why would I believe the new theories are any more plausible than the old ones?
After all 90% of what they taught in high schools for 40 years is now considered wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

It would be against the rules of this forum for many creationists to answer that question honestly.

Yup.

 

[Speedwell]

Why would I believe the new theories are any more plausible than the old ones?

You would have to consider the evidence.

After all 90% of what they taught in high schools for 40 years is now considered wrong.

90%? Forty years? What are you talking about?