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.
That's evidence it's round, not proof.Easy, modern aircraft and space craft can easily prove it. Do you think satellites orbit in a flat, square pattern, verses a round one? Do you think that if you fly around the world that you will find the end? Or do you think that you must make two 90 degree turns in order to find the other side of it?
Have you seen any pictures of the earth lately?
What fallacy?See, this is typical subjective nonsense. ITs nothing more than trying to rationalize fallacy.
No it's not. Seriously, the basic strength of the scientific method is that any "fact" can be reevaluated in light of new evidence. That's kinda the whole point of the deal. Therefore, nothing is ever "proven", because it's ALWAYS open to new information. Sorry you find this so difficult.No, its your flawed interpretation of it.
No it's not. Seriously, the basic strength of the scientific method is that any "fact" can be reevaluated in light of new evidence. That's kinda the whole point of the deal. Therefore, nothing is ever "proven", because it's ALWAYS open to new information. Sorry you find this so difficult.
They are using this theory to discredit Genesis
THey use wild speculations about junk DNA and the appendix being vestigial, but this is mere speculation not science.
THey try to convince us that adapting bacteria is an example of evolution when its not
but instead its just the way God designed bacteria to be.
THey use this stuff to convince us that man evolved over millions of years, from a primitive ape beast, who lacked the intelligence of man, into an intelligent man.
IM sorry, but it seems logical to reject their theory and just follow the scriptures.
that in the end they will bow to him and admit their folly.
Actually thats similar to something the bible says. He must have a good teacher.Well folks, if anyone is uncertain what "cognitive dissonance" looks like, this thread is exhibit A.
What "books about evolution"? Again, we need to know exactly what one is referring to when he/she says "evolution". In Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul Kenneth R. Miller gives an example where it was discovered that bacteria had developed an enzyme to break down nylon and then the whole process was reproduced in a lab. Evolution happening right before our eyes!
Do you? O ye of little faith. I don.t keep a list of all the over 1,000 books I have read and am reading. I read to enjoy, not to worry about someone who is going to pounce on me and say "What books?"
Yes, but if the only books you read about evolution treat it as "all about philosophical arguments", then you are missing out on the many books that discuss the mountains of evidence, such as the nylon-eating bacteria that evolved the novel ability to digest a synthetic material.
You're right, but we can go with general probability. The largest group of Christians in the world are Roman Catholics, who number 1.2 billion, that's over half of the entire Christian population of the world. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that there is no conflict between the science of evolution and Christian teaching. Let's take another large grouping Christians, Orthodoxy, and if we want we can also just speak of the Eastern Churches, both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox approach is, essentially, a non-dogmatic one, and one can find Orthodox members on both sides of the issue; though it seems to me that some of the most prominent leaders within Orthodoxy (e.g. the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew I) are keenly open to the role of modern science in the life of faith. As as I'm aware the Oriental Orthodox have the same standing as the Eastern Orthodox on the issue.
So what about the about 800 million Protestants? Well it really comes down to both denominations and individuals. My own ELCA, the largest Lutheran body in the United States, is agreeable toward evolution, though you'll no doubt find individuals who aren't; likewise the second largest Lutheran body in the US, the LCMS is generally not-agreeable toward evolution, but individuals in the LCMS are. But that's within the United States. When we start to look to old world Lutherans such as the Church of Sweden, the Evangelical Church of Finland, or the Church of Norway, well the fact of the matter is that in Europe the Creationist Controversy is largely a not a thing--you'll find American style Creationists in Europe, but they're usually not members of the older established churches of Europe, but tend to be members of American missionary (read: Evangelical/Fundamentalist) churches whose Modus Operandi will be in keeping with American Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism.
I have spoken to many Christians from Europe who never even heard anyone question evolution until they spoke with American Christians or visited the United States--it's simply not something they realized was an issue because it's not an issue where they're from. There is no controversy where they're from, evolutionary science is accepted in the same way that the roundness of the earth is accepted--they only discover there's any controversy at all through interaction with certain American Christians.
So, I still stand by my statement--most Christians accept evolution, either implicitly or explicitly. It's only an issue for those Christians who have chosen to make it an issue through a particular rigid and wooden reading of Genesis, which has become a litmus test of orthodoxy for modern Fundamentalists in the United States, but it is, largely speaking, an entirely American phenomenon, not a global, Church-wide phenomenon.
Educated Christians from diverse church backgrounds across the world simply don't have an issue with the science of evolution and their faith is not negatively impacted, nor is their faith in the authority of Scripture injured. Because for them the peculiarities of Fundamentalist literalism have never been part of their Christian tradition; such literalism, as a tradition, is a peculiarity of modernity within American Christendom. It's certainly not part of the larger, and much older, patristic-medieval tradition which is much more influential on Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant thinking than the modernistic traditions of Fundamentalism.
-CryptoLutheran
Actually its not accepted by the vast majority of Scientists, but is accepted by the majority of biologists. However, its their doctrine. THey actually use it like doctrine, and they try to prove it, yet they cannot, so they merely assert that it is proven.
Wrong. No one claims that.
Right.Wrong. Now look up SCIENTIFIC theory!
Wrong.
Wrong. No one claims that.
Wrong. You fellows are setting some kind of record for completely asinine statements.
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?