Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[sfs]

Somebody told me you were a geneticist. Sorry.

Just to be clear: I am a geneticist.

 

[ScottA]

I accept evolution because it is overwhelmingly supported by the data.

That is all well and good when rendering unto Caesar, but not when rendering unto God.

 

[RickG]

That is all well and good when rendering unto Caesar, but not when rendering unto God.

It (evolution) is what God rendered unto us.

 

[ScottA]

It is what God rendered unto us.

And that...is...more the subject. However, the subject is not answered nor even understood, without rendering unto God.

What good is it really to declare "I was, am, and will be.", if we do not grant precedence to God, saying "I am?"

...It is God whom is true. But I am being kind to even say so - because anything to the contrary, should be called a lie.

But men will believe whom they follow, as they are cut from the same cloth.

 

[RickG]

And that...is...more the subject. However, the subject is not answered nor even understood, without rendering unto God.

What good is it really to declare "I was, am, and will be.", if we do not grant precedence to God, saying "I am?"

...It is God whom is true. But I am being kind to even say so - because anything to the contrary, should be called a lie.

But men will believe whom they follow, as they are cut from the same cloth.

Look ScottA, I'm not questioning God, I am questioning the Genesis account of creation. If God created the earth, then what we find contained in the earth was created by God. Thus, what we find is evolution.

 

[ScottA]

Look ScottA, I'm not questioning God, I am questioning the Genesis account of creation. If God created the earth, then what we find contained in the earth was created by God. Thus, what we find is evolution.

Then you have missed the defining point...that what He rendered to us...is evil.

So, then, will you call evolution (being the makeup of evil) true? ...Because, that is not what is in question. What is in question...is the rendering - under whose authority you come under.

Science is a mortuary ("Let the dead bury the dead").

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Is it really a debate?

Nope. There is no debate over evolution. It is a fact and has been settled in a court of law several times.

Let those that believe their family tree includes an ape believe that

Evolution isn't something you "Believe in". You either understand it or you do not.

There's no proof. But when they have faith their line was a former primate so be it

Science doesn't deal with proof. It deals with evidence. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. No faith required when one of the most tested theories in all of science is supported by an abundance of facts and contradicted by nothing.

 

[Speedwell]

Then you have missed the defining point...that what He rendered to us...is evil.

So, then, will you call evolution (being the makeup of evil) true? ...Because, that is not what is in question. What is in question...is the rendering - under whose authority you come under.

Science is a mortuary ("Let the dead bury the dead").

Have you, perhaps, confused the authority of God with the authority of your interpretation of scripture?

 

[ScottA]

Have you, perhaps, confused the authority of God with the authority of your interpretation of scripture?

No, no confusion.

I do not interpret as such, but was taken by God above the Earth and shown that all authority is His. He then lead me to a Bible and provide me a week to read it, which I did, straight through from cover to cover...which confirmed Him, and Him it. But there is no interpretation - His word is spirit.

 

[AV1611VET]

Like I said, all members had access to what was going to be discussed at the AIU meeting.

No, they didn't.

Read the link.

This was not an ad hoc decision.

Yes, it was.

If they had ten meetings before this, as you say they did, then why ... just by coincidence ... did they take THE VOTE after 'most attendees had left'?

Don't you think that's a little coincidental?

 

[MasonP]

Most do not "know", but are convinced in spirit, and therefore have "faith." But at the core of the "faith" there are those who do indeed "know" of what they speak, by first-hand knowledge (by direct contact with God). So, then, when some say they "know", they are merely convinced. But then, there are also those of us who actually "know."

Also called madness I believe.

 

[Speedwell]

No, they didn't.

Read the link.

Yes, it was.

If they had ten meetings before this, as you say they did, then why ... just by coincidence ... did they take THE VOTE after 'most attendees had left'?

Don't you think that's a little coincidental?

Of course not. It was well planned as part of the worldwide scientific conspiracy to deny the Bible and its promise of punishment for the hedonistic lifestyles of scientists.

 

[RickG]

Don't you think that's a little coincidental?

I think you need to get back on topic.

 

[SteveB28]

Since we have now been through this many times...let me ask you:

If I was below the horizon, and you were on the horizon able to look over and see what was on the other side...what proof of what you see could you offer me...and what would be the real solution to the problem of me not being able to see over the horizon?

So, I repeat..........you cannot DEMONSTRATE your so-called 'proof' to me. All you can demand is that others adopt the same 'viewpoint' that you occupy.......



.

 

[SteveB28]

Is it really a debate? Let those that believe their family tree includes an ape believe that. There's no proof. But when they have faith their line was a former primate so be it.

No, there is no debate. The evidence is settled. We have reached a point where only the finer details of the process are now analysed.

And this is the case with ALL scientific research and the theories which result. We begin with a crude understanding of phenomena and then we gradually refine our view as more evidence is subjected to more scrutiny. For example, Newton gave us a basic understanding of the forces involved with gravity - this understanding works quite well in most everyday circumstances. But it breaks down on the very large and very small scales. Enter Einstein and the band of modern physicists who have provided a deeper level of knowlege and a better grasp of the theory.

 

[rjs330]

Of course you exclude yourself from these sweeping statements, there's no way you could be mistaken or decieved?

No because I,believe what the bible says.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Nope. There is no debate over evolution. It is a fact and has been settled in a court of law several times.



Evolution isn't something you "Believe in". You either understand it or you do not.



Science doesn't deal with proof. It deals with evidence. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. No faith required when one of the most tested theories in all of science is supported by an abundance of facts and contradicted by nothing.

Science doesn't deal with proof but evidence.
I remember an old program featuring Richard Dawkins. He was trying to explain the evolution of humans from apes. There was a tree chart on the wall behind him showing the stages from ape to man. He points to this blank line amid all the other lines that were labeled implying a graduation of the species from ape to human. He says that blank line is the ancestor that tied it all together.
But there's nothing there. Which is pointed out to him by the person to whom he is speaking. Yes, he says, but that's what we believe was the link that happened making it possible for todays humans to exist.

It was great.

 

[ScottA]

Also called madness I believe.

You "believe" - good one, that's hilarious!

 

[RickG]

Science doesn't deal with proof but evidence.
I remember an old program featuring Richard Dawkins. He was trying to explain the evolution of humans from apes. There was a tree chart on the wall behind him showing the stages from ape to man. He points to this blank line amid all the other lines that were labeled implying a graduation of the species from ape to human. He says that blank line is the ancestor that tied it all together.
But there's nothing there. Which is pointed out to him by the person to whom he is speaking. Yes, he says, but that's what we believe was the link that happened making it possible for todays humans to exist.

It was great.

Missing links are not need to show evolution. Try explaining the geologic column without evolution.

 

[ScottA]

So, I repeat..........you cannot DEMONSTRATE your so-called 'proof' to me. All you can demand is that others adopt the same 'viewpoint' that you occupy.......



.

Answer the question (put up, or...).