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.
Yes --- that's why I said this:ETA: By the way, evolutionary theory most definitely does require a timeframe of billions of years.
And drew criticism for saying it --- (but don't worry - I'm sure you won't).But those changes are much too slow.
For macroevolution to work, it needs massive amounts of time to transpire.
Wrong.Darwin started out as a creationist, because the ToE didn't exist whilst he was growing up..
Not....It's was one of the reasons he was reluctant to voice his then-hypothesis of evolution, because back then the Church was very powerful, and such claims wouldn't've gone down well.
Wrong.Not.
The Theory of Evolution was hotly debated long before Darwin was ever born.
The thing is, no one could "prove" it.
Enter Darwin, who invented the breakthrough theory called Natural Selection that gave the theory its credibility.
From The 100, A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, by Michael H. Hart, pp. 84-85:Citation urgently needed.
Darwin was not the originator of the idea of the evolution of species; quite a few persons had postulated that theory before him, including the French naturalist, Jean Lamarck, and Charles's own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. But these hypotheses had never gained the acceptance of the scientific world, because their proponents were unable to give convincing explanations of the means by which evolution occurred. Darwin's great contribution was that he was able to present not only a mechanism - natural selection - by which evolution could occur, but also a large quantity of convincing evidence to support his hypothesis.
From The 100, A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, by Michael H. Hart, pp. 84-85:
Beats me.So there wasn't an extreme reaction from the religious when he published then?
Darwin himself took no part in the public debates on his theories.
Are you surprised if I don't agree?If the development of the first cell is under evolution, then so is the formation of the earth and universe.
I'm not sure that's quite accurate.Darwin started out as a creationist, because the ToE didn't exist whilst he was growing up, and he thought all of this evolution occurring in 6000 years would've been impossible. It's was one of the reasons he was reluctant to voice his then-hypothesis of evolution, because back then the Church was very powerful, and such claims wouldn't've gone down well.
I have made these few remarks because it is highly important for us to gain some notion, however imperfect, of the lapse of years. During each of these years, over the whole world, the land and the water has been peopled by hosts of living forms. What an infinite number of generations, which the mind cannot grasp, must have succeeded each other in the long roll of years! Now turn to our richest geological museums, and what a paltry display we behold!
Beats me.
I see someone started a thread about Ken Ham not taking questions, overlooking the fact that --- well --- I'll just quote it ibid. from my last post:
An "idea" put in a testable form is a "hypothesis". Only when sufficient evidence has been presented, does it become a "theory", that is, and explanation.From The 100, A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, by Michael H. Hart, pp. 84-85:Cabal said:Citation urgently needed.
"Darwin was not the originator of the idea of the evolution of species; quite a few persons had postulated that theory before him, including the French naturalist, Jean Lamarck, and Charles's own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. But these hypotheses had never gained the acceptance of the scientific world, because their proponents were unable to give convincing explanations of the means by which evolution occurred. Darwin's great contribution was that he was able to present not only a mechanism - natural selection - by which evolution could occur, but also a large quantity of convincing evidence to support his hypothesis."
Nah, AV will say just about anything to get people to talk. Hence the repetition and goofy comments.I know that AV1611VET has been told this many times before, and I am wondering if he is having problems with his memory. That would explain a lot.
Course, you never know, the Theory of Evolution, that is ever evolving with new discoveries and fresh insights...could, given enough time and even more discoveries, evolve into the scientific knowledge needed to validate the claims of Genesis
I couldn't agree more with this, Tansy.Course, you never know, the Theory of Evolution, that is ever evolving with new discoveries and fresh insights...could, given enough time and even more discoveries, evolve into the scientific knowledge needed to validate the claims of Genesis
I believe that [true] geology would conclude that the rocks "speak" of Jesus.Luke 19:40 said:And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
I couldn't agree more with this, Tansy.
I personally don't believe [true] science and the Bible conflict at all.
I believe science is hostile to God --- but obedient.
One of my favorite examples is in the area of geology.
Although rocks can't "talk" --- Jesus made this doosey of a statement:I believe that [true] geology would conclude that the rocks "speak" of Jesus.
And while I'm on record as saying that there is no scientific evidence of God this side of the Creation* --- I would love to be proven wrong.
* With the exception of God's Word, which I believe to be the only supernatural object in existence in this dimension --- that and possibly angels.
That's why I always tell these guys: "keep looking".
Course, you never know, the Theory of Evolution, that is ever evolving with new discoveries and fresh insights...could, given enough time and even more discoveries, evolve into the scientific knowledge needed to validate the claims of Genesis
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?