Do you have to believe a theory before you can understand what it means?
That would make science pretty much impossible...
Upvote
0
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.
Do you have to believe a theory before you can understand what it means?My problem with evolution is that I believe everything was created by an outside force, not an inside force.
Only if you tie creation to a literal reading of the Genesis stories. There is nothing inherent in the theory of evolution which requires the rejection of God.Beside believing that evolution is "voodoo science" accepting it means rejecting creation, and thus rejecting God.
Beside believing that evolution is "voodoo science" accepting it means rejecting creation, and thus rejecting God.
Only if you tie creation to a literal reading of the Genesis stories. There is nothing inherent in the theory of evolution which requires the rejection of God.
If that is your understanding of your faith I will leave it at that. I know how sensitive you get when people talk about faith things.
I am interested though, how you have constructed a "voodoo science" concept so you can lay the blame on the science so you don't have to question the faith of the many, many Christians who also believe in evolution.
Science claims creatio ex materia, which is how Adam was created, is magic.Using principles of science, what makes the TOE voodoo science?
And no evidence will change your desire to believe this outside source is responsible. Would the be correct?
I have no quarrel with the belief of others.
I rejected evolution long before I got religion. I don't believe there has been enough time for evolution to successfully provide what we see around us today.
But if evolution were true the puzzle would be enormous, with trillions upon trillions of pieces; each piece representing a single successful process.
Interesting--three billion years (at least) is not time enough?I rejected evolution long before I got religion. I don't believe there has been enough time for evolution to successfully provide what we see around us today.
Which is exactly what we observe.But if evolution were true the puzzle would be enormous, with trillions upon trillions of pieces; each piece representing a single successful process.
Can you give an example.
That is interesting, do you have a graph that shows from the very beginning? I find it interesting that evolution, cosmic or biological, never seem to start at the very beginning, why is that?Phylogenetic tree:
It's the thing that creationists want to pretend is fiction, yet it's the very thing that has real-world application.
There is a major gap between the reality of modern evolutionary biology and what creationists choose to believe about modern evolutionary biology.
If species on Earth were independently designed, they were designed to appear as though they share common ancestry.
I wonder why that is...
Why should they? Science can only go back as far as the available evidence allows.That is interesting, do you have a graph that shows from the very beginning? I find it interesting that evolution, cosmic or biological, never seem to start at the very beginning, why is that?
in the southern states of America, the extent of their scientific education is probably none at all. It can hardly be otherwise, given some of the stuff which gets posted on here.
How does a Baltimore Oriole, the bird not the baseball team, know how to make a beautiful sack for a nest.... every single one of them build the same nest. No college or university, no home school and probably hasn't seen it's parents from a few days after it fledged. Yet, it builds the same nest ever single Baltimore oriole builds.Not a complete mystery - How Does A Caterpillar Turn Into a Butterfly?
Ya.... but then there are trees.... petrified, fossilized trees...... standing straight up through your billions of years of sediment.Well, from my personal experience there's all the fossils in the different strata showing clearly the change in life over time.
But then there's all of these: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
I do not know of any creationist that does not believe in "microevolution", adaptive change. Neither do I know any Bible believing Christian that believes one "kind" has ever evolved into a different "kind".I believe in micro evolution , but not macro .
Programmed by evolution. Their environmental niches are such that they can survive as species with relatively rigid and inflexible behaviour patterns - very economical.How do any of these amazing animals know how to do the amazing things they do, generation after generation without any training..... while man cannot even build a tea pot that doesn't drip?????
Tell me that these creatures were not designed already programed just as God created them....
no blue jay version 102.0.1-5
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?