• 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.

Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Run away? lol, always been right here. You can't seem to answer any other of my questions but might as well ask anyway... can you point out were I ran away?
You are still running away. By not addressing your lack of education in what is and what is not evidence you are running away.

Why don't you claim I'm wearing a clown suit now becuse I'm just into that type thing, I bite my nails, and have bad breath? It may even work to help discredit me for some. I mean once you have no argument to offer, discreditation is about all you have left...right? :)

All of those may be true, but I could not substantiate that claim. That you are running away is ovious.

So here are the questions you still have not answered:

1)Can't prove evolution.

Wrong. That has been answered for you by me and by others many times. The fact that you do not understand what is and what is not evidence makes it a pointless exercise for us to do so.

You only keep talking about how you offered, but cannot post a run down of it here as I asked...and not of opinion, but proof. No cop outs, just do it. Too involved? I'm sorry but we can't let that be an excuse, it sounds way too much like another cop out. In order to make it believable it must be proven, whatever it takes and you know as well as I do, we would be idiots to believe it without proof.

Now you are not telling the truth. Once again, others and I have done this for you many times. It is simply an exercise in futility until you learn what evidence is.

2) Proof I do not understand "evidence".

Since you do not understand "evidence" how will you understand proof? Here is a simple question for you, your answer will tell us if you understand evidence or not:

Is the fossil record scientific evidence for the theory of evolution?

And yes, Sub actually claimed that. This is way I'm concerned about another cop out and why I keep bring up the possibility...it's not a possibility I dream up as can plainly be seen with accusations like that.

Of course I did. I would rather say that you did not understand the concept of evidence rather than saying that you are a liar. The latter is against the rules here, even if it is true.

3)Where I actually"ran away" or proof of the accusation.f

I already did that in this post.

Have you ever discussed the nature of evidence with me? You and I both know that the answer is no. That means that you are running away from a subject that scares you.

And no, I got no false hopes of getting any answers to those but I do want to start compiling a list here....let's just say for general purposes.

Really? But I answered all of them for you.

Can you be honest enough to admit that an answer that you do not like is still an answer?
 
Upvote 0

Obliquinaut

Сделайте Америку прекрасной
Jun 30, 2017
2,091
1,635
61
Washington
✟35,334.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I'm happy, but I'm also fearful. Darwinism isn't a beast that can be killed, it's just one of the heads sitting upon the neck of naturalism. Behind that neck is the true beast.

If one simply assumes that science one doesn't understand or disagrees with is borne of the devil then it is hard to assume that person will be a rational sounding board for scientific discussion.

What is preferred out of naturalism is an "epistemic mechanism" that will passively reject God. It removes from the individual the need to personally reject God by creating a system which removes God for them.

I have to admit this is a very novel suggestion. I've not heard this before. Interesting. Of course it is intellectually vapid since many scientists who believe in evolution also are Christians. Just not, perhaps, the type of Christian that sees Evolution as being from the Devil.

I would be surprised if you found anyone who approached their atheism from that point of view.

Many of us came to be atheists precisely because we viewed our RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. NOT because we could hide behind evolution.

If God is so weak that he can be "displaced" out of convenience and it results in someone's entire loss of faith in God, then I suspect their faith was weak to begin with or God is too weak a concept.

Darwinism doesn't have hordes of apologists because it is beloved.

It is "beloved" because it explains the data. That's pretty much it 100%.

Well with every year we discover that naturalism is less and less equipped to give us the world we live in, or even adhere to it's predictions.

What do you know of this? I mean no offense, but science does a pretty durn good job of explaining the world around us. Sure it may not be able to explain every-single-item perfectly such that a person who never made it past junior high science class could understand it, but it does a very good job overall.

If you cut the neck off they will run to the beast that supports it all.

You have a vivid imagination.

And I think the beast will provide everything that naturalism provided, as well as an illusion of those things that religion provided that naturalism could not.

Why can't you just enjoy your religion? Why must those things you either disagree with or don't understand be EEEEEEVIL? Why must the Beast 666 be behind those things you are not fond of?

(Now, if we were talking about bean dip, I'd fully agree, that IS of the Beast 666.)

Those people that now clutch to Darwinism will not seek God when it falls, they will seek what they have always sought.

Many of us sought God long and hard but failed to arrive at the same position you have. If YOU don't understand how some people arrive at atheism (perhaps you are unwilling to actually listen to people's stories about THEIR OWN LIVES, preferring instead to come up with fantasies about the Beast and the Devil luring them into lives of eeeeevil), it is going to be difficult to explain to you how this all works.

As I said: there are large number of scientists who are also Christian and many of them believe in Evolution! Wow!
 
Upvote 0

Dirk1540

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 19, 2015
8,162
13,479
Jersey
✟823,285.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Like it or not common descent is a fact.

Fact? I think we all need to just keep in mind that we have the 'Facts' aka the data, and then we have the interpretation of that data. The interpretation of data is not a fact it's an inference from data.

We are all working with the same data regardless of our interpretation of the data. And we all run into the same exact situation, these large gaps that require an explanation. Lol 'Facts' and 'Large Gaps' are pretty much mutually exclusive concepts.

For instance volumes & volumes of technical data should be available describing the finer details of JUST how a mammal with no sweat glands developed sweat glads...if it were a FACT.
But you don't find technical details at all, all you find if you were to research that would be vague speculation that a 5th grader would be able to come up with.

Contrast that with what you would find were you to research how the AIDS virus has evolved, it would be extremely technical and detailed, you'd probably need a degree to even read the explanation. THAT'S what you get with facts.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
If one simply assumes that science one doesn't understand or disagrees with is borne of the devil then it is hard to assume that person will be a rational sounding board for scientific discussion.



I have to admit this is a very novel suggestion. I've not heard this before. Interesting. Of course it is intellectually vapid since many scientists who believe in evolution also are Christians. Just not, perhaps, the type of Christian that sees Evolution as being from the Devil.

I would be surprised if you found anyone who approached their atheism from that point of view.

Many of us came to be atheists precisely because we viewed our RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. NOT because we could hide behind evolution.

If God is so weak that he can be "displaced" out of convenience and it results in someone's entire loss of faith in God, then I suspect their faith was weak to begin with or God is too weak a concept.



It is "beloved" because it explains the data. That's pretty much it 100%.



What do you know of this? I mean no offense, but science does a pretty durn good job of explaining the world around us. Sure it may not be able to explain every-single-item perfectly such that a person who never made it past junior high science class could understand it, but it does a very good job overall.



You have a vivid imagination.



Why can't you just enjoy your religion? Why must those things you either disagree with or don't understand be EEEEEEVIL? Why must the Beast 666 be behind those things you are not fond of?

(Now, if we were talking about bean dip, I'd fully agree, that IS of the Beast 666.)



Many of us sought God long and hard but failed to arrive at the same position you have. If YOU don't understand how some people arrive at atheism (perhaps you are unwilling to actually listen to people's stories about THEIR OWN LIVES, preferring instead to come up with fantasies about the Beast and the Devil luring them into lives of eeeeevil), it is going to be difficult to explain to you how this all works.

As I said: there are large number of scientists who are also Christian and many of them believe in Evolution! Wow!


Oddly enough it is always creationists that claim evolution is an attempt to "disprove God" though no atheist that I know of makes this claim. Nor do Christians that accept the theory of evolution. When I was still a Christian I saw it as trying to explain how God made the world.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Fact? I think we all need to just keep in mind that we have the 'Facts' aka the data, and then we have the interpretation of that data. The interpretation of data is not a fact it's an inference from data.

You are forgetting about consilience. In courts of law and in science an idea is often considered to be a "fact" if it is strongly supported by consilience.

Guess what? No idea is more strongly supported by consilience than the theory of evolution.

We are all working with the same data regardless of our interpretation of the data. And we all run into the same exact situation, these large gaps that require an explanation. Lol 'Facts' and 'Large Gaps' are pretty much mutually exclusive concepts.

What "gaps"? The few gaps that remain are more than adequately explained. Your knowledge of paleontology may be out of date, if that is what you are complaining about.

For instance volumes & volumes of technical data should be available describing the finer details of JUST how a mammal with no sweat glands developed sweat glads...if it were a FACT.
But you don't find technical details at all, all you find if you were to research that would be vague speculation that a 5th grader would be able to come up with.

Why do you think that we should be able to observe that? Simply making a claim of what we "should" observe is not worth to much. Please note, flesh is not well preserved in fossils. Not having that evidence is expected. What you can't deal with is that fact that every bit of evidence found supports the theory of evolution and creationists are either too afraid or too incompetent to come up with a testable hypothesis of their own.

That means by definition that there is no scientific evidence for creationism, and that is purely the fault of creationists.

Contrast that with what you would find were you to research how the AIDS virus has evolved, it would be extremely technical and detailed, you'd probably need a degree to even read the explanation. THAT'S what you get with facts.

Well, of course, the evolution of some objects is very very involved. So what? How does that support your claim in any way at all?
 
Upvote 0

golgotha61

World Christian in Progress
Site Supporter
Jul 19, 2011
752
48
Ohio
✟104,912.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Nope, it is only evidence that the universe exists. This just goes to show that creationists do not understand the nature of evidence. The universe is also "evidence" that it arose naturally without any supernatural help. A datum that can be used to support any argument is not evidence.


That’s interesting. I don’t think that you have the attention of James Trefil who says that galaxies shouldn’t be “‘out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn’t be grouped together the way they are’ The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists” (Johnson loc 1908).


Works Cited

Johnson, Jeffrey D. The Absurdity of Unbelief: A Worldview Apologetic of the Christian Faith. Free Grace Press, 2016. Kindle Edition.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Fact? I think we all need to just keep in mind that we have the 'Facts' aka the data, and then we have the interpretation of that data. The interpretation of data is not a fact it's an inference from data.

Of course, the scientific 'interpretation' of the data has yielded the modern Theory of Evolution, which is currently enjoying real-world application in a variety of fields and industries.

Meanwhile, the creationists are using their interpretation of data the data to... um... build theme parks?
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
That’s interesting. I don’t think that you have the attention of James Trefil who says that galaxies shouldn’t be “‘out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn’t be grouped together the way they are’ The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists” (Johnson loc 1908).


Works Cited

Johnson, Jeffrey D. The Absurdity of Unbelief: A Worldview Apologetic of the Christian Faith. Free Grace Press, 2016. Kindle Edition.
Never heard of the man.

I see that he is a physicist, I see nothing that says the he specialized in astronomy or astro-physics at all, so he may be well outside his area of expertise when he made those claims about galaxies.

At best it only sounds like he is making an argument from ignorance from your post, but without seeing his work I have no way of judging.

I have not seen any evidence presented for a deity at all. Remember, even if the answer that all physicists give is "we don't know" that is not evidence for a deity. You need something substantial, otherwise you are only making a "god of the gaps" argument. And in case you did not know it the "god of the gaps" is an ever shrinking deity.
 
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,656
7,213
✟343,772.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
That’s interesting. I don’t think that you have the attention of James Trefil who says that galaxies shouldn’t be “‘out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn’t be grouped together the way they are’ The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists” (Johnson loc 1908).

Wow. We have unsolved problems in cosmology, ergo Goddidit. It's hard to convey the frustration that God of the Gaps argumentation induces among scientists.
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,194
6,997
71
USA
✟585,424.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You are still running away. By not addressing your lack of education in what is and what is not evidence you are running away.



All of those may be true, but I could not substantiate that claim. That you are running away is ovious.



Wrong. That has been answered for you by me and by others many times. The fact that you do not understand what is and what is not evidence makes it a pointless exercise for us to do so.



Now you are not telling the truth. Once again, others and I have done this for you many times. It is simply an exercise in futility until you learn what evidence is.



Since you do not understand "evidence" how will you understand proof? Here is a simple question for you, your answer will tell us if you understand evidence or not:

Is the fossil record scientific evidence for the theory of evolution?



Of course I did. I would rather say that you did not understand the concept of evidence rather than saying that you are a liar. The latter is against the rules here, even if it is true.



I already did that in this post.

Have you ever discussed the nature of evidence with me? You and I both know that the answer is no. That means that you are running away from a subject that scares you.



Really? But I answered all of them for you.

Can you be honest enough to admit that an answer that you do not like is still an answer?

All that talking and still no proof of evolution. Do you even understand the difference anymore? I mean the difference between saying you have done something and actually doing it? I could teach you the difference if you are willing to listen, and all you need do is ask.

With the prior issues in mind, I'll make this easy for even you to understand, and lets start with evolution and move on to other other 2 questions later so you don't get lost in information overload.

Prove evolution. Do it right here, right now. Don't tell me you have already, even if you think you have, humor me, and don't tell me what I understand and don't understand, we can go over all that once you have actually put your proof on the table...fair enough? :) See if we can actually see where you proved it, and not just claims you have, we can say..."Well look a there he has proven evolution is true" there may even be awards involved....that's just how this works. I wish I could make it easier on you, but sadly, there are no shortcuts, and we cannot take claims of proof with no actual proof, as proof. :(

I would think that you would be ready and willing to put an end to the question. And so there is no confusion after you go to all that trouble, please start the post out "Here is the proof of evolution" and immediately following that... that would be the place where you give the proof evolution is a fact, and is how we all came about. That is, how you got here, the animals and all life came to be what it is today. Understand? See...that way there is no question about what is what, we can find it, and I won't have to continually ask "Where is that proof of evolution you claim to have given?"

I understand that may seem like a lot of trouble but looking back, I just think it's worth the planning to get it right this time and head off any problems before they arise.

That should cover about everything and hopefully keep you from just claiming you have already...again. The plus? once you have proven it, each time I ask you from there on out to do so, you can point back to that post where you have proven evolution, and shut me down every time with facts and not excuses. Imagine how freeing it will be to actually do as you have only claimed you have at this point? You can then stop making up excuses, stop trying to blame others for your inability to provide proof, plus we will then know what to believe...a win win situation.

I kid you not, there will be nothing like that feeling when someone asks you to prove evolution, and you can boldly hold your hands/arms up in a presentation position and say "Here is proof for evolution".

I'm actually exited for you now, so do it, you know you want too. :)
 
Upvote 0

Obliquinaut

Сделайте Америку прекрасной
Jun 30, 2017
2,091
1,635
61
Washington
✟35,334.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Fact? I think we all need to just keep in mind that we have the 'Facts' aka the data, and then we have the interpretation of that data. The interpretation of data is not a fact it's an inference from data.

All things are inference from the data. That's pretty much EVERYTHING. It is an "inference" from the data that gravity is real.

Contrast that with what you would find were you to research how the AIDS virus has evolved, it would be extremely technical and detailed, you'd probably need a degree to even read the explanation. THAT'S what you get with facts.

When talking about changes in rapidly reproducing large populations we can definitely see changes that are quantifiable in a matter of days.

Larger scale evolution is a population-based phenomenon that, even with rapid things like punctuated equilibrium, do not easily show themselves. We rely on the geologic record and the fact that we DO see life changing over time. We even see transitional forms.

It is like saying that I go into work at 7:00AM and leave at 4:00PM. I didn't see an hour hand move once in all my day. Even if I had simply stared at the clock it is unlikely I would "see" the hour hand move. But move it does. I have evidence for it since I am leaving at 4:00PM which is LATER than 7:00AM

When one works in the CHEMICAL LAB one may put reactant A in with reactant B and stir it with heat and ultimately product C starts to appear. In reality what we DON'T see is A crashing into B at a variety of different speeds in the flask until a molecule of A hits B with just the right energy and in just the right conformation to result in the reaction occurring. We can measure MANY aspects to the overall reaction, the rate etc. But we don't see each individual molecule reacting. Not all of them will. It, too, is a population-based event. Indeed there may be some C that breaks back up to form A and B again.

MANY things in science are based on inference from the larger population features even if individual tiny details take a long time (centuries) to finally get to where we can see or measure them individually.
 
Upvote 0

Obliquinaut

Сделайте Америку прекрасной
Jun 30, 2017
2,091
1,635
61
Washington
✟35,334.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Prove evolution. Do it right here, right now.

1. Geologic record shows CHANGE IN LIFE OVER TIME: It shows the development of new animals that were not present earlier and it shows the extinction of other animals.

2. Life is self-replicating (using standard chemistry, nothing magical)

3. Self-replication can and does show mutations (provides a mechanism by which it is possible to introduce changes)

4. Living things die meaning that maladaptive features can be filtered OUT

(So far nothing really controversial here).

5. Universal Common Descent: This is one of the keys. If we can establish universal common descent then it follows that evolution on the larger scale is true. There's an article which you likely have already seen or read called 29+ Evidences of Macroevolution which provides the scientifically robust concepts of "PREDICTION" and "VERIFICATION". The article (HERE) goes through the basics of universal common descent, provides PREDICTIONS of what one would expect to find as well as VERIFICATION of those predictions.

That should cover about everything and hopefully keep you from just claiming you have already...again.

The data seems to support the concept of universal common descent and we see phylogenetic relationships in the fossil record, even transitional forms, as well as several molecular evidences for it.

I kid you not, there will be nothing like that feeling when someone asks you to prove evolution, and you can boldly hold your hands/arms up in a presentation position and say "Here is proof for evolution".

Many of us who have worked in the sciences understand the details about "proof" in the sciences. It is never 100% perfect proof (that is mathematics). It is an attempt to explain as much of the data in as parsimonius a method as possible.

I'm actually exited for you now, so do it, you know you want too. :)

Why do you talk down to Subduction Zone like that? I believe SZ is a scientist. What is your area of science?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
All that talking and still no proof of evolution. Do you even understand the difference anymore? I mean the difference between saying you have done something and actually doing it? I could teach you the difference if you are willing to listen, and all you need do is ask.

Kenny, you need to quit running away from the fact that you do not understand what is and what is not evidence first. I have posted evidence that supports evolution. So have countless others. If you did not understand it then you would not understand it if I did so for you now.

With the prior issues in mind, I'll make this easy for even you to understand, and lets start with evolution and move on to other other 2 questions later so you don't get lost in information overload.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You are the one that is in the wrong and keeps running away. You don't get to make demands.

Prove evolution. Do it right here, right now. Don't tell me you have already, even if you think you have, humor me, and don't tell me what I understand and don't understand, we can go over all that once you have actually put your proof on the table...fair enough? :) See if we can actually see where you proved it, and not just claims you have, we can say..."Well look a there he has proven evolution is true" there may even be awards involved....that's just how this works. I wish I could make it easier on you, but sadly, there are no shortcuts, and we cannot take claims of proof with no actual proof, as proof. :(

Nope, not until you learn what is and what is not evidence first. If you don't know what evidence is you will not be able to understand how it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I would think that you would be ready and willing to put an end to the question. And so there is no confusion after you go to all that trouble, please start the post out "Here is the proof of evolution" and immediately following that... that would be the place where you give the proof evolution is a fact, and is how we all came about. That is, how you got here, the animals and all life came to be what it is today. Understand? See...that way there is no question about what is what, we can find it, and I won't have to continually ask "Where is that proof of evolution you claim to have given?"

Once again, until you learn what is and what is not evidence you have no business making demands. A math student that can't even multiply might as well demand a "proof of calculus".


I understand that may seem like a lot of trouble but looking back, I just think it's worth the planning to get it right this time and head off any problems before they arise.

Yep, that is what I am trying to do. First things first. You need to learn the basics.

That should cover about everything and hopefully keep you from just claiming you have already...again. The plus? once you have proven it, each time I ask you from there on out to do so, you can point back to that post where you have proven evolution, and shut me down every time with facts and not excuses. Imagine how freeing it will be to actually do as you have only claimed you have at this point? You can then stop making up excuses, stop trying to blame others for your inability to provide proof, plus we will then know what to believe...a win win situation.

Kenny, since I and others have posted this for you there is no point in doing so again until you learn the basics. Evolution is a proven fact. You can deny it, you can run away, but I and others will still claim what you can't or won't understand.

I kid you not, there will be nothing like that feeling when someone asks you to prove evolution, and you can boldly hold your hands/arms up in a presentation position and say "Here is proof for evolution".

I'm actually exited for you now, so do it, you know you want too. :)


And I see that Kenny confirmed my claim that he did not understand what is and what is not evidence.

Once again Kenny, is the fossil record evidence for the theory of evolution? Yes or no. Your answer will tell us whether or not you understand the concept of evidence. Running away only confirms my claim.
 
Upvote 0

jax5434

Member
Nov 27, 2007
630
245
✟46,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I have never understood why Christians fear TOE. If there was a smoking gun found that proved evolution beyond a doubt would you all become atheists? I sincerely hope not. All truth is Gods truth. If evolution is true it is Gods truth. Sound science will always be our friend.
Having said that I doubt Darwinian evolution is true, not forany theological reasons, but because I have serious doubts that the selection mechanism, random mutation and chance can account for the diversity of life we see around us.

God Bless
Jax
 
Upvote 0

Tanj

Redefined comfortable middle class
Mar 31, 2017
7,682
8,318
60
Australia
✟284,806.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
title said:
Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

Speaking as an insider in the scientific community, no it isn't.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I have never understood why Christians fear TOE. If there was a smoking gun found that proved evolution beyond a doubt would you all become atheists? I sincerely hope not. All truth is Gods truth. If evolution is true it is Gods truth. Sound science will always be our friend.
Having said that I doubt Darwinian evolution is true, not forany theological reasons, but because I have serious doubts that the selection mechanism, random mutation and chance can account for the diversity of life we see around us.

God Bless
Jax

I have a minor correction. You should say "some Christians". As a Baptist I assume that you are a Christian. Worldwide most Christians accept the theory of evolution. On forums mostly the extremists in a religion post. That is why you see so many that oppose the theory of evolution here. It is not reflective of even the U.S. as a whole.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: jax5434
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,429
3,203
Hartford, Connecticut
✟359,828.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
As a geologist I typically look at the rocks in the earth. In studying the earth, it became clear that a fossil succession was present.

I think the most powerful evidence for the theory of evolution is the fact that biological relatedness matches that same fossil succession.

Only by common descent could such a coincidence occur.
 
Upvote 0

jax5434

Member
Nov 27, 2007
630
245
✟46,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I have a minor correction. You should say "some Christians". As a Baptist I assume that you are a Christian. Worldwide most Christians accept the theory of evolution. On forums mostly the extremists in a religion post. That is why you see so many that oppose the theory of evolution here. It is not reflective of even the U.S. as a whole.
You are of course correct.
God Bless
Jax
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
You are of course correct.
God Bless
Jax
Thank you. What drives me nuts at times is the accusations of literalists that scientists wanted to "prove God wrong". Historically most of the scientists that shaped the world as we know it were Christians and they did not want to "prove God wrong", they want to find out how God made the world.
Trying to tell God how he had to make the Earth when his work (assuming that one is a Christian) tells us otherwise, has always seemed to be rather blasphemous to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0