One has to wonder about your logic paul. How is forming Eve from Adams rib anything like the religion of evolutionism?
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.
There is no problem between the science of evolution and the Bible. There is a problem between the pseudo-biblical YEC interpretation of the Bible and science.
My goodness! Look at the similarities, the reflective equalities, in these statements! How can any man choose between them, logically?
OO I know . . . lets look at the evidence!
Uh. . . . the science has the evidence. The YEC view does not.
Well, that settles that.
If evolution is really a lie, you have to believe that tens of thousands of highly credentialed experts, including the likes well-known Christian scientists Francis Collins, are lying and thereby risking their professional reputations.
Still want to stick with the "evolution is a lie" line?
the experts simply know that evolution has, in fact, happened.
since it is not possible to prove anything scientifically
not possible to prove anything scientifically. Science does not claim to prove anything
That is where the theory falls apart and this is why most people accept microevolution and not macro evolution. They try to cover for themselves by calling frame shift a mutation which it is not. Vast numbers of mutations are harmful and a lot of research goes into trying to cure diseases caused by mutations. No one has ever given me a valid example of a beneficial mutation even though they claim this is the driving force of evolutionary theory. People like Hoyle have shown that the mutation theory as a driving force for evolution is simply mathematically impossible.Mutations can't add up over generations and produce the sophistication we see today.
The only laws of inheritance I'm aware of are the Mendelian laws of inheritance. Darwinian evolution is a philosophy of natural history that presupposes exclusively naturalistic causes.I still didn't get an answer, and would like to know:
What is universally accepted scientific law (not theory), expressed in a formula, that's discovered within macro evolution, and that's now used in science?
I guess there is something, since some people have no shame, but would be interested to see if any of those here who stand for evolution know such thing.
Moses clearly teaches that a day is equal to 1,000 years. The Historical evidence agrees with this. 12,900 years ago the earth plunged into a short ice age that wiped out 90% of the species. Only a remnant survived to repopulate the earth.the science has the evidence. The YEC view does not.
Why do you reject a literal reading? Are you limiting God and what He is able to do?I reject a literal reading of the creation account.
That's why he states "Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. "No. No. No. Ruse believes in the science supporting evolution. Must I prove this? He also believes that scientists PROMOTE evolution in the same manner that religious people do.
Big difference.
So, find one that agrees that evolution is a religion.....except any that believe that it is a religion.... they don't count.Nonsense. Name one scholar who agrees that evolution is a religion.
And no, finding a scholar, like Ruse, who believes evolution IS scientific, yet PROMOTED like a religion doesn't count.
Evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Do you have a better theory that you can use to replace the theory of evolution?This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science.
Do you have a better theory that explains more than the theory of evolution explains?evolution is a religion
The only thing that is relevant to Darwin was that he sold his book and he made enough money to support his wife and a rather large family. There were 12 people that needed to be fed and provided for. 10 children and 2 adults. Of course he did what he could to promote his book. This was his bread and butter. He was thrilled when the book started to sell in other countries.Not relevant. How Darwin responded to his findings has no connection to the matter of whether or not his findings were correct.
You still have to "rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Tim 2:15The word is not sole but sola! There are a lot of things nott mentioned in the Bible like evolution.
When we use the term Sola Scriptura we are saying the Scriptures Alone - not Apostolic Tradition - is our guide, our life our all. For Christ Jesus is the Living Word and came that all who truly believe would have His Light. The problem is men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds are/were evil. The Bible is the record of God's dealing with sinful men and God's Word is eternal.
Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
And we are by no means adding to it.
Some people certainly do have no shame, but I suspect we will disagree on who those people are. I think those who post misleading, false quotes are part of that group.I still didn't get an answer, and would like to know:
What is universally accepted scientific law (not theory), expressed in a formula, that's discovered within macro evolution, and that's now used in science?
I guess there is something, since some people have no shame, but would be interested to see if any of those here who stand for evolution know such thing.
Sure - give me another opportunity to prove that a quote is fake, or clearly not relevant.They do, do they? Or are they making up fairy tales? I'll give you another quote - if you like?
I don't think anyone here bases his interpretation of Genesis on Apostolic Tradition. The YECs certainly don't, because they don't believe that Apostolic Tradition exists. Those of us who do believe in Apostolic Tradition don't look to it to provide an interpretation of Genesis.I still have not gotten an answer to my question.
You are going to have to rephrase - I don't understand. Science does not deal in proof. You can post as many kooks saying otherwise as you like; it will not change what everyone even mildly conversant with science knows: Science is not in the business of "proving" anything, in the sense of establishing that something is true with absolute certainty.Beg your pardon. So your typing your fingers on the keyboard whilst reading text on your display is an unproven science.
You are mistaken - I challenge you to find anyone with a professorship at a real university - who agrees that science "proves" anything.Science does claim to prove everything that it has tried and tested repeatedly,....
YEC. Right from the creator.Do you have a better theory that explains more than the theory of evolution explains?
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?