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.
And how do you test for the dishonesty of your "bunch of dishonest people"? When you've thought it through let us know your answer. If you think it through properly that should be around the second week in March. Anything earlier is probably unreliable.Get a bunch of dishonest people to become honest and observe the results over time.
You failed because you never properly tested your claims. The good news is that does not mean that your beliefs are automatically wrong. It only means that your belief is irrational.I directed the question to the commandments, away from creation.
One can fail at being honest, but that doesn't mean that honesty itself has failed. So there can be some confusion.
I have tried. Creationists simply cannot be honest.Get a bunch of dishonest people to become honest and observe the results over time.
This might help explain the problem I have with it.
I retitled the article to,
"Evolution. A Theory Built On Shifting Sand."
How Did Life Arise on Earth? | Live Science
The article suggests the same "astronomical" odds that I have proposed.
Just because creatures evolved does not mean there isn't a creator.Thanks for sharing that. I like the references to the 19th century.
The following is adapted from my book "Understanding Prayer Faith and God's Will" in which I say that evolution conveniently disregard the minute changes at cellular level that has to happen before a fish can evolve into a reptile, or before an living specie can evolved into the next level.
I once spoke to an acquaintance who believed in evolution. He claimed that simple life forms took millions of years to evolve into the complex diversities that we see today, which is the theory of evolution. It was proposed by Charles Darwin, who believed that life started by itself as the simplest basic cells. Over eons of time, they gradually evolved into more complex living organisms, and eventually into various kinds of life forms including plants and animals. With a view of the general landscape of living things and species, Darwin drew a “tree of life” diagram, and proposed that basic life forms evolved into more complex ones. If true, it would mean that at a very gradual pace, amphibians evolved genetically into reptiles, then to mammals, and finally into humans. But as to how the process could have happened, the theory did not offer any explanation of the intricate transformation at cellular level that would be necessary in order for evolution to happen.
When Darwin’s theory came about in 1860 AD, little was understood about cells. Science was not advanced and the use of anesthetics in medicine had just begun. Now, more than two hundred years later, with phenomenal progress in science and knowledge in the past century, microbiologists have found that even basic cells are not simple. Each unit – made of proteins, DNA and chromosomes – is in fact very complex and yet well organized; Darwin and his peers would have been astounded indeed if they had known this. Basic life forms such as amoeba appear “simple” only when compared to eagles, lions or salmon fish, for instances.
Today, modern discoveries come from research, improved scientific methodologies, plus precise and powerful laboratory equipment, which were not available during the nineteenth century. Scientists build facilities to smash atoms and measure the energy emitted by using sophisticated instruments. Having learned more about DNA, surgeons perform gene therapy. With our knowledge of “simple” cells with their intricate properties, it would be far-fetched to believe that they would be able to design and construct their own chromosomes in such an exacting manner. Today, there are still general postulations about how life might have started by itself and gradually evolved into the present state, but such loose and general hypotheses never attempt to explain the necessary DNA transformation that need to happen first.
Why then is there a case for creation? On earth today, so far, about 2,000,000 species of living creatures have been identified (which is only a conservative estimate), each with their own forms, functionality, instinct and intelligence. A spectrum of these would include 300,000 species of plants, 30,000 species of fishes, and 6,000 species of mammals. There are more species of invertebrates such as ground insects which live on land, as well as life forms that exist in the deep of the oceans. Could all these have emerged from “simple cells” that evolve entirely by themselves over millions of years? As we consider how trillions of living creatures live in a symbiosis manner in the ecosystems, one cannot help feeling that it would be mightily impossible for all these to have happened by themselves. When we look at the amazing diversity of life on earth, at the planets revolving around the sun along their set paths, and the regularity and rhythm in the universe, we have to wonder if there is more to it than meet the eyes. Can all these happen without a Designer who planned out the precise and intricate details?
Just because creatures evolved does not mean there isn't a creator.
According to the NT there is one creation, that is an item of the faith. It isn't 10 billion creations, it is one creation.
The theory of evolution is quite simple really, it basically says that you can sweep up some dust, look at it under a microscope and see that it is billions of different microscopic organisms, and that man was formed from this. Or if you wanted to describe it more elegantly -- God made man from the dust of the ground.
No. But unless there ius some evidence of a creator, there is no reason to posit one.
The Bible is the claim, not evidence.
What you describe does not resemble evolution in the slightest.
You know you're in a Christian website, right? If you want to argue against Christianity in general, there's the Apologetics area.
You know you're arguing against somebody who's arguing against creationists, right? Let's please try not to do that.
The paragraph is a wildly inaccurate description of evolution. It doesn't matter whether the poster agrees with me or not, the paragraph is wrong and deserves correction.
And how do you test for the dishonesty of your "bunch of dishonest people"? When you've thought it through let us know your answer. If you think it through properly that should be around the second week in March. Anything earlier is probably unreliable.
It's not meant to be an accurate description. He's trying to tell a creationist that it's okay to both be a Christian and to accept evolution. Therefore he's taking a Biblical approach to it. When you're trying to say that evolution can work with Christianity, there's not much point in taking a purely scientific approach. You need to give some reason why scripture can work with it.
You failed because you never properly tested your claims. The good news is that does not mean that your beliefs are automatically wrong. It only means that your belief is irrational.
odds are meaningless and silly. As I've pointd out many times, if it happened it would be through chemistry and there is no astronomical odds of it happening, any more then the odds of hydrogen and oxygen randomly fusing into water. And given billions of galaxies with billions of planets, whith miles of likly qualifying places for life to form, over billions of years with reactions happening billions of times a second, those odds are pretty good.
The Bible is the claim, not evidence.
I have tried. Creationists simply cannot be honest.
Tell me, how does one get creationists to even try to learn what evidence is in the first place?
The bible makes statements and presents narratives.
How can you tell if someone is honest or not? There is a story of beams and motes that apply here.I would interview Christians that came out of a life of dishonesty. They would know best the results.
I don't think that will work. The problem may be the weak faith of some Christians. If God does not behave the way they want him to they think that he has been "refuted"Try whispering the suggestion to them.
Agreed. But, those statements and narratives aren't evidence.
How can you tell if someone is honest or not? There is a story of beams and motes that apply here.
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?